Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparisons between individual and combined assays for quality control of wood treatments

  • Brief Original
  • Published:
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Individual and batch analyses were examined for creosote-treated Pinus sylvestris poles. Retentions were slightly higher in combined analyses, but within natural population variations. Batch analysis provided a good guide to retention, but no data on within-batch variability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source 1. Most other r2 values were < 0.10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AWPA (2017) Standards A6-15, A49-15 and M2-16. Book of Standards, American Wood Protection Association. AWPA, Birmingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt GM, Garrett GA (1967) Wood Preservation. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinknecht D (1999) The influence of variability in treated wood samples on "accept/reject" decisions. Proc Am Wood Preserv Assoc 95:105–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebow PK, Conklin SW (2011) The statistics of wood assays for preservative retention. Proc Am Wood Preserv Assoc 107:190–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsden GQ (1960) Fortified wood preservative for southern pine poles. For Prod J 10(9):456–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills GB, Neil WG, Streeman C (1965) Report on project ME 9/64. Proc Am Wood Preserv Assoc 61:140–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins GT (1965) A user takes a look at retention in individual poles. Proc Am Wood Preserv Assoc 61:172–180

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

    Matthew J. Konkler & Jed Cappellazzi

  2. ESB Networks, Leopardstown Rd., Sandyford, Dublin, Dublin 18, Ireland

    Karl Maguire

  3. Centre for Timber Durability and Design Life, University of the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane , Queensland, Australia

    Jeffrey J. Morrell

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Konkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jed Cappellazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karl Maguire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey J. Morrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey J. Morrell.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Konkler, M.J., Cappellazzi, J., Maguire, K. et al. Comparisons between individual and combined assays for quality control of wood treatments. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 78, 605–608 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-020-01517-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-020-01517-w

Search

Navigation