Termite resistance and wood-penetrability of chemically modified tannin and tannin-copper complexes as wood preservatives

18Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We examined the ability of chemically modified tannin and tannin-copper complexes to penetrate wood and the ability of the treated wood to resist termites. Only the tannin-treated wood retained the agents after treatment. Wood with untreated mimosa tannin (MT) retained the least amount, followed by wood with resorcinolated tannin (RMT) and that with catecholated tannin (CMT). When RMT or CMT was mixed with ammonia-copper, the wood retained twice as much of these solutions as the MT-ammonia-copper solution. The degree of retention of RMT-NH3-Cu and CMT-NH3-Cu ranged from 268 to 326 kg/m3. The solutions penetrated 2-13 mm from the tangential sections of the logs. We also measured the termite resistance conferred by these solutions. Most of the tannin-NH3-Cu solutions showed contact lethality for termites in the contact toxicity test. However, the termites were fed cellulose treated with those solutions and most survived the oral toxicity test (14 days). Moreover, these solutions reduced the amount of damage to the wood by termites. However, the mortality rate of the termites during the eating-damage test (>21 days) did not reach 100% for any of the solutions except for RMT. As a result of the field stake test with the same log's used for the penetrability test, the mass loss of wood treated with RMT or CMT alone or with RMT + NH3 + CuCl2, was about one-third to one-half that of the controls. Because these solutions have good wood penetrability and good termite resistance, they have potential use as low-toxicity wood preservatives.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yamaguchi, H., Yoshino, K., & Kido, A. (2002). Termite resistance and wood-penetrability of chemically modified tannin and tannin-copper complexes as wood preservatives. Journal of Wood Science, 48(4), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00831356

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free