Scion final report Nov 2012 A826150.pdf

THE EFFICACY OF BRUSH-ON REMEDIAL
TREATMENTS ON RADIATA PINE FRAMING

42-MONTH REPORT – September 2012

Dave Page, Ian Simpson, Jackie van der Waals and Tripti Singh

THE EFFICACY OF BRUSH-ON REMEDIAL TREATMENTS
ON RADIATA PINE FRAMING

42-MONTH REPORT – September 2012

Dave Page, Ian Simpson, Jackie van der Waals and Tripti Singh

Report prepared for:

Building and Housing,
Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment
PO Box 10729
Wellington

Correspondence to:
Approved for Release

Project Leader

Bioactives and Wood Preservation Project
Leader
Private Bag 3020

ROTORUA
Date: November 2012

Phone: (07)
343-5777
Fax: (07)
343-5507

The opinions provided in the Report have been provided in good faith and on the basis that
every endeavour has been made to be accurate and not misleading and to exercise reasonable
care, skill and judgement in providing such opinions. Neither Scion nor any of its employees,
contractors, agents or other persons acting on its behalf or under its control accept any
responsibility or liability in respect of any opinion provided in this Report By Scion
NEW ZEALAND FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE LIMITED
All rights reserved. Unless permitted by contract or law, no part of this work may be reproduced, stored or copied
in any form or by any means without the express permission of the NEW ZEALAND FOREST RESEARCH
INSTITUTE LIMITED

`THE EFFICACY OF BRUSH-ON REMEDIAL TREATMENTS
ON RADIATA PINE FRAMING

42-MONTH REPORT – September 2012

Dave Page, Ian Simpson, Jackie van der Waals and Tripti Singh

SUMMARY

Untreated radiata pine framing timber was exposed to brown rot decay fungi and then treated
with brush-on remedial preservatives. It was rewet and exposed in humid conditions over a
three year period. Framing samples were assessed for decay and tested for deflection at
regular intervals during the exposure period.

Treatment on three or four sides with a boron/glycol mixture gave effective protection against
brown rot decay. Brush application on one or two edges was insufficient to stop further decay
in pre-infected samples though there was very little change in deflection in samples treated on
two edges.

Treatment with a copper naphthenate and kerosene mixture at the concentrations used slowed
decay development but did not prevent it, regardless of the number of surfaces coated.

In samples treated with boron, some preservative was lost during wetting after treatment but
the remaining preservative distributed through the sample cross section, including in samples
where the moisture content was below 30%.

In copper naphthenate treated samples, preservative penetration was generally limited to a 5-
10 mm envelope around the outside. Preservative retention and distribution did not change
during the exposure period.

INTRODUCTION

Problems with the decay of untreated, kiln-dried radiata pine house framing when water
penetrated the external covering (leaky buildings) became prominent in the late 1990’s.
While building regulations requiring the preservative treatment of radiata pine framing were
re-introduced in 2003, a large number of deteriorating buildings constructed in the previous
decade continued to require extensive repairs. This generally included re-cladding and
replacement of unsound framing. Where framing appeared to be still sound, it was allowed to
dry out and some type of brush-on remedial treatment was applied before new cladding was
installed. The efficacy of these brush-on treatments in this type of situation had not been
widely tested and there were many situations within buildings where the in-situ application of
preservative could only reach one or two surfaces of the components. There was also some
uncertainty about the identification of “incipient decay” and whether apparently sound timber
adjacent to decaying timber could be successfully protected by brush-on remedial treatments.
The possibility that minor decay in timber could be stopped by brush-on treatments was also
questioned.

At that time there were two types of remedial treatment preservatives readily available to
builders. These included a copper naphthenate concentrate that was diluted with a light
Page1

organic solvent such as kerosene or white spirits and the other was a boron/glycol solution.
Zinc naphthenate concentrate was also available and being used for non-commercial
applications but was regarded as a less effective fungicide than copper naphthenate.

This trial was established to determine:
  Whether copper naphthenate or boron brush-on treatments would be effective in
controlling decay on framing that already contained incipient or lightly established decay
  The number of surfaces of a partially degraded component that needed to be coated to
control decay
  The extent of decay that could be present in a component before it was significantly
weakened

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiata pine sapwood framing, kiln dried and planer gauged to 90 mm x 45 mm, was cut into
one metre long samples. A set of samples that had been commercially treated with boron to
the H1.2 specification were also included. There were two exposure groups, high moisture
content (HMC) samples, greater than 30% moisture content and low moisture content (LMC)
samples, 25-30% moisture content. Samples were allocated randomly to the groups shown in
Table 1.

TABLE 1 – SAMPLE TREATMENT AND EXPOSURE GROUPS
Group Code

Copper

Number of
Pre-decay
Number
Number
naphthenate  Boron
Exposure
samples
period
of edges
of faces
treated
treated
Type
/group
(weeks)
treated
treated
C61H B61H  HMC  20
8
1
-
C62H B62H  HMC  20
8
2
-
C63H B63H  HMC  20
8
2
1
C64H B64H  HMC  20
8
2
2
C31H B31H  HMC  20
4
1
-
C32H B32H  HMC  20
4
2
-
C33H B33H  HMC  20
4
2
1
C34H B34H  HMC  20
4
2
2
C62L B62L  LMC  10
12
2
-
C64L B64L  LMC
10 12  2  2
C32L B32L  LMC
10 7  2  -
C34L B34L  LMC
10 7  2  2
B3H
HMC
20
4 H1.2
treated
B3L
LMC
10
7 H1.2
treated
U3H (untreated)
HMC
20
4
-
-
U3L (untreated)
LMC
10
7
-
-
UMH (untreated)
HMC
20
nil
-
-
UML (untreated)
LMC
10
nil
-
-

The samples were all weighed and their moisture content was determined by oven drying
biscuits cut from between the samples. An oven-dry weight was calculated for each sample
Page2

using this moisture content data. All samples were end sealed with epoxy paint and later
soaked in water until their moisture content was above 30%.

Small 35 mm square blocks of radiata pine sapwood that had been pre-infected with selected
brown rot decay fungi, either Oligoporus placenta for samples to be exposed in wetter HMC
conditions or Gloeophyllum sepiarium for samples that were to be exposed in drier LMC
conditions, were attached near the centre of each sample on one edge. The samples were
stacked in sealed plastic tanks with 20 mm thick plastic fillets separating the layers. In each
tank there was a small amount of water in the bottom and a wet foam plastic blanket in the
top to maintain high humidity. The tanks were kept in a laboratory where the ambient
temperature was 15-20o C. The intention was to pre-decay samples for two periods, the first
just sufficient to produce “incipient decay” in the samples, the second to produce more
established decay. Half of the HMC samples were left in the pre-decay tanks for four weeks,
the remainder for eight weeks. The G. sepiarium decay blocks were slower to develop on the
LMC samples and half of these samples were in the tanks for seven weeks, the remainder for
twelve weeks. The commercially treated samples were kept in the tanks for four weeks,
(HMC exposure samples) or seven weeks (LMC exposure samples).

At the end of the decay exposure period, samples were removed from the tanks, reweighed,
assessed for mould, mycelium spread and decay using the rating systems in Appendix I.
Decay feeder blocks were removed and external decay mycelium was cleaned off. Samples
were then tested for deflection as a plank in a mechanical strength testing machine before
being placed in filleted stacks in the laboratory. Large fans were used to blow air through the
stacks until the sample moisture content was below 20%.

Remedial treatment products were applied, either 50/50 copper naphthenate and kerosene
(1.2% Cu w/v) or a boric acid/borax mixture in monoethylene glycol (20% Boric Acid
Equivalent). The surfaces coated were:

One surface
the edge that did not have a feeder block on it (HMC exposure only)

Two surfaces  both edges (HMC and LMC exposure)

Three surfaces  both edges and the numbered face (HMC exposure only)

All four sides  (HMC and LMC exposure)

Samples were weighed, coated, reweighed, allowed to dry for 30 minutes, reweighed,
recoated and reweighed before being returned to filleted stack, where they were left
overnight.

The samples were then re-soaked in water until the moisture content was above 30% for the
HMC exposure samples or 25-30% moisture content for the LMC exposure samples. They
were then re-weighed, tested for deflection and placed in filleted stacks, either in sealed tanks
(HMC exposure samples) or in a controlled conditions room where the humidity was 95%
and the temperature 25oC (LMC exposure samples). Conditions in the HMC tanks were
similar to those for the pre-treatment decay period except that the tanks were stored outside to
provide similar temperatures that would be encountered in normal leaky building framing.
Every 2-3 weeks during the exposure period the lids and foam plastic blanket were removed
from the tanks and the samples were sprayed with water to ensure that the moisture content of
the samples in the tanks remained above 30%. The LMC exposure stack was protected from
direct wetting by humidity sprays with plastic covers. This ensured that most of the LMC
samples stayed at a moisture content of 25-30%, (the equilibrium moisture content (EMC) for
radiata pine at 25oC and 95% humidity is about 26%). A few samples on the outside of the
Page3

stack and in the lower layers became slightly wetter due to condensation splashes on the floor
and drips under the stack covers.

The trial was assessed for decay, mould and deflection at eight-week intervals from the start
of the post-treatment exposure period in September 2009 to September 2010 and then at six-
monthly intervals until September 2012. Full sample, preservative treatment, installation and
progress details are in earlier reports. This report outlines installation of the trial, the
condition of the samples at the end of the trial and major changes that occurred during the
exposure period.

ASSESSMENT METHODS

For all assessments during the trial, samples were removed from the high moisture content
exposure tanks (HMC) and low moisture content stack (LMC), weighed and measured.
Visual assessments of decay mycelium development and mould infection were completed
using the ratings systems shown in Appendix I. Moisture content calculations were based on
changes in sample weight. The surfaces of each sample were tested with a blunt probe to
determine whether the decay fungi were damaging the framing. Deflection as a plank under a
constant load was measured. Modulus of Elasticity (MOE) for each sample was calculated
using sample cross-section and deflection measurements.

After assessment the samples were returned to their original exposure positions. The HMC
samples were sprayed with water as they were re-installed but the LMC samples were
protected from wetting.

After the 159-week, final assessment, five samples for each preservative type, that had been
treated on all four sides, were removed from each of the HMC and the LMC exposure groups.
Biscuits were removed from each sample for chemical analysis and for reagent testing to
determine the penetration of the preservative and the extent of decay. The analyses biscuits
were taken 150 mm from each end of the sample, reagent testing biscuits were taken at the
same points and from the centre of the sample adjacent to the original decay feeder block
position.

RESULTS

Preservative uptake data indicated that the preservative retention in all of the copper
naphthenate treated samples was well below the minimum of 0.10% (w/w Cu) required by
the H3.1 specification in NZS 3640:2003 (Chemical Preservation of Round and Sawn
Timber). Preservative retentions in samples treated with boron on three or four sides were
generally above the minimum 0.4% BAE requirement of the H1.2 specification (Table 2).

Application rates of copper naphthenate on samples treated on one or two edges were lower
than for other treatment groups. This was caused by most of the samples being flat-sawn
hence the edges were less absorbent than the faces of the samples. As a result, less of the low
viscosity, solvent based copper naphthenate preservative was retained on the edges during
brush application, whereas the relatively sticky boron/glycol mixture stayed on the edges and
was gradually absorbed during the period immediately after application.

Page4

TABLE 2
PRESERVATIVE APPLICATION RATES AND RETENTION

Copper Naphthenate
Boron

Application
Retention
Application
Retention
Treatment
Rate (g/m2)
(g/100g Cu)
Rate (g/m2)
(g/100g BAE)
HMC Samples
One edge
149
0.006
182
0.107
Two edges
140
0.011
184
0.220
One face, two edges
188
0.028
182
0.426
Four sides
220
0.042
211
0.650
LMC Samples
Two edges
168
0.013
179
0.215
Four sides
241
0.048
214
0.693

Decay mycelium was becoming established on the untreated surfaces of samples within six
months of installation in the exposure stacks, generally spreading from the area originally
infected by the decay feeder blocks. This progressed steadily, particularly on the untreated
samples and those treated on only one edge. After 12 months mycelium spreading onto
surfaces treated with copper naphthenate in the HMC tanks was recorded. Mycelium
development on copper naphthenate treated surfaces in the HMC tanks continued throughout
the trial although decay of the underlying wood was usually slow to develop (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Decay on copper naphthenate treated samples after 159 weeks exposure, HMC
tank 1, layer 5, (2nd from top). Extensive decay mycelium on the samples including
on treated surfaces, still active and progressive.

Page5

By comparison there was no decay mycelium on boron treated surfaces and where decay
mycelium developed on untreated surfaces in the boron exposure tanks it began to degenerate
after two years exposure and was largely inactive by the end of the trial (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Decay on boron treated samples, HMC tank 6, layer 6 (top layer). Extensive
decay mycelium on the untreated sample (top) and two samples treated on the
lower edge only, either side of sample B63H/8. No decay visible on the other
treated samples and existing mycelium on untreated surfaces shows little sign of
recent activity.

Moisture content and mould ratings at annual intervals are summarised in Table 3. Similar
decay ratings and deflection data are summarised in Table 4.

The moisture content of the LMC samples remained relatively constant through the exposure
period, generally close to 25% but slightly lower in the latter six months of the trial. Samples
in the bottom three layers of the LMC stack were slightly wetter than average, mainly above
30% moisture content, due to splashing and condensation from the wet floor area.

Mould infection was relatively severe on untreated surfaces and ratings changes were
relatively minor through the latter part of the exposure period.

The average moisture content of the HMC samples generally stayed above 30% throughout
the exposure period although there was considerable variation between samples. Those in the
upper two layers of each tank were wetter than average and boron treated samples tended to
stay slightly wetter than the copper naphthenate treated samples.

Page6

TABLE 3
ANNUAL MOISTURE CONTENT AND MOULD RATINGS
Treatment

Group
Moisture Content %
Mould Ratings
Code
56 weeks 108 weeks
159 weeks
56 weeks
108 weeks
159 weeks
High Moisture Content Groups
C61H
38
431
431
4.6
4.5
4.3
C62H
37
321
331
4.6
4.4
4.4
C63H
42
41
49
3.9
4.1
3.8
C64H
41
39
50
3.0
3.2
2.9
B61H
34
311
441
4.9
4.9
4.5
B62H
38
35
53
5.0
4.7
4.4
B63H
45
37
52
4.1
4.2
3.6
B64H
58
49
58
3.1
3.2
3.0
C31H
41
441
431
4.4
4.3
4.3
C32H
37
341
311
4.1
4.2
4.1
C33H
37
42
511
3.5
3.6
3.8
C34H
39
37
441
2.8
2.9
2.9
B31H
34
291
431
4.8
4.8
4.4
B32H
36
36
52
4.8
4.6
4.4
B33H
43
38
49
3.8
4.2
3.6
B34H
50
42
57
3.0
3.3
2.8
B3H
53
52
81
2.4
2.3
2.6
U3H
33
311
311
4.2
4.4
4.4
UMH
36
37
50
4.4
4.6
4.6
Low Moisture Content Groups (157 weeks)
C62L
23
21
211
4.1
4.6
4.4
C64L
25
23
191
3.5
4.3
4.1
B62L
24
25
24
3.8
4.4
4.0
B64L
29
31
30
2.3
2.3
2.2
C32L
26
22
191
4.1
4.7
4.4
C34L
27
25
23
3.6
4.0
3.7
B32L
27
27
27
3.9
4.1
3.9
B34L
28
32
28
2.2
2.2
2.3
B3L
30
34
34
2.2
2.2
2.1
U3L
25
22
191
4.1
4.6
4.3
UML
27
25
241
4.0
4.3
4.3
1 Extensive decay in some samples from this group reduced their weight, therefore moisture content
calculations based on weight are likely to be inaccurate.

Page7

TABLE 4
ANNUAL MYCELIUM SPREAD, INDEX OF CONDITION AND DEFLECTION
Group
Mycelium Spread Rating
Index of Condition1
Deflection (mm)
Code
56-wk 108-wk 159-wk
56-wk
108-wk
159-wk
56-wk
108-wk 159-wk
High Moisture Content Groups (159 weeks)
C61H
3.4
4.2
5.3
7.6
6.5(1)3
4.5(3)
2.36
3.04
3.92
C62H
3.6
4.2
5.4
7.8
6.5(1)
4.3(3)
2.46
2.94
4.26
C63H
3.1
3.2
4.3
8.0
7.6
6.1(2)
2.16
2.31
3.07
C64H
1.1
1.9
2.4
8.0
7.8
7.6
2.16
2.22
2.30
B61H
3.6
4.1
4.7
7.3
6.5
5.6
2.31
2.92
3.25
B62H
1.5
1.5
1.7
8.0
8.0
8.3
2.38
2.40
2.44
B63H
1.2
1.1
1.1
8.3
8.2
8.6
2.13
2.16
2.20
B64H
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.2
8.1
8.5
2.19
2.24
2.25
C31H
3.3
4.3
5.1
7.6
6.9
4.7(4)
2.46
2.93
4.31
C32H
3.2
4.2
5.5
7.9(1)
6.3(1)
3.5(8)
2.50
3.06
5.20
C33H
2.1
3.2
4.6
8.7
7.8
6.5
2.47
2.64
3.11
C34H
1.3
2.7
3.8
8.8
8.3
6.7(2)
2.29
2.46
3.15
B31H
4.1
4.5
5.0
6.9
6.0
4.6(2)
2.69
3.62
4.26
B32H
1.7
1.6
1.8
9.0
8.5
8.9
2.30
2.32
2.37
B33H
1.0
1.0
1.0
9.5
9.2
9.8
2.33
2.32
2.36
B34H
1.0
1.0
1.3
9.3
8.9
9.4
2.18
2.19
2.24
B3H2
1.0
1.0
1.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
3.88
3.88
3.93
U3H
3.9
4.5
5.2
7.2
5.1(4)
2.9(10)
2.66
4.11
5.76
UMH
2.7
2.4
2.9
9.4
8.5
7.7(2)
2.28
2.39
3.01
Low Moisture Content Groups (157 weeks)
C62L
3.1
3.8
3.4
6.4(1)
5.4(2)
4.7(3)
3.19
3.75
4.21
C64L
1.3
1.6
1.8
7.9
7.3
7.7
2.35
2.52
2.58
B62L
2.4
2.8
3.2
7.7
7.5
7.3
2.55
2.61
2.71
B64L
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
8.0
8.2
2.29
2.39
2.36
C32L
2.2
2.9
3.3
8.1
7.3
6.1(1)
2.22
3.15
3.29
C34L
1.0
1.1
1.0
8.2
8.0
8.1
2.08
2.21
2.18
B32L
1.1
1.6
1.7
8.3
8.1
8.3
2.09
2.18
2.18
B34L
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.2
8.4
8.4
2.30
2.39
2.36
B3L2
1.1
1.0
1.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
3.73
3.84
3.83
U3L
2.5
3.4
3.9
6.3(1)
5.0(3)
4.4(3)
3.37
4.21
4.18
UML
1.7
1.9
2.2
9.6
8.1(1)
7.5(1)
2.25
2.99
3.02
1 Index of Condition is the average decay rating for all of the samples in a group.
2 This group was framing grade timber, all other groups were clears grade sapwood.
3 The number of samples in the group that had failed (in parenthesis).

If the type of preservative used and exposure conditions are ignored, there were only minor
changes in average decay ratings and MOE for samples treated on four surfaces, throughout
the trial period (Figures 3 and 4). For samples treated on two edges and one face average
ratings were similar to the samples treated on four sides until the last assessment when decay
ratings declined more rapidly. From the outset, MOE for these samples was generally lower
than for samples treated on four sides but changes over the first 137 weeks mirrored those for
the samples treated on all four sides. Over the last six months exposure MOE declined more
rapidly in the samples treated on three sides.
Page8

Decay Rates ‐ Treatment groups
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
1 edge
Condition
5.0
2 edges
of
4.0
3.0
3 sides
Index
2.0
4 sides
1.0
control
0.0
0
40
80
120
160
Weeks

Figure 3 - Changes in the “Index of Condition”, regardless of the preservative used or the
exposure conditions, as the trial progressed.

There was a steady decline in decay ratings for samples treated on one edge or on two edges
from the 16-week assessment until the end of the trial. By the 159-week assessment the
samples treated on one edge had an Index of Condition below 5.0. This point had been
reached by untreated control samples after 108 weeks. The decline in average MOE for the
“one edge” and “two edge” treated groups did not begin to show up until the 40-week
assessment. Since then it has continued steadily with the “one edge” treatment groups losing
strength more rapidly than the “two edge” treatment groups.

MOE Changes ‐ Treatment Groups
10.00
9.00
8.00
1 edge
7.00
(GPa)
2 edges
6.00
MOE
3 sides
5.00
4 sides
4.00
control
3.00
0
40
80
120
160
Weeks

Figure 4 - The modulus of elasticity (MOE) regardless of the preservative used or the
exposure conditions, as the trial progressed.

Page9

When the MOE figures for the treatment groups are separated by preservatives, the copper
naphthenate samples treated on one or two edges show steady and similar stiffness loss
(Figure 5). The average MOE of the “three sides” copper naphthenate treated groups was
always lower than the MOE of the “four sides” treated group but declined at a similar rate
until the 137-week assessment. Between the 137-week and the 159-week assessments the
MOE of the “three sides” treatment groups declined more rapidly.

MOE ‐ Copper Naphthenate Treatments
10.00
9.00
8.00
C 1 Edge
7.00
(GPa)
C 2 Edges
6.00
MOE
C 3 Sides
5.00
C 4 Sides
4.00
control
3.00
0
40
80
120
160
Weeks

Figure 5 - The modulus of elasticity (MOE) for copper naphthenate treated samples,
combined HMC and LMC data.

The boron treated groups were quite different (Figure 6). The MOE for all except the “one
edge” treatment groups changed very little throughout the trial. The MOE for the “one edge”
treatment groups declined steadily from the 40-week assessment until the end of the trial.

MOE ‐ Boron Treatments
10.00
9.00
8.00
B 1 Edge
7.00
(GPa)
B 2 Edges
6.00
MOE
B 3 Sides
5.00
B 4 Sides
4.00
control
3.00
0
40
80
120
160
Weeks

Figure 6 - The modulus of elasticity (MOE) for boron treated samples, combined HMC and
LMC data.
Page10

Figures 7 and 8 compare the MOE of LMC exposure stack treatment groups with the
equivalent groups from the HMC exposure tanks. These show that the samples treated on two
edges with copper naphthenate rapidly lost stiffness whereas the boron treated samples and
those treated with copper naphthenate on four sides only changed very slowly.

MOE ‐ LMC Exposure
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
C 2 Edges
(Gpa)
6.00
C 4 Sides
5.00
MOE
B 2 Edges
4.00
B 4 Sides
3.00
Control
2.00
0
40
80
120
160
Weeks

Figure 7 - The modulus of elasticity (MOE) in the low moisture content stack.

MOE ‐ HMC Exposure
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
C 2 Edges
(Gpa)
6.00
C 4 Sides
5.00
MOE
B 2 Edges
4.00
B 4 Sides
3.00
2.00
Control
0
40
80
120
160
Weeks

Figure 8 - The modulus of elasticity (MOE) in the high moisture content tanks, samples
treated on two edges or four sides only.

In the HMC tanks the samples treated with copper naphthenate on four sides began to lose
strength more rapidly than boron treated samples over the final year’s exposure. In the LMC
stack the loss of MOE in the untreated controls and the group treated with copper
naphthenate on two edges slowed over the final year’s exposure. This was associated with
Page11

severe decay developing in only those samples with higher moisture content, most of which
failed in the first two years exposure.

TABLE 5
SAMPLES WITH MODERATE-SEVERE, SEVERE DECAY OR FAILED
Copper
Naphthenate
Boron
Treatment
56-wk
108-wk
159-wk
56-wk
108-wk
159-wk
High Moisture Content Exposure (40 samples/group)
One
edge
5  12 32  7  23 36
Two edges
2
13
35
1
1
1
One face two edges
0
0
19
0
0
0
Four
sides
0  3 9 0  0 0
Control (20 samples)
5
13
17
Low Moisture Content exposure (20 samples/group)
Two
edges
3  4 6 1  1 2
Four
sides
0  0 0 0  0 0
Control (10 samples)
2
4
6

Noticeable deflection increases and changes in MOE have generally been restricted to those
samples which contained moderate-severe decay (ratings 6 or lower). The number of samples
with moderate-severe decay, severe decay and those that have failed are in Table 5. This
indicates that the percentage of samples with moderate-severe decay or worse is similar to the
control groups for copper naphthenate treated on one or two edges groups and the boron
treated on one edge group. There was a rapid increase in the number of samples with severe
decay in the copper naphthenate treated on three sides group between the 108-week and 159-
week assessments. This mirrors the more rapid loss of MOE in that group in Figure 5.

The analytical results in Table 6 show that there was no significant loss of copper
naphthenate over the exposure period whereas preservative retention in the HMC boron
treated samples has been reduced by between 24% and 55%. The sample in the upper layer of
the exposure tank (B64H/4) had the highest loss and samples lower in the tank lost
progressively less. This is partly explained by the samples in the top layer remaining very wet
through the whole of the trial period due to condensation drips from the lid and the foam
plastic blanket on top of the stack. There may also have been some preservative wash-off
when the samples were sprayed after assessment and during exposure. This is likely to have
contributed to the gradual degradation of mycelium on the surface of samples in the boron
exposure tanks. Samples in the LMC stack were not sprayed with water and condensation
drippage affected only a few in specific areas of the stack. Boron loss in the analysed samples
varied from 27% to 47%. The only time that all of the LMC samples were wet was at the start
of the exposure period when the dry, treated samples were soaked in water to raise the
moisture content above 25%. This suggests that most of the boron loss in both LMC and
HMC samples occurred during pre-exposure wetting rather than during the exposure period.
Even with this boron loss the retention in the samples remained close to or above 0.4% BAE.

Page12

TABLE 6
PRESERVATIVE RETENTION AND DECAY IN ANALYSED SAMPLES
AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
Preservative Retention (% wt/wt)

Number
Initial1 Final Layer2
Condition3
Copper Naphthenate Samples, HMC (%Cu)
C34H/6 0.04
0.04
4
5/8
C64H/5 0.05
0.04
6
1/8
C64H/11 0.08
0.08
5
1/8
C64H/12 0.04
0.04
2
3/8
C64H/15 0.05
0.05
3
4/8
Copper Naphthenate Samples, LMC (%Cu)
C34L/2 0.03  0.02
5
1/8
C64L/1 0.06  0.06
1
3/8
C64L/3 0.04  0.04
10
3/8
C64L/8 0.06  0.06
2
1/7
C64L/9 0.04  0.05
8
1/8
Boron Samples, HMC (%BAE)4
B34H/11 0.54
0.32
4
1/9
B34H/12 0.59
0.40
3
1/9
B64H/3 0.79
0.44
5
1/9
B64H/4 0.66
0.30
6
1/9
B64H/8 0.84
0.64
2
1/8
Boron Samples, LMC (%BAE)
B34L/3 0.85  0.55
2
1/10
B34L/10 0.64
0.34
3
1/8
B64L/2 0.72  0.44
5
1/8
B64L/6 0.60  0.36
10
1/8
B64L/9 0.63  0.46
8
1/8
1 The initial retention was calculated using the weight of preservative applied and the oven dry weight
of the sample.
2 There were six layers in the HMC tanks and ten layers in the LMC stack. Layer 1 was the bottom
layer.
3 Condition is the rating for mycelium spread/decay rating for each sample. A mycelium rating of “1”
indicates that any decay present was caused by decay feeder blocks, before the samples were
treated.
4 Boric Acid Equivalent.

Table 7 compares decay ratings and MOE loss from the start of the exposure period in
samples that were spot tested in Figures 9-18. These show that there were well established
pockets of decay present in the centre of the samples before significant MOE loss occurred.
In samples where decay developed at either or both ends but not in the centre, such as in the
second to bottom sample in Figure 9, there was very little loss of MOE.

In Figures 9-18 the distribution of copper in the copper naphthenate treated samples is
relatively close to the surface and shows very little evidence of redistribution following
treatment. The boron treated samples all show that the preservative has spread through the
whole sample cross-section, even in samples that were below 30% moisture content. Given
the limited copper penetration in the copper naphthenate treated samples it is likely that
Page13

copper retention in the penetrated section would have been much closer to the H3.1
specification requirement of 0.10% Cu than the cross-sectional retention shown in Table 2.
Considering that mycelium spread onto copper naphthenate treated surfaces during the latter
part of the exposure period in the HMC tanks and a number of samples that were treated on
four sides either failed or contained severe decay (Table 5), it is unlikely that a cross-
sectional retention of 0.10% Cu would have given complete protection against brown rot
decay.

TABLE 7
DECAY RATINGS AND MOE CHANGE AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
Decay
MOEp
MOE
Sample
Decay
MOEp
MOE
Number
Rating
(GPa)
% loss
Number
Rating
(GPa)
% loss
HMC exposure
Copper naphthenate treated 4 sides
Boron treated 4 sides
C34H/6 8 6.9 9
B34H/11  9
10.2
1
C64H/5  8 7.2 2
B34H/12  9 8.4 -1
C64H/11 8  6.4 -1
B64H/3
8  7.4  3
C64H/12 8 8.7 0
B64H/4  9 9.6 6
C64H/15 8 6.8 6
B64H/8  8 7.4 -3
Copper naphthenate treated 3 sides
Boron treated 3 sides
C33H/11 9  7.3  3
B33H/9  10 10.1 2
C33H/12 7 7.4 6
B63H/15  8 7.3 1
C63H/1  7 9.5 9
B63H/16  9 7.6 -2
C63H/3 7 7.3
11
B63H/17  8 7.8 5
C63H/9 6 8.5
16
B63H/19  9 9.9 6
Copper naphthenate treated 2 edges
Boron treated 2 edges
C32H/7  6  4.2 41
B32H/3  10 9.9  6
C32H/11 7 9.0 3
B32H/14  7 8.9 3
C62H/3 4 6.2
41
B62H/5  7 6.4 1
C62H/11 7  7.1 15
B62H/6
8  8.5  5
C62H/19 6  8.0 20
B62H/17  8  9.4  2
LMC exposure (157 weeks)
Copper naphthenate treated 4 sides
Boron treated 4 sides
C34L/2 8
11.0
-9
B34L/3  10
7.9 3
C64L/1 8 5.8
22
B34L/10  8 9.0 6
C64L/3 8 9.7
-4
B64L/2  8 7.8 1
C64L/8 7 6.0
12
B64L/6  8 9.8 7
C64L/9 8
10.3
-4
B64L/9  8
10.9
-3
Copper naphthenate treated 2 edges
Boron treated 2 edges
C32L/8  4  7.9 25
B32L/2
7 10.1 8
C62L/2 7 7.3
-9
B32L/10  7
10.6
3
C62L/8 6 9.1 9
B62L/2  8
11.3
4
C62L/9 8 7.8
-11
B62L/5  8
10.8
3
C62L/10 8  6.9 -12
B62L7
8  6.7 -6

MOE increased in a number of samples over the exposure period, particularly in the LMC
stack. This was associated with the gradual moisture content reduction in samples where
Page14

there was no decay development beyond the pre-treatment infection. The moisture content of
LMC samples was generally between 25% and 30%. This is close to or fractionally below the
fibre saturation point of radiata pine. Deflection is unlikely to be influenced by moisture
content when the wood is above fibre saturation point but will be reduced as moisture content
decreases below that. Hence MOE would have increased slightly as the moisture content of
the drier, relatively sound LMC samples declined.

Samples treated with boron on two or more sides had less decay and showed fewer MOE
changes than the equivalent copper naphthenate treated samples. Even where there was major
decay through the length of the sample, e.g., the top sample in Figure 14, there was no serious
loss of MOE. Decay in these samples was generally restricted to a strip through the centre
away from the boron treated edges and the wood either side of this remained intact. The
samples were tested for deflection as a plank, hence the decay would have had little effect on
deflection.

CONCLUSIONS
Boron glycol mixture applied to three or four sides of 50 mm thick radiata pine framing at a
rate that achieves 0.4% BAE retention will protect against decay development.

Wetting of brush-on boron treated timber will remove some of the boron but the remaining
preservative is likely to redistribute through the sapwood cross section when the moisture
content is above 25%.

Copper naphthenate in kerosene at the applied retention slowed brown rot decay development
but did not prevent it. The application of higher strength preservative solution may have
reduced decay spread on the surface but limited penetration is unlikely to prevent internal
decay development.

After effective remedial treatment, framing with small amounts of decay on it is unlikely to
fail in normal building situations. Small amounts of decay, if not remedially treated, are
likely to continue to develop if timber is rewet.

Page15

Figure 9 – Decay and preservative penetration in copper naphthenate treated samples (HMC
samples treated on four sides in Table 6). The samples on the left have been sprayed
with methyl orange reagent which turns a pink-red colour where there is active
decay. The samples on the right are matched with the decay test samples and have
been sprayed with rubeanic acid reagent which turns blue-black in the presence of
copper. The three biscuits in each set are from the same sample, the central “C”
sample from the original decay feeder block position, the “A” and “B” samples 150
mm from each end. There is limited, variable copper penetration and active decay in
three of the samples.

Page16

Figure 10 – Decay and preservative penetration in boron treated samples (HMC samples
treated on four sides in Table 6). The samples on the left have been sprayed with
methyl orange reagent which turns a pink-red colour where there is active decay.
The samples on the right are matched with the decay test samples and have been
sprayed with a tumeric reagent which turns red in the presence of boron. The three
biscuits in each set are from the same sample, the central “C” sample from the
original decay feeder block position, the “A” and “B” samples 150 mm from each
end. The boron appears to have diffused through the sample and there is no active
decay.

Page17

Figure 11 – Decay and preservative penetration in copper naphthenate treated samples (HMC
tanks treated on one face and two edges). Preservative penetration is limited and all
samples contain some decay extending into the treated areas.

Page18

Figure 12 – Decay and preservative penetration in boron treated samples (HMC tanks treated
on one face and two edges). Boron appears to have diffused right through the
samples and there appears to be no decay except minor areas of inactive brown rot
on the edges of the central biscuit where the decay feeder block was originally
attached.
Page19

Figure 13 – Decay and preservative penetration in copper naphthenate treated samples (HMC
tank treated on two edges). All samples contain extensive decay although in the
second from top sample it was mainly at one end. There was limited preservative
penetration and decay was active up to and through the treated area.

Page20

Figure 14 – Decay and preservative penetration in boron treated samples (HMC tank treated
on two edges). All samples contain some decay although in the three lower
samples it appeared to be from the original feeder block and was inactive. The
reagent test colour suggests that the boron had spread through the sample from the
two edges that it had originally been applied to.
Page21

Figure 15 – Decay and preservative penetration in copper naphthenate treated samples (LMC
samples treated on four sides in Table 4). There is limited copper penetration and
there was active decay through the centre of the top four samples. Decay in the
bottom sample was limited to the central section on one edge and had spread slightly
from the area where the original decay feeder block had been attached.
Page22

Figure 16 – Decay and preservative penetration in boron treated samples (LMC samples
treated on four sides in Table 4). The boron appears to have diffused through the
samples and the only decay is inactive, on the edge of the central biscuits where the
original decay feeder block was attached.

Page23

Figure 17 – Decay and preservative penetration in copper naphthenate treated samples (LMC
stack treated on two edges). All samples contain some decay although the decay in
the bottom two samples was from the original feeder block and appeared inactive.
There was limited preservative penetration and decay was active up to the treated
area.

Page24

Figure 18 – Decay and preservative penetration in boron treated samples (LMC stack treated
on two edges). All samples contain some decay although the decay in the upper
edge of the central biscuit of the second to bottom sample was from the original
feeder block and appeared inactive. The reagent test colour suggests that there was
very little boron present although it had spread through the sample from the two
edges that it had originally been applied to.

Page25

Figure 19 – LMC sample C64L/5 treated with copper naphthenate on four sides after 157
weeks exposure. This was in layer 5 near one side of the stack and would have not
been wet by condensation drips hence its moisture content would have been
between 25% and 30% for the duration of the trial. There were decay fruiting
bodies at one end and decay extending full length of the sample through the centre.
There was no decay on the exterior of the sample except what appeared to be an
inactive area at the point where the original decay feeder block had been attached
before treatment.

Figure 20 – HMC sample C34H/12 treated with copper naphthenate on four sides after 159
weeks exposure. Decay, probably originating from the pre-treatment decay feeder
block has broken through the preservative treated envelope and is beginning to
spread along the sample surface.
Page26

Figure 21 – HMC sample C32H/10 treated with copper naphthenate on two edges after 159
weeks exposure. Decay has spread along the length of the sample including over
the treated edges. It was severe in patches and the sample rating was 6 (30-50%
of the cross section decayed). MOE had declined by 11% during the exposure
period.

Figure 22 – HMC sample C34H/7 treated with copper naphthenate on four sides after 159
weeks exposure. Decay had spread along the length of the sample and it failed
during deflection testing at the 159-week assessment.

Page27

Figure 23 – HMC sample B61H/12 treated with boron on one edge after 159 weeks
exposure. There was severe decay throughout the sample, away from the treated
edge. This was typical of many of the samples in the group that were treated with
boron on one edge only.

Figure 24 – HMC sample B32H/13 treated with boron on two edges after 159 weeks
exposure. There was a strip of severe decay through the centre of the sample but
this had not spread to the treated edges. This sample was in the top layer of the
tank and it is likely that boron loss would have been greater than for samples
lower in the tank. MOE for this sample had reduced by 23% over the exposure
period due to this decay (rated 6, 30-50% of the cross section).

Page28

APPENDIX I
RATINGS SYTEMS USED FOR SAMPLE ASSESSMENTS

Mycelium Spread Ratings

1 = No mycelium development onto the sample surface.

2 = Mycelium on the surface in the immediate vicinity of the feeder block.

3 = Active mycelium from the feeder block on the surface, spread <50 mm.

4 = Active mycelium development >50 mm from the feeder block.

5 = Extensive mycelium development over <50% of the surface area.

6 = Extensive mycelium development over >50% of the surface area.

Mould Ratings

1 = No perceivable mould.
2 = Light mould patches or a few widely scattered spots.
3 = Numerous spots or widespread light mould.
4 = Severe mould, up to 50% coverage.
5 = Severe mould, >50% coverage.

Decay Ratings

10 = No decay.
T = Trace, discolouration or softening, not positively identified as decay.
9 = First stages of decay or damage up to 3% of cross-section.
8 = Lightly established decay, 3-10% of cross-section.
7 = Well established decay, 10-30% of cross section.
6 = Deep established decay, 30-50% of cross section.
4 = Severe decay, nearing failure, more than 50% of the cross section.
0 = Failed.

Page29

APPENDIX IIa
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/8-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 1 edge
C61H/1 1738 2197  26
6
4
5.0  4.70  4.09
C61H/2 1695 2224  31
6
6
4.5  3.23  5.70
C61H/3 1648 2033  23
6
4
4.5  4.19  4.53
C61H/4 1667
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C61H/5 1909 2663  39
5
6
4.0  3.10  5.72
C61H/6 1857
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C62H/7 1778
Failed 84 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C62H/8 1733 2818  43  6
6
4.5  2.84  6.59
C62H/9 1972 1951  32  5
4
4.5  4.17  4.41
C62H/10 1606  2764  39
6
6
4.5
2.00
9.06
C62H/11 1593  2558  58
6
4
4.5
4.22
4.45
C62H/12 1490  2491  38
6
4
4.0
3.85
4.58
C62H/13 1745  2359  33
5
6
4.5
2.73
6.99
C62H/14 1680  4324  138
1
8
3.5
1.97
8.99
C62H/15 1678  2357  33
6
4
4.0
2.73
6.67
C62H/16 1564  2780  54
4
7
4.0
2.10
8.97
C62H/17 1759  2432  24
5
7
4.5
2.73
7.09
C62H/18 1605  2336  22
6
4
4.5
3.16
5.73
C62H/19 1932  2158  50
5
4
4.0
3.17
6.00
C62H/20 1717  2303  44
6
6
3.5
3.45
5.43

43 5.3  4.5  4.3  3.92  5.25
HMC/8-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 2 edges
C62H/1 1817 2379  31
6
6  4.0  2.79  6.38
C62H/2 1637 2198  34
6
4  4.0  4.80  3.95
C62H/3 1907 2459  29
6
4  4.0  3.08  6.16
C62H/4 1466 1869  27
5
4  4.5  5.03  3.80
C62H/5 1958 2590  32
5
6  4.0  2.41  7.59
C62H/6 1566 2136  36
5
6  4.5  2.96  6.26
C62H/7 1778
Failed 84 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C62H/8 1733 2361  36
6
4  4.0  5.40  3.67
C62H/9 1972 2447  24
6
6  4.5  2.34  7.74
C62H/10 1606  2044  27
6
4
4.0
5.40
3.49
C62H/11 1593  2608  64
4
7
4.5
2.65
7.07
C62H/12 1490 Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C62H/13 1745  2478  42
6
4
4.5
4.05
4.52
C62H/14 1680 Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C62H/15 1678  2024  21
6
4
5.0
4.40
4.13
C62H/16 1564  1943  24
6
4
4.5
5.90
3.24
C62H/17 1759  2299  31
3
7
4.5
2.10
8.80
C62H/18 1605  2144  34
5
4
5.0
3.04
6.01
C62H/19 1932  2649  37
6
6
4.0
2.35
7.97
C62H/20 1717  2275  32
5
6
4.5
2.41
7.72

33 5.4  4.3 4.4 4.26 4.93
Page30

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/8-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 1 face, 2 edges
C63H/1 1715 2546  48
4
7
4.0  1.95  9.52
C63H/2 1713 2782  62
6
6
3.5  3.03  6.31
C63H/3 1675 2366  41
6
7
4.5  2.62  7.32
C63H/4 1685 2556  52
2
8
3.5  2.01  8.83
C63H/5 1607 3147  96
5
8
3.0  3.08  6.16
C63H/6 1782 2625  47
6
4
4.5  2.38  7.35
C63H/7 1709 2556  50
2
8
4.0  2.50  7.42
C63H/8 1781 2791  57
5
6
3.5  2.92  6.24
C63H/9 1827 2480  36
5
6
4.0  2.17  8.54
C63H/10 1854  2709  46
6
4
4.5
4.68
4.00
C63H/11 1892  2834  50
5
8
4.5
1.95
9.44
C63H/12 1513  2317  53
1
8
3.0
2.87
6.84
C63H/13 1721 Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C63H/14 1968  2802  42
5
7
4.0
1.93
9.42
C63H/15 1614  2210  37
5
6
4.0
2.77
6.99
C63H/16 1736  2317  33
5
8
3.5
2.14
8.35
C63H/17 1804  2711  50
5
6
4.0
2.14
8.71
C63H/18 1770  2383  35
1
8
3.5
2.26
8.49
C63H/19 1801  2522  40
4
7
3.0
2.05
9.16
C63H/20 1598 Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00

49 4.3  6.1  3.8  3.07  6.95
HMC/8-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 4 sides
C64H/1 1846 3146  70
3
7  2.5  2.03  9.25
C64H/2 1688 2488  47
1
8  3.0  1.98  9.30
C64H/3 1764 2645  50
1
8  2.5  2.42  7.63
C64H/4 1888 2888  53
4
7  3.0  2.13  8.86
C64H/5 1467 3067 109
1
8  3.0  2.65  7.20
C64H/6 1911 2588  35
1
9  2.0  3.37  5.97
C64H/7 1705 2827  66
1
9  2.5  2.21  8.41
C64H/8 1586 2367  49
4
6  3.0  1.97  9.41
C64H/9 1781 2354  32
1
8  2.0  1.76  10.54
C64H/10 1932  2567  33
3
8
3.0
1.49
12.02
C64H/11 1616  2596  61
1
8
4.0
3.03
6.35
C64H/12 1729  2199  27
3
8
3.0
2.17
8.71
C64H/13 1789  3128  75
1
8
2.5
2.05
9.22
C64H/14 1736  2377  37
1
8
2.0
2.50
7.50
C64H/15 1739  2525  45
4
8
3.0
2.80
6.83
C64H/16 2011  2750  37
6
4
4.0
2.33
7.91
C64H/17 2093  2693  29
4
7
3.5
1.93
9.74
C64H/18 1428  2395  68
1
8
2.5
2.44
7.64
C64H/19 1688  2495  48
5
7
3.0
2.36
7.96
C64H/20 1521  2047  35
1
8
3.0
2.42
7.81

50 2.4  7.6 2.9 2.30 8.41
Page31

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/8-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 1 edge
B61H/1 2012 2548  27
5
6
5.0  2.92  6.66
B61H/2 1780 2386  34
4
6
4.5  2.12  8.80
B61H/3 2030 2759  36
5
6
4.5  2.65  7.02
B61H/4 1719 2428  41
4
6
4.5  2.20  8.54
B61H/5 1923 2339  22
6
4
4.0  3.48  5.47
B61H/6 1857 3268  76
5
4
4.0  2.71  6.87
B61H/7 1802 2491  38
5
6
4.5  2.87  6.25
B61H/8 1922 2922  52
2
8
4.5  2.19  8.28
B61H/9 1675 2900  73
5
6
4.5  2.48  7.48
B61H/10 1615  2433  51
4
6
4.5
2.80
6.87
B61H/11 1706  2449  44
5
6
4.5
3.97
4.81
B61H/12 1814  2774  53
6
4
4.5
7.65
2.50
B61H/13 1686  2220  32
4
6
4.5
2.52
7.28
B61H/14 1837  2771  51
5
6
4.5
3.50
5.22
B61H/15 1849  2361  28
6
4
4.5
5.50
3.86
B61H/16 1745  2265  30
4
6
4.5
2.73
7.30
B61H/17 1624  2582  59
4
6
4.5
2.65
6.74
B61H/18 1481  2108  42
4
6
5.0
3.23
5.64
B61H/19 1641  2195  34
5
4
4.5
3.67
5.18
B61H/20 1608  2466  53
5
6
4.5
3.23
5.87

44 4.7  5.6  4.5  3.25  6.33
HMC/8-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 2 edges
B62H/1 2012 2667  33
3
8  4.5  1.55  11.58
B62H/2 1891 3127  65
3
8  4.5  2.87  6.59
B62H/3 1595 2817  77
1
8  4.5  2.23  8.40
B62H/4 1550 2539  64
1
9  4.5  3.82  5.13
B62H/5 1523 2285  50
3
7  4.5  2.97  6.39
B62H/6 1686 2657  58
1
8  4.5  2.16  8.48
B62H/7 1678 2379  42
1
9  4.5  1.91  9.30
B62H/8 1718 2553  49
2
9  4.5  1.97  9.42
B62H/9 1729 2446  41
2
9  4.5  3.72  4.97
B62H/10 1493  2224  49
1
8
4.5
3.26
5.87
B62H/11 1769  2335  32
1
8
4.0
1.61
11.51
B62H/12 1583  2578  63
2
8
4.0
3.30
5.88
B62H/13 1891  2909  54
2
8
4.5
1.95
9.18
B62H/14 1676  3102  85
1
9
4.0
2.02
8.91
B62H/15 1633  2251  38
1
9
4.5
2.48
7.32
B62H/16 1722  2578  50
1
9
4.5
1.80
9.76
B62H/17 1717  2743  60
1
8
4.5
1.95
9.39
B62H/18 1823  2572  41
1
8
4.5
1.99
8.88
B62H/19 1593  2400  51
3
8
4.5
3.09
6.36
B62H/20 1739  2627  51
3
7
4.5
2.15
8.81

53 1.7  8.3 4.4 2.44 8.11
Page32

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/8-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 1 face, 2 edges
B63H/1 1974 3187  61
3
8
3.5  1.77  10.40
B63H/2 1746 2351  35
1
8
4.0  2.75  6.82
B63H/3 1840 2603  41
1
9
3.0  1.66  10.81
B63H/4 1713 2440  42
1
8
3.5  2.00  9.21
B63H/5 1568 2682  71
1
8
3.5  2.92  6.84
B63H/6 1888 2556  35
1
9
3.5  1.80  9.98
B63H/7 1848 2570  39
1
9
3.5  1.98  9.11
B63H/8 1838 3481  89
1
9
3.0  1.83  9.53
B63H/9 1748 2912  67
1
9
3.5  2.88  6.41
B63H/10 1538  2333  52
1
8
3.5
2.12
9.00
B63H/11 1868  2993  60
1
9
3.5
2.05
8.75
B63H/12 1664  2385  43
1
9
4.0
2.03
8.94
B63H/13 1869  2553  37
1
9
3.5
1.83
9.91
B63H/14 1867  2811  51
1
9
3.5
1.96
9.37
B63H/15 1476  2368  60
1
8
4.0
2.67
7.26
B63H/16 1684  2547  51
1
9
3.5
2.39
7.62
B63H/17 1762  2680  52
1
8
4.0
2.30
7.85
B63H/18 1734  2691  55
1
8
3.0
2.52
7.86
B63H/19 1764  2733  55
1
9
4.5
1.81
9.89
B63H/20 1642  2333  42
1
9
3.5
2.78
6.37

52 1.1  8.6  3.6  2.20  8.60
HMC/8-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 4 sides
B64H/1 1668 2483  49
1
9  2.5  2.47  7.64
B64H/2 1816 2518  39
1
T  2.5  2.00  9.20
B64H/3 1642 3003  83
1
8  2.5  2.52  7.41
B64H/4 1594 3197 101
1
9  3.0  1.90  9.63
B64H/5 1811 2865  58
1
9  2.5  2.43  7.40
B64H/6 1587 2175  37
1
8  3.0  2.08  8.98
B64H/7 1772 3885 119
1
8  3.0  2.03  9.10
B64H/8 1574 2426  54
1
8  3.0  2.60  7.40
B64H/9 1690 3168  87
1
8  3.0  2.18  8.43
B64H/10 1692  2419  43
1
8
4.0
2.29
8.26
B64H/11 1835  2558  39
1
8
3.0
1.99
9.24
B64H/12 1621  2843  75
1
9
3.5
2.50
7.30
B64H/13 1464  2086  42
1
8
3.0
2.20
8.67
B64H/14 1758  2456  40
1
9
2.5
2.33
7.93
B64H/15 1839  2965  61
1
8
3.0
2.13
8.91
B64H/16 1795  2783  55
1
9
3.5
2.37
7.98
B64H/17 1483  2325  57
1
8
3.0
2.68
7.20
B64H/18 1711  2537  48
1
9
3.0
2.03
9.29
B64H/19 1761  2502  42
1
8
3.0
1.75
10.59
B64H/20 1779  2456  38
1
9
3.5
2.48
7.64

58 1.0  8.5 3.0 2.25 8.41
Page33

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 1 edge
C31H/1 1624
Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C31H/2 1707 2200  29
6
4
5.0  3.22  5.82
C31H/3 1670 2250  35
4
7
4.5  3.32  5.54
C31H/4 1621
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C31H/5 1862 2333  25
6
6
4.5  7.60  2.57
C31H/6 1941 3482  79
5
7
4.5  2.82  6.51
C31H/7 1997 3088  55
6
6
4.0  3.19  5.89
C31H/8 2008 2559  27
2
9
4.0  2.09  8.94
C31H/9 1761 2532  44
5
6
4.0  3.64  5.04
C31H/10 2043  2760  35
6
7
3.5
2.02
9.04
C31H/11 1595  2869  80
3
7
4.0
2.39
7.59
C31H/12 1811  2264  25
6
4
4.5
3.32
5.55
C31H/13 1769  3531  100
5
4
4.0
2.98
5.96
C31H/14 1724  2285  33
6
6
3.5
2.67
7.06
C31H/15 1490  1950  31
5
6
4.5
4.42
4.18
C31H/16 1768 Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C31H/17 1691  2249  33
6
4
4.5
2.96
6.43
C31H/18 1764  2200  25
5
6
4.0
2.55
7.32
C31H/19 1710  2188  28
6
4
5.0
4.92
3.82
C31H/20 1456 Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00

43 5.1  4.7  4.3  4.31  4.86
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 2 edges
C32H/1 1553
Failed 48 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32H/2 1658
Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32H/3 1665
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32H/4 1923
Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32H/5 1697 2177  28
5
7  4.5  2.79  6.59
C32H/6 1664
Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32H/7 1697 2005  18
6
6  4.5  4.35  4.20
C32H/8 1995 2615  31
5
4  4.5  3.54  5.24
C32H/9 1817
Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32H/10 1901  2554  34
6
6
3.5
2.16
8.99
C32H/11 1795  2463  37
5
7
3.5
2.05
9.00
C32H/12 1678  1994  19
6
4
4.0
4.20
4.55
C32H/13 1987 Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32H/14 1789  2233  25
6
6
4.5
3.50
5.09
C32H/15 1796  2195  22
6
6
4.0
2.67
6.77
C32H/16 1888  2873  52
6
6
4.5
3.62
5.17
C32H/17 1429  1858  30
6
4
4.5
7.00
2.67
C32H/18 1622 Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32H/19 1983  2561  29
4
7
3.5
2.00
9.25
C32H/20 1916  2837  48
5
6
4.0
2.16
8.73

31 5.5  3.5 4.1 5.20 3.81
Page34

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 1 face, 2 edges
C33H/1 1819 2314  27
6
6
5
4.36  4.28
C33H/2 1673 2332  39
6
4
3.5  5.18  3.59
C33H/3 1755 2256  29
4
7
4.0  3.01  6.16
C33H/4 1946 2965  52
6
6
3.0  2.39  7.96
C33H/5 2014 3239  61
5
6
3.0  2.30  7.85
C33H/6 1799 2513  40
4
7
4.5  2.73  6.99
C33H/7 1842 3991 117  1
9
3.5  2.11  8.61
C33H/8 1636 2257  38
5
6
4.5  2.72  7.09
C33H/9 1866 2238  20
6
7
3.5  3.35  5.76
C33H/10 2091  2776  33
4
8
4.5
1.73
10.14
C33H/11 1598  3108  94
1
9
2.5
2.46
7.34
C33H/12 1608  2542  58
3
7
3.0
2.62
7.41
C33H/13 1547  2493  61
5
7
3.5
4.42
4.41
C33H/14 1623  2780  71
5
7
4.0
3.02
6.16
C33H/15 1717  3026  76
5
6
3.5
2.75
6.70
C33H/16 1539  2220  44
4
6
3.5
3.74
5.21
C33H/17 1634  2400  47
4
8
4.0
2.37
7.80
C33H/18 1748  2313  32
5
6
4.5
3.46
5.34
C33H/19 1509  2270  50
6
4
4.0
4.40
4.40
C33H/20 1761  2378  35
6
4
4.0
3.02
6.03

51 4.6  6.5  3.8  3.11  6.46
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 4 sides
C34H/1 1756 2356  34
6
6  4.5  2.58  7.14
C34H/2 1576 2143  36
1
9  2.5  3.18  5.74
C34H/3 1577
Failed 137weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C34H/4 1737 2430  40
3
8  3.0  2.23  8.30
C34H/5 1830 2492  36
5
7  3.5  2.39  7.64
C34H/6 1997 2690  35
5
8  3.0  2.70  6.89
C34H/7 1633
Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C34H/8 1684 2289  36
4
7  2.5  3.39  5.42
C34H/9 1722 2762  60
5
4  3.0  2.41  7.60
C34H/10 1608  2390  49
5
7
3.0
3.10
6.18
C34H/11 1802  2356  31
1
10
2.0
1.96
9.72
C34H/12 1557  2058  32
4
8
2.5
3.18
6.19
C34H/13 1873  2433  30
6
8
3.5
2.35
7.71
C34H/14 1489  2202  48
1
9
3.0
2.34
8.16
C34H/15 1783  2684  51
4
8
3.0
2.85
6.45
C34H/16 1806  2637  46
6
6
3.5
2.46
7.52
C34H/17 1869  2424  30
5
6
3.0
2.89
6.41
C34H/18 1737  2775  60
6
4
3.0
2.55
7.20
C34H/19 1899  2768  46
1
9
2.0
1.71
10.54
C34H/20 1540  3076  100
1
9
2.5
2.82
6.96

44 3.8  6.7 2.9 3.15 6.59
Page35

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 1 edge
B31H/1 1782
Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
B31H/2 1836 2640  44
4
6
5.0  5.55  3.27
B31H/3 2053 2858  39
5
6
4.0  2.67  6.92
B31H/4 1733 2459  42
4
6
4.5  3.25  6.07
B31H/5 1624 2402  48
5
4
4.5  4.22  4.76
B31H/6 1607 2203  37
6
4
4.5  5.40  3.78
B31H/7 1556
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
B31H/8 1569 2060  31
5
4
4.5  4.97  3.95
B31H/9 1592 2717  71
5
7
3.5  3.02  6.34
B31H10 1922  2565  33
4
6
4.5
2.32
7.81
B31H/11 1676  2874  71
5
4
4.5
4.02
4.67
B31H/12 1694  2812  66
6
4
4.5
6.05
3.16
B31H/13 1742  2354  35
6
4
5.0
3.64
5.10
B31H/14 1664  2233  34
5
4
4.5
4.03
4.69
B31H/15 1735  2305  33
5
6
4.5
2.56
7.23
B31H/16 1585  2425  53
5
4
4.0
4.65
4.16
B31H/17 1647  2394  45
6
4
4.5
5.05
3.84
B31H/18 1835  2620  43
4
7
4.5
2.10
8.85
B31H/19 1697  2092  23
6
4
4.0
3.55
5.08
B31H/20 1789  2344  31
4
7
4.5
2.05
9.17

43 5.0  4.6  4.4  4.26  4.94
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 2 edges
B32H/1 1735 3438  98
1
T  4.5  3.50  5.32
B32H/2 1761 2406  37
1
9  4.5  1.97  9.17
B32H/3 1766 2394  36
1
T  4.5  1.82  9.86
B32H/4 1662 2468  48
1
8  4.5  2.27  8.24
B32H/5 1963 3390  73
1
9  4.5  2.09  8.46
B32H/6 1760 2281  30
1
T  4.0  2.12  8.55
B32H/7 1782 2423  36
4
T  4.0  2.14  8.59
B32H/8 1742 2693  55
2
9  4.5  2.41  7.72
B32H/9 1816 2645  46
1
9  4.5  1.96  9.21
B32H/10 1630  2789  71
1
T
3.5
2.60
7.28
B32H/11 1721  2248  31
3
7
4.5
1.95
9.67
B32H/12 1997  2791  40
1
9
4.0
1.79
10.11
B32H/13 1869  3394  82
5
6
4.5
2.13
8.70
B32H/14 1878  2548  36
4
7
4.5
2.13
8.87
B32H/15 1629  3144  93
1
9
4.0
2.43
7.46
B32H/16 1457  2061  41
1
9
4.5
3.29
5.73
B32H/17 1743  2718  56
1
T
4.5
3.09
6.10
B32H/18 1789  2411  35
1
9
4.5
2.15
8.66
B32H/19 1806  2837  57
1
9
4.5
2.43
7.78
B32H/20 1495  2143  43
4
8
4.5
3.08
6.09

52 1.8  8.9 4.4 2.37 8.08
Page36

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 1 face, 2 edges
B33H/1 1599 2702  69
1
T
3.5  2.58  7.03
B33H/2 1843 2459  33
1
T
3.5  1.66  11.04
B33H/3 1561 2131  37
1
10
3.0  3.67  4.94
B33H/4 1813 2529  39
1
T
4.0  2.05  9.02
B33H/5 1845 2560  39
1
10
3.5  3.24  5.77
B33H/6 1781 2753  55
1
9
3.5  2.55  7.54
B33H/7 1695 2351  39
1
T
4.0  2.01  9.14
B33H/8 1816 2682  48
1
10
3.5  2.63  6.98
B33H/9 1793 2531  41
1
T
3.5  1.86  10.07
B33H/10 1615  2536  57
1
T
3.5
2.3
7.93
B33H/11 1644  2181  33
1
T
3.0
2.85
6.66
B33H/12 1861  2794  50
1
T
4.0
2.03
9.21
B33H/13 1703  2399  41
1
9
3.5
2.03
9.04
B33H/14 1837  2594  41
1
T
4.0
1.60
11.24
B33H/15 1964  3481  77
1
9
3.5
2.02
8.97
B33H/16 1630  2588  59
1
9
3.5
2.85
6.66
B33H/17 1809  3357  86
1
T
4.0
2.17
8.48
B33H/18 1744  2442  40
1
T
3.5
1.78
10.25
B33H/19 1685  2433  44
1
T
4.0
2.24
8.31
B33H/20 1546  2271  47
1
T
3.5
3.02
6.39

49 1.0  9.8  3.6  2.36  8.23
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 4 sides
B34H/1 1623 2512  55
1
T  2.5  2.88  6.37
B34H/2 1871 3380  81
1
T  3.5  1.73  10.45
B34H/3 1469 2404  64
1
9  2.5  2.32  8.23
B34H/4 1936 2697  39
1
T  3.0  3.10  6.04
B34H/5 1809 2670  48
1
T  3.0  2.27  8.35
B34H/6 1471 2147  46
1
9  2.0  2.88  6.77
B34H/7 1791 2935  64
1
9  3.0  1.68  10.85
B34H/8 1793 2528  41
4
T  3.0  2.18  8.27
B34H/9 1816 2485  37
1
T  3.0  1.90  9.88
B34H/10 1758  2923  66
1
9
2.0
1.75
10.39
B34H/11 1822  2707  49
1
9
3.5
1.80
10.16
B34H/12 1666  2394  44
1
9
2.5
2.25
8.44
B34H/13 1671  2893  73
1
9
2.5
1.93
9.71
B34H/14 1492  2132  43
1
9
2.5
2.93
6.54
B34H/15 1868  4252  128
1
9
3.0
1.85
9.82
B34H/16 1804  2701  50
1
T
2.5
2.05
8.81
B34H/17 2125  3258  53
1
9
3.0
1.80
10.20
B34H/18 1621  2291  41
1
9
3.0
2.14
9.01
B34H/19 1635  2566  57
4
9
2.0
2.70
6.96
B34H/20 1737  2708  56
1
T
3.0
2.62
7.65

57 1.3  9.4 2.8 2.24 8.64
Page37

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Boron H1.2 Commercial treatment
B3H/1 1481
2694 82  1
10  2.0  3.26  5.72
B3H/2 1507
2488 65  1
10  2.5  4.98  3.72
B3H/3 1263
2684
113  1
10  2.0  5.45  3.63
B3H/4 1356
2622 93  1
10  4.0  3.48  5.60
B3H/5 1344
2387 78  1
10  2.0  3.33  5.68
B3H/6 1511
2805 86  1
10  2.5  4.05  4.63
B3H/7 1504
2614 74  1
10  3.0  4.03  4.72
B3H/8 1554
2885 86  1
10  2.5  3.65  5.25
B3H/9 1514
3102
105  1
10  2.5  3.86  4.80
B3H/10 1533 2263  48
1
10
2.0  5.27  3.44
B3H/11 1537 2573  67
1
10
2.5  4.07  4.55
B3H/12 1404 1881  34
1
10
2.5  3.40  5.65
B3H/13 1546 2296  49
1
10
2.0  6.14  3.14
B3H/14 1468 3506 139  1
10
2.5  2.97  6.54
B3H/15 1617 2285  41
1
10
2.0  3.18  6.06
B3H/16 1404 2542  81
1
10
2.5  2.96  6.32
B3H/17 1493 2928  96
1
10
3.5  3.08  6.30
B3H/18 1262 2645 110  1
10
2.5  4.30  4.56
B3H/19 1411 2476  75
1
10
4.0  3.36  5.75
B3H/20 1351 2639  95
1
10
3.0  3.74  5.27

81 1.0  10.0 2.6  3.93  5.07
HMC/4-week pre-decay, Untreated controls
U3H/1 1775
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/2 2026
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/3 1579
1966 25  5
6  4.5  3.60  5.25
U3H/4 1875
Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/5 1545
Failed 108 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/6 1695
2255 33  4
7  4.5  3.40  5.54
U3H/7 1821
2542 40  4
8  4.5  2.28  8.42
U3H/8 1650
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/9 1662
Failed 108 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/10 1985
Failed 84 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/11 1774 2453  38
5
6  4.5  6.56  2.92
U3H/12 1830 2715  48
6
4  4.5  4.75  3.96
U3H/13 1813
Failed 108 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/14 1727 2110  22
5
6  4.5  2.11  8.95
U3H/15 1624 2030  25
5
7  4.5  3.13  5.77
U3H/16 2038
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/17 1907 2316  21
6
4  4.5  2.97  6.37
U3H/18 1472 1867  27
6
4  3.5  4.98  3.83
U3H/19 1600
Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3H/20 1490 1946  31
6
4  4.5  3.63  4.95

31 5.2  2.9 4.4 5.76 2.95
Page38

APPENDIX IIa (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 159 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
HMC/not pre-decayed, Untreated controls
UMH/1 1738 2566  48  1
10  4.5  2.82  6.76
UMH/2 1806 2635  46  1
10  5.0  1.84  9.96
UMH/3 1906 2546  34  4
7
4.5  2.10  8.52
UMH/4 1653 2800  69  2
9
5.0  2.24  8.03
UMH/5 1660 2412  45  5
7
3.5  2.98  6.41
UMH/6 1724 2404  39  3
8
5.0  3.32  5.70
UMH/7 1940 2376  22  6
7
5.0  2.55  7.35
UMH/8 1635 3305 102  4
8
5.0  3.39  5.63
UMH/9 1932 2785  44  3
9
5.0  2.03  8.87
UMH/10 1887  2686  42
2
9
4.0
1.78  10.48
UMH/11 1558  2512  61
2
9
4.5
3.13
6.38
UMH/12 1581 Failed 159 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
UMH/13 1683  2582  53
1
10
5.0
3.03
6.26
UMH/14 1849  2392  29
4
8
4.5
1.90
9.58
UMH/15 1594  2515  58
3
8
4.5
2.65
7.04
UMH/16 2019  2936  45
3
9
4.5
1.86
9.82
UMH/17 1752  2438  39
3
8
5.0
2.59
7.33
UMH/18 1889  3353  78
5
7
4.0
2.08
8.87
UMH/19 1963 Failed 137 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
UMH/20 1936  2713  40
1
10
4.0
1.98
9.22

50 2.9  7.7  4.6  3.01  7.11

Page39

APPENDIX IIb
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 157 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
LMC/12-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 2 edges
C62L/1 1741 2002 15  5
6
4.5  2.49  7.60
C62L/2 1568 1908 22  3
7
4.5  2.62  7.32
C62L/3 1865 2264 21  3
7
4.5  1.81  10.63
C62L/4 1693
Failed 135 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C62L/5 1845 2067 12  5
6
4.5  3.63  5.29
C62L/6 1601
Failed 40 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C62L/7 1552
Failed 84 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C62L/8 1760 2067  17  4
6
4.0  2.10  9.13
C62L/9 1691 2101  24  3
8
4.5  2.54  7.79
C62L/10 1419  1957  38
1
8
4.0
2.87
6.92

21 3.4  4.7  4.4  4.21  5.47
LMC/12-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 4 sides
C64L/1 1645 2192  33  3
8
3.5  3.08  5.82
C64L/2 1861 2309  24  1
8
4.0  1.84  10.48
C64L/3 1740 2089  20  3
8
4.5  1.94  9.71
C64L/4 1898 2180  15  3
7
4.0  1.58  12.06
C64L/5 1937 2152  11  1
7
4.5  2.03  9.35
C64L/6 1728 1858  8
1
8
4.5  2.41  7.90
C64L/7 1622 1916  18  3
8
4.0  4.84  3.92
C64L/8 1689 1938  15  1
7
4
3.26  6.02
C64L/9 1692 2124  26  1
8
3.5  1.87  10.30
C64L/10 1699  2038  20
1
8
4.5
2.96
6.55

19 1.8  7.7  4.1  2.58  8.21
LMC/12-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 2 edges
B62L/1 1640 2041 24
1
8  3.5  1.88  10.28
B62L/2 1975 2443 24
3
8  4.0  1.64  11.34
B62L/3 1892 2246 19
5
6  4.0  1.74  10.83
B62L/4 1768 2214 25
3
8  4.0  1.98  9.47
B62L/5 1907 2376 25
3
8  3.5  1.76  10.84
B62L/6 1630 2205 35
4
7  4.5  3.31  5.73
B62L/7 1661 2071 25
3
8  4.0  2.96  6.74
B62L/8 1763 2209 25
2
8  3.5  1.81  10.56
B62L/9 1718 2166 26
3
8  4.5  2.95  6.56
B62L/10 1739  1995  15
5
4
4.5
7.08
2.78

24 3.2  7.3 4.0 2.71 8.51

Page40

APPENDIX IIb (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 157 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
LMC/12-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 4 sides
B64L/1 1798 2282 27  1
8
2.0  1.61  11.85
B64L/2 1637 2076 27  1
8
2.0  2.49  7.83
B64L/3 1758 2214 26  1
8
2.0  1.90  9.76
B64L/4 1573 2052 30  1
8
2.0  2.38  8.08
B64L/5 1715 2249 31  1
9
2.0  2.34  8.34
B64L/6 1681 2127 27  1
8
2.5  1.91  9.82
B64L/7 1612 2087 29  1
9
2.0  3.54  5.25
B64L/8 1811 2728 51  1
8
3.5  2.88  6.65
B64L/9 1709 2147 26  1
8
2.0  1.76  10.89
B64L/10 1837  2350  28
1
8
2.0
2.74
6.80

30 1.0  8.2  2.2  2.36  8.53
LMC/7-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 2 edges
C32L/1 1589 2024  27  1
T
4.0  2.37  7.70
C32L/2 1884 1980  5
6
4
4.5  3.27  5.69
C32L/3 1663
Failed 135 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
C32L/4 1684 2091  24  1
9
4.0  2.11  9.08
C32L/5 1825 2101  15  6
4
5.0  3.06  6.25
C32L/6 1879 2116  13  5
6
4.5  2.52  7.50
C32L/7 1518 1914  26  1
8
4.0  2.71  7.34
C32L/8 1584 1911  21  5
4
4.5  2.38  7.87
C32L/9 1728 2148  24  1
9
4.5  2.54  7.43
C32L/10 1986  2346  18
4
7
5.0
3.89
5.17

19 3.3  6.1  4.4  3.29  6.40
LMC/7-week pre-decay, Copper naphthenate treatment 4 sides
C34L/1 1753 2186 25
1
8  2.5  1.90  9.86
C34L/2 1843 2280 24
1
8  4.5  1.71  11.04
C34L/3 1605 2058 28
1
9  4.0  2.39  7.90
C34L/4 1959 1983  1
1
9  4.5  2.28  8.16
C34L/5 1789 2256 26
1
8  3.0  1.87  10.20
C34L/6 1810 2268 25
1
8  3.5  2.87  6.64
C34L/7 1725 2163 25
1
8  4.0  1.83  10.40
C34L/8 1838 2376 29
1
8  4.0  2.08  9.02
C34L/9 1662 2070 25
1
8  3.0  2.86  6.95
C34L/10 1579  1974  25
1
8
4.0
2.00
9.76

23 1.0  8.1 3.7 2.18 8.99

Page41

APPENDIX IIb (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 157 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
LMC/7-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 2 edges
B32L/1 1750 2247 28  1
9
4.5  2.07  9.07
B32L/2 1862 2290 23  4
7
4.0  1.85  10.09
B32L/3 1685 2132 27  1
T
4.0  2.59  7.33
B32L/4 1765 2198 25  1
9
3.5  1.72  10.88
B32L/5 1687 2122 26  1
9
4.0  2.03  9.51
B32L/6 1973 2512 27  1
9
3.5  1.61  11.54
B32L/7 1702 2136 25  1
9
4.5  2.90  6.56
B32L/8 1636 2057 26  1
9
2.0  2.63  7.28
B32L/9 1729 2422 40  3
7
4.5  2.57  7.22
B32L/10 2037  2536  24
3
7
4.0
1.79  10.57

27 1.7  8.3  3.9  2.18  9.01
LMC/7-week pre-decay, Boron treatment 4 sides
B34L/1 1799 2411  34  1
9
3.5  1.78  10.47
B34L/2 1738 2168  25  1
9
2.0  2.48  7.84
B34L/3 1569 2101  34  1
T
3.0  2.40  7.91
B34L/4 1556 1982  27  1
8
2.0  2.14  8.78
B34L/5 1699 2137  26  1
9
2.0  2.13  9.05
B34L/6 1705 2148  26  1
8
2.0  2.72  7.17
B34L/7 1329 1695  28  1
8
2.0  3.17  6.18
B34L/8 1755 2231  27  1
9
2.0  2.50  7.60
B34L/9 1630 2039  25  1
8
2.0  2.13  9.08
B34L/10 1794  2298  28
1
8
2.0
2.10
9.01

28 1.0  8.4  2.3  2.36  8.31
LMC/7-week pre-decay, Boron H1.2 Commercial treatment
B3L/1 1500
1924 28  1  10 2.0 3.92  4.91
B3L/2 1463
2003 37  1  10 2.0 3.93  4.95
B3L/3 1490
1908 28  1  10 2.0 2.55  7.80
B3L/4 1497
1873 25  1  10 2.0 3.52  5.62
B3L/5 1407
1783 27  1  10 2.0 2.99  6.66
B3L/6 1424
1873 32  1  10 2.0 3.13  6.21
B3L/7 1299
1663 28  1  10 2.0 4.23  4.61
B3L/8 1429
1792 25  1  10 2.5 3.56  5.32
B3L/9 1351
1711 27  1  10 2.0 3.39  5.65
B3L/10 1478 2770 87
1
10  2.5  7.05  2.66

34 1.0 10.0
2.1 3.83 5.44

Page42

APPENDIX IIb (contd.)
INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DETAILS AFTER 157 WEEKS EXPOSURE
Sample
OD Wt
Weight
MC
Ratings
Deflect
MOE
No
Calc
Wet
%
Mycel
Decay
Mould
(mm)
(GPa)
LMC/7-week pre-decay, Untreated controls
U3L/1 1656
2068 25  3
8  3.5  1.72 10.92
U3L/2 1689
2000 18  4
4  4.5  2.63  7.05
U3L/3 1775
2170 22  3
8  4.0  1.67 11.51
U3L/4 1553
Failed 107 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3L/5 1770
Failed 84 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3L/6 1729
1986 15  5
6  5.0  4.06  4.74
U3L/7 1524
Failed 56 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
U3L/8 1637
1931 18  4
7  4.0  2.51  7.37
U3L/9 1779
2053 15  5
4  4.5  2.89  6.59
U3L/10 1588 1932  22  3
7
4.5  2.34  8.36

19 3.9  4.4  4.3  4.18  5.65
LMC/not pre-decayed, Untreated controls
UML/1 1729
Failed 84 weeks
0 8.00
0.00
UML/2 1614 1991 23  1
10  4.0  2.66  7.54
UML/3 1570 2036 30  1
10  4.5  2.44  7.93
UML/4 1911 2178 14  6
4
4.5  3.35  5.90
UML/5 1679 2082 24  3
7
4.0  2.19  8.63
UML/6 1716 2153 25  1
10  4.5  2.37  8.09
UML/7 1464 1811 24  5
4
4.5  2.97  6.42
UML/8 2099 2660 27  1
10  4.5  1.65  10.97
UML/9 1738 2191 26  1
10  4.0  2.15  8.91
UML/10 1688  2103  25
1
10
4.0
2.38
8.04

24 2.2  7.5  4.3  3.02  7.24

Page43