Talk:Wood preservation

I had some work done on a deck today, and voiced concern about the green strips running through the wood and was told only that they won't sell that to you any more. Rblythe1 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nathan, Maybe you are right about reverting my deletion. The deletion by the way, was actually a reverting to the first thing Bridgman wrote (which I found more relevant to the subject).

Finding other external links is rather difficult because the sodium silicate timber treatment is only offered by one young company TimberSil, and is therefore not in general use (Google it, everything leads to this company). What really triggered my action was the fact that every mention of sodium silicate-based timber treatment in Wikipedia was done by user Bridgman, who in my opinion is Gary Bridgman, public relation director of this same company TimberSil . I therefore concluded (maybe too quick) that we are dealing here with someone who is trying to sell his product on Wiki. If you have an other opinion, that’s all right. 212.102.225.147 10:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added several pages worth of information about application processes, history, incising ect. ect… to this article, and would like to move it from “Timber treatment” to “Wood Preservation” as that would be a more suitable name. This information comes from my engineering diploma project “Sap displacement”. I ask those who feel comfortable with this subject to review and discuss my changes. --Lumber Jack

Excellent work, much improved both in terms of content and organization and better written as well. I don't have anything to add in terms of the actual content, where you obviously know what you are talking about. However, I believe it would benefit from a little more organization/structure work. For example, the introductory sections under under "Preservatives" and "Application processes" could be moved to the top and/or history section which is rather thin. The "hazards" section should also be close to the top, and not have its separate section. The history section should be beefed up. The introduction to the "Preservatives" and "Application processes" should give a summary overview of what follows. Let me know what you think of my suggestions before I dive in. Luigizanasi 05:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Introduction doesn´t summarize anough of the content. I would be glad if you could look into that. One should also “beef up” the Introduction from Application Processes and Preservatives and the section History. If you feel fit for the task, go for it.

Organizationwise I would leave it as it is. I also have a lot of information about “Chemical wood Preservatives” but I haven’t found time to write it all down and place it in the Article.

Eventaully, I would also like to creat two new chapters, first “structaul wood preservation” (how is one supposed to build a building so that it isn´t vunerable to decay) and second “physical wood preservation” (wood treatment with e.g. pulver layers) that don´t directly have anything to do with “chemical wood preservation”

--Lumber Jack second account 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This article includes a biblical reference to Noah applying pitch to the ark. I wouldn't consider this wood treatment. It's my understanding that pitch waterproofs a boat by filling cracks between wood, but the pitch isn't applied to the entire surface of the lumber and is not there to preserve the wood, so much as to preserve the buoyancy of the boat. If no one objects on this talk page in the next 2 or 3 weeks, I'm going to delete the reference. --Osbojos 05:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Pitch can be/was used do deter seaclamps/shells and other water dwelling species. --Lumber Jack second account 18:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

From the "Chromated copper arsenate (CCA)" section:

However some consumer outlets such as Home Depot were still reported to be selling CCA lumber long after the ban went into effect.

This should probably be cited; I've deleted it in the meantime.

The words common, modern, generally or typical are indefinite. These words are all present in the “LOSP”-posting. Indefinite terms should have no place in an Encyclopedia. That is why I will edit this posting. Hopefully future anonymous authors make serious Posting that are balanced and don’t just try to sell a product. --Lumber Jack second account 00:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also for anonymous authors that prize the use of LOSP, Vacuum-Treatment is also a PRESSURE TREATMEN. --Lumber Jack second account 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wood preservation on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Pcbene 01:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

@PCbene;

Around 60% of the article Wood preservation comes from my college diploma project. From July the 3rd until 5th of this year, I posted one chapter of my project into this article. Since then I have edited and observed this article as well as it’s German counterpart Holzschutz.

I would like to make clear that:

* MY EDITS WERE NOT AN EXPERIMENT OR A TEST.

* I AM NOT A NEWCOMER

If you have the same excessive knowledge over Wood, Lumber, Chemicals, Preservation and Construction as I do, then I am willing to discuss your revert, otherwise please except my revert of the article to the stance of my last edit.

I would advise you:

• to research who has edited an article in the last year.
• to discuss a revert beforehand.
• and edit mistakes in a article before / rather than reverting.

After all, reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly

Thank you for your understanding

How about an edit to include for the preservation of wood products through fire. I understand that this has been a traditional way to preserve wood, have seen it being carried out and am wanting to try it myself. I also understand that archaeologists frequently find fire has accidently preserved timber products.

Much appreciated

A Taxed Mind 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

as far as I know it has been used but is not useful. After burning, a layer of char is produced, which isn't tasty for most insects or fungi (not all are deterred), but you only need to leave a bit uncharred or the charr gets scrapped and it is as if you hadn't treated it.

--Lumber Jack second account 22:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with A Taxed Mind. As far as I know charring (scorching?) was used for centuries before the advent of modern techniques, and so was incredibly useful. Timber posts were stuck into a fire and the resulting charred, pointy end was then hammered into the ground. I've done a quick search and can't find anything, unfortunately, apart from to say that I saw it used on and episode of Grand Designs last week to treat timber cladding. They used a roofing torch to toast the timber before installing it, but it certainly wasn't charred. I'd like to know more.

nagualdesign (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

While charring wood would naturally produce creosote a known and widespread preservative, it would never have wide spread use for any structural or load bearing application as the charring would dramatically reduce the strength and integrity of the wood. Ornamental use of charred wood would also be undesirable due to the smell and mess. 76.79.12.235 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Charring wood has been used with great success for many thousands of years in ground-bearing situations. A good reference is Bjørn Berge's book 'The Ecology of Building Materials' (Architectural Press, 2009, pp. 412-13) in which he also references its use in British and Portugese Napoleonic warships as it increases rot and water resistance. He suggests a suitable thickness is 1-3mm of char which has no structural effect on the wood and makes it unpalatable to insects. "The heating also enriches phenolic resins and aldehydes in the outermost part of the pile. These are natural biocides." He also references Julius Caesar describing the technique in De Bello Gallico, in connection with setting up fortifications.

A modern equivalent to the time-consuming process is apparently heating the timeber in a closed chamber at 200-250 centigrade for 24 hours. While energy intensive, it increases the wood's resistance to fungi and gives it an attractive brown patina.

I added the Fire Retardant Treated section in hopes that it would be expanded on. I have yet to find a good answer online. If someone could add a bit more information to the section it would be greatly appreciated. Thesi 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Thesi

Thesi there are three approaches that I know of, of how to make Wood fire retardant.

The first is the use of a chemical treament that upon higher heat turns into foam. This foam creats a protective layer over the treated would stopping it from catching fire for a certain amount of time. Eventauly the foam loses its retardant capacity and the wood catches fire. Sorry, I don't remember a chemical formula or a brand name for this but it is used often in wood used in train or subway wagons.

Second: a rough surface catches fire easier than a smooth surface, so creat a smooth surface.

The third: When wood burnes then depending on which species, density and surface it burns at a perticular speed, e.g. 1cm per hour or 3/8in per hour. However this doese not continue for ever, after a certain burning depth it stops around 4cm or bit more than 1in. The already burnt wood creats a layer protecting the unburnt wood. Imagine if you put a large piece of wood on a fire and it doesn't burn all the way. Then the next day you cut through it. Around the outsides the wood is charred and on the inside it is unscaved. This is the advantage of wood over steel, wood maintaines its carrying capacity during a fire, steel loses it over it's whole section when heated (and turns into gamma steel). Thus if the wood section is dimensioned large enogh it can still hold up a building during and after a fire.

--Lumber Jack second account 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All tiles in teak wood, unfinished, sanded, FEQ, KD 10-12%. I dont know what is FEQ, anyone could be explain??

Niether do I

--Lumber Jack 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FEQ (First European Quality) is a common wood industry acronym for top quality wood. Googling the phrase +"first european quality" -"life survey" will elicit numerous references. JimScott (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi RickBeton, I find it great that you've added some usefull information to the article, however I disagree some what with the placement of it.

The Pressure treatment described under Tanalisation fits that of the Fluctuation Pressure Process, and therefore I feel it is not a seperate process.

Chemical Preservatives fits that of Water borne / Chromat copper arsenate (CCA) I think we should put the term Tanalisation under Chromat copper arsenate (CCA)

High pressure sap displacement is a mechanised version of the Boucherie Process, and I feel it should therefore be a sub catogory of that process.

"a trade mark of Hicksons Ltd", I'm sure that Tanalisation is a "trademark" of Hicksons Ltd. but it Hicksons Ltd. is not the only company to do so, therefor I think we should take thier name out of the article. --Lumber Jack 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

About 80% down the page is what appears to be an orphan header:

פעס====Osmosis process====

And whatever are the first three characters? Hebrew? Paulburnett (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My father use to work for a compeny where thy treated there wooden doors with normal car oil. Is there some one that can tel me why cant i do it with my wooden deck. THANX Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.17.141.233 (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it would make your deck flammable. I've seen creosoted railroad tie fires and they can burn for quite a while. It isn't a large fire (flame-wise) but goes and goes and goes ... and in the end nothing left but ash. As far as I know, non-latex modern deck stains and such are flammable right out of the can but lose that aspect as the flammable carrier evaporates as the stain dries. JimScott (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What is AC2 treated lumber? Can this info be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.126.209 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

AC2 is a patented micronized copper preservation system developed by Osmose Wood Preserving, AC2 is now owned by Koppers PC. One of the largest brands of AC2 is MicroPro manufactured and sold by Menards. 76.79.12.235 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone could research proper hardware options for use with various treated woods. JimScott (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Did the malasian sal wood for external use to be treated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.154.110 (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the products sold as Tung Oil are not always Tung Oil. Some are petroleum distillates that are labeled Tung Oil for marketing purposes. Can anyone address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph about Neem seed oil is in the "marketing" section, whereas it should be in the "natural preservatives" section. DWorley (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

people should be reminding (or instructed) of this. when "pressure treated" wood floors are weathered on top they are often nice on the underside, and simply need to be turned over - not treated with $200 paint job :)

Disagree, wood exposed to elements such as a deck should always be installed with the curve of the grain shedding water rather than retaining it. By flipping the wood, if initially installed correctly, will cause the boards to no longer shed water but collect it, causing warping, swelling, cracking, and promoting fungal decay. Additionally, reapplication of a water repellent or sealer will take significantly less man hours, justifying the small cost of the product. 76.79.12.235 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

many have had thousands of dollars of wreckage from bad or zero mold advice AND ARE COMPLAINING FREQUENTLY ALL OVER THE INTERNET

mold feeds on non-poisonous natural oils and waxes (ie, not cedar): linseed, beeswax.

black mold will eat 1/4 centimeter to 1/2 centimeter concavity into an area of wood in a year that has untreated linseed: it's not simply a matter of sightliness

another factor is "big box store" brands are hacking this page. these brands hide what is in their products (cheap oils that are not treated) and change their formulas (you cannot rely on repeated formula) (some of these work fine - but apply a mold remediator first, might work)

mold should mentioned although the prattle about big box stores trying to ruin decks for $$$ more pruchases should not be removed (and by that i mean will get deleted)

There is not a section for copper naphthenate, even though copper naphthenate has been used effectively as a wood preservative for over 100 years. With many railroad ties, fence posts, and utility poles pressure treated with copper naphthenate each year in North America it seems like a huge oversight especially when neem seed and tung oil get mentioned. AWPA recently released a paper with the results of a 60 year field test on the efficacy of copper naphtenate. Additionally, copper naphthenate (2% copper as metal) is one of the select non-restricted use labeled preservatives approved for field treating end-cuts, holes, and abrasions of pressure treated wood in AWPA M4 standard [Section 7.1.1] (which is included in it's entirety in both the International Building Codes [IBC 2303.1.8] and International Residential Codes [IRC R319.1.1]). Copper naphthenate is also required as an end treatment by the limited warranties of many wood products pressure treated with micronized copper. The National Park service has also approved copper naphthenate as a substitute for pentachlorophenol, creosote and inorganic arsenicals. Beekeepers for many years have treated beehives with copper naphthenate (while the EPA has prohibited the practice in the United States in an attempt to combat colony collapse disorder, the practice is still widespread in places such as New Zealand and Australia).

For these reasons a section on copper naphthenate should be added to Wood Preservation.

76.79.12.235 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

In the Hazards section: "... industrial wood preservation operations are notifiable industrial activities ..." I suspect this means that some authority must be notified if you are running a wood preservation operation, but if you already have a license, what's the point? There are notifiable diseases that doctors must report to health central, and notifiable crimes that must be reported to copper central, but notifiable industrial activities? I couldn't find anything. Pergelator 50.43.36.155 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what that means either. At least within US FIFRA requires wood preservation be done under a commercial pesticide applicators license granted generally through individual states DEQ and/or Dept of Ag. Without further clarification and sourcing this language should probably be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.12.235 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The ALSC reference toward the end of the AWPA section is intentionally misleading.

directly from ALSC's website reads:"In addition to the lumber accreditation program, the ALSC also administers accreditation programs for the quality marking of treated lumber produced under standards written and maintained by the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA)" -- http://www.alsc.org/geninfo_summary_mod.htm

This is completely different from as currently reads in the aricle: "Wood preservative systems produced under the AWPA standards system for the residential market are required to be inspected under the stringent American Lumber Standards Committee (ALSC) third party inspection system in order to assure compliance with AWPA standards."

I suggest that the ALSC mention in the AWPA be removed. If others feel that ALSC needs mentioning (keep in mind it is merely a third-party testing group and not standard setting) then it should have it's own section. If that is done however it then becomes necessary and incumbent to include testing bodies who actually create standards regarding wood preservation systems such as ICC-ES as well.

In my humble opinion ICC-ES deserves mention long before ALSC since preservation systems such as [] micronized coppers which could never pass the stringent requirements set forth by AWPA use ICC-ES reports to circumvent AWPA standards and be permitted for use under IBC/IRC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.12.235 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This section seems to be very confused. Assuming that 'mud treatment' means the various wattle and daub based techniques used around the world it is a very effective way of weatherproofing and prolonging the life of a timber structure. There are wattle and daub walls in the UK that are hundreds of years old and intact in a a notoriously damp environment. 'Wet' mud is not preserving wood by keeping it wet - mud coverings for buildings all rely on the mud drying out. The clay content is important for strength although dung can be used to help keep it together and things like horsehair can be added as a reinforcement.Stub Mandrel (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

    I mentioned on the "tar" and  " creosote" talk pages that I wanted to have the authors of those articles (or someone competent)address the issues about the lack of effectiveness of coal tar on the preservation or waterproofing of wood raised in this article (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-tar-and-its-products-as-preser/?redirect=1). None of those concerns appear in either Wikipedia article, and I don't know if they are spurious (, because the scientific american article is a little confusing with a lot of typo-graphical errors) or not.  I asked because I was curious about the ability of tar, in both its cruder and commercially available forms, to prevent rust on iron nails, and wondered if they would inadvertently have a severe impact on the wood the nail was in.

    However, the primary reason I  ended up here is that I cannot find any detailed information about the methods and species (such as old growth cypress found in the region in which I live) used to address rotting, such as whether rot-resistant tree species were even commonly used and what was the typical time between and methods of repairs for whatever was commonly used, before the use of industrialized chemicals, such as in colonial times.  Nearly everyone on wikipedia (and the internet) seem to be obsessed with industrialized chemistry or processes , which have no resemblance to the raw materials or methods accomplish-able by human motion and hand tools.  Yet, I can find almost no information about the responses to the effects of moisture on wood in earlier times.Amoss1985 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I note the article doesn't include mention of pine tar, which has a long history of use as a wood preservative, especially on boars. I don't know much about pine tar, but it'd be good to have it included in this article. LittleDwangs (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

oil based /linseed oil subsections last sentence goes like this: "There is an ongoing promotional campaign in Australia for this type of treatment. " - which is highly problematic because reading it now or a hundered years later leaves the reader of the encyclopedia clueless of when the given statement was added to the article and what relevance it has at the time of reading the article. propose to delete it/or mark with a citation needed tag as the citation would hopefully put it into a perspective regarding the actual timing of the observation of the ongoing campaign. 92.221.117.18 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)