Report on COST E37 Round Robin Tests: Comparison of results from laboratory and field tests

M. Westin, E. Conti, J. Creemers, P.-O. Flæte, A. Gellerich, I. Irbe, M. Klamer, B. Mazela, E. Melcher, R. Möller, L. Nunes, S. Palanti, L. Reinprecht, E. Suttie, Hannu Viitanen

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference article in proceedingsScientific

Abstract

A round robin involving 15 European participants was set up in 2006. The round robin consists of both a field test according to the double layer test method and a laboratory test with two different preconditioning methods. When comparing EN 84 preconditioning (two weeks water leaching) with natural preconditioning (1 year in field, above ground) according to CEN/TS 15397, no significant difference could be noted for untreated controls, thermally modified wood or CCA impregnated wood. However, for wood treated with a metal-free organic preservative, a clear difference could be seen where much of the efficacy seen after EN 84 preconditioning is lost when natural preconditioning is used instead. In the field tests, the control pine performs similar in all fields whereas both thermally modified and preservative treated wood performs much better in the Nordic fields than in the mid- and southern European fields. The thermally modified wood performs almost as poor as the controls in the Southern European fields, whereas the organic preservative treated wood performs well in these fields. In the six mid-European fields, the organic preservative treated and thermally modified wood performs equally poor but much better than the controls. The best compliance between field performance and laboratory test results is obtained when comparing the average results from the field tests with results from EN 113 tests with Poria placenta after natural preconditioning according to CEN/TS 15397.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings IRG Annual Meeting 2013
Publication statusPublished - 2013
MoE publication typeB3 Non-refereed article in conference proceedings
Event44th IRG Annual Meeting 2013, IRG44 - Stockholm, Sweden
Duration: 16 Jun 201320 Jun 2013

Publication series

SeriesProceedings IRG Annual Meeting

Conference

Conference44th IRG Annual Meeting 2013, IRG44
CountrySweden
CityStockholm
Period16/06/1320/06/13
OtherAnnual Meeting of the International Research Group on Wood Protection

Fingerprint

preservative treated wood
testing
preservatives
Rhodonia placenta
compliance
leaching
Pinus
metals
methodology
water
laboratory experimentation

Keywords

  • EN 113
  • CENT/TS 15397
  • EN 84
  • double layer test
  • thermally modified wood
  • organic preservative
  • CCA action

Cite this

Westin, M., Conti, E., Creemers, J., Flæte, P-O., Gellerich, A., Irbe, I., ... Viitanen, H. (2013). Report on COST E37 Round Robin Tests: Comparison of results from laboratory and field tests. In Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting 2013 [IRG/WP 13-20535] Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting
Westin, M. ; Conti, E. ; Creemers, J. ; Flæte, P.-O. ; Gellerich, A. ; Irbe, I. ; Klamer, M. ; Mazela, B. ; Melcher, E. ; Möller, R. ; Nunes, L. ; Palanti, S. ; Reinprecht, L. ; Suttie, E. ; Viitanen, Hannu. / Report on COST E37 Round Robin Tests : Comparison of results from laboratory and field tests. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting 2013. 2013. (Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting).
@inproceedings{1c5dd60fac1549a29d9afcf28d070abe,
title = "Report on COST E37 Round Robin Tests: Comparison of results from laboratory and field tests",
abstract = "A round robin involving 15 European participants was set up in 2006. The round robin consists of both a field test according to the double layer test method and a laboratory test with two different preconditioning methods. When comparing EN 84 preconditioning (two weeks water leaching) with natural preconditioning (1 year in field, above ground) according to CEN/TS 15397, no significant difference could be noted for untreated controls, thermally modified wood or CCA impregnated wood. However, for wood treated with a metal-free organic preservative, a clear difference could be seen where much of the efficacy seen after EN 84 preconditioning is lost when natural preconditioning is used instead. In the field tests, the control pine performs similar in all fields whereas both thermally modified and preservative treated wood performs much better in the Nordic fields than in the mid- and southern European fields. The thermally modified wood performs almost as poor as the controls in the Southern European fields, whereas the organic preservative treated wood performs well in these fields. In the six mid-European fields, the organic preservative treated and thermally modified wood performs equally poor but much better than the controls. The best compliance between field performance and laboratory test results is obtained when comparing the average results from the field tests with results from EN 113 tests with Poria placenta after natural preconditioning according to CEN/TS 15397.",
keywords = "EN 113, CENT/TS 15397, EN 84, double layer test, thermally modified wood, organic preservative, CCA action",
author = "M. Westin and E. Conti and J. Creemers and P.-O. Fl{\ae}te and A. Gellerich and I. Irbe and M. Klamer and B. Mazela and E. Melcher and R. M{\"o}ller and L. Nunes and S. Palanti and L. Reinprecht and E. Suttie and Hannu Viitanen",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
series = "Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting",
booktitle = "Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting 2013",

}

Westin, M, Conti, E, Creemers, J, Flæte, P-O, Gellerich, A, Irbe, I, Klamer, M, Mazela, B, Melcher, E, Möller, R, Nunes, L, Palanti, S, Reinprecht, L, Suttie, E & Viitanen, H 2013, Report on COST E37 Round Robin Tests: Comparison of results from laboratory and field tests. in Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting 2013., IRG/WP 13-20535, Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, 44th IRG Annual Meeting 2013, IRG44, Stockholm, Sweden, 16/06/13.

Report on COST E37 Round Robin Tests : Comparison of results from laboratory and field tests. / Westin, M.; Conti, E.; Creemers, J.; Flæte, P.-O.; Gellerich, A.; Irbe, I.; Klamer, M.; Mazela, B.; Melcher, E.; Möller, R.; Nunes, L.; Palanti, S.; Reinprecht, L.; Suttie, E.; Viitanen, Hannu.

Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting 2013. 2013. IRG/WP 13-20535 (Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference article in proceedingsScientific

TY - GEN

T1 - Report on COST E37 Round Robin Tests

T2 - Comparison of results from laboratory and field tests

AU - Westin, M.

AU - Conti, E.

AU - Creemers, J.

AU - Flæte, P.-O.

AU - Gellerich, A.

AU - Irbe, I.

AU - Klamer, M.

AU - Mazela, B.

AU - Melcher, E.

AU - Möller, R.

AU - Nunes, L.

AU - Palanti, S.

AU - Reinprecht, L.

AU - Suttie, E.

AU - Viitanen, Hannu

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - A round robin involving 15 European participants was set up in 2006. The round robin consists of both a field test according to the double layer test method and a laboratory test with two different preconditioning methods. When comparing EN 84 preconditioning (two weeks water leaching) with natural preconditioning (1 year in field, above ground) according to CEN/TS 15397, no significant difference could be noted for untreated controls, thermally modified wood or CCA impregnated wood. However, for wood treated with a metal-free organic preservative, a clear difference could be seen where much of the efficacy seen after EN 84 preconditioning is lost when natural preconditioning is used instead. In the field tests, the control pine performs similar in all fields whereas both thermally modified and preservative treated wood performs much better in the Nordic fields than in the mid- and southern European fields. The thermally modified wood performs almost as poor as the controls in the Southern European fields, whereas the organic preservative treated wood performs well in these fields. In the six mid-European fields, the organic preservative treated and thermally modified wood performs equally poor but much better than the controls. The best compliance between field performance and laboratory test results is obtained when comparing the average results from the field tests with results from EN 113 tests with Poria placenta after natural preconditioning according to CEN/TS 15397.

AB - A round robin involving 15 European participants was set up in 2006. The round robin consists of both a field test according to the double layer test method and a laboratory test with two different preconditioning methods. When comparing EN 84 preconditioning (two weeks water leaching) with natural preconditioning (1 year in field, above ground) according to CEN/TS 15397, no significant difference could be noted for untreated controls, thermally modified wood or CCA impregnated wood. However, for wood treated with a metal-free organic preservative, a clear difference could be seen where much of the efficacy seen after EN 84 preconditioning is lost when natural preconditioning is used instead. In the field tests, the control pine performs similar in all fields whereas both thermally modified and preservative treated wood performs much better in the Nordic fields than in the mid- and southern European fields. The thermally modified wood performs almost as poor as the controls in the Southern European fields, whereas the organic preservative treated wood performs well in these fields. In the six mid-European fields, the organic preservative treated and thermally modified wood performs equally poor but much better than the controls. The best compliance between field performance and laboratory test results is obtained when comparing the average results from the field tests with results from EN 113 tests with Poria placenta after natural preconditioning according to CEN/TS 15397.

KW - EN 113

KW - CENT/TS 15397

KW - EN 84

KW - double layer test

KW - thermally modified wood

KW - organic preservative

KW - CCA action

M3 - Conference article in proceedings

T3 - Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting

BT - Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting 2013

ER -

Westin M, Conti E, Creemers J, Flæte P-O, Gellerich A, Irbe I et al. Report on COST E37 Round Robin Tests: Comparison of results from laboratory and field tests. In Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting 2013. 2013. IRG/WP 13-20535. (Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting).