Resistance of modified wood to marine borers

André Klüppel, Simon M. Cragg, Holger Militz, Carsten Mai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

247 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The resistance of differently modified wood to the common shipworm, Teredo navalis, and the wood boring crustacean, Limnoria quadripunctata, was assessed in a field trial and by means of a short term laboratory assay, respectively. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) sapwood was treated with TEOS (tetra-ethoxy-ortho-silane) and different thermosetting resins, namely phenol formaldehyde (PF) and methylated melamine formaldehyde (MMF). Additionally, acetylated and untreated Radiata pine (Pinus radiata) was included. In the field trial according to EN 275 in the Baltic Sea over a period of six years the specimens were exclusively attacked by T. navalis. For the laboratory assay, matchstick-sized samples cut from spare panels prepared for the field trial were subjected to individuals of L. quadripunctata; faecal pellet production served as a measure of feeding rate. Treatments that prevented shipworm attack in the field also reduced feeding of L. quadripunctata in the laboratory assay: efficacy of resin treatments was enhanced by parameters that increase the amount of resin in the cell wall (i.e. high WPG and dry curing conditions); acetylation resulted in high resistance; and TEOS treatment was not effective. The results suggest that modification on cell wall level is required to impart marine borer resistance.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)8-14
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Biodeterioration & Biodegradation
Volume104
Early online date20 May 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2015

Keywords

  • acetylation
  • EN 275
  • laboratory assay
  • Limnoria
  • leaching
  • melamine formaldehyde
  • phenol formaldehyde
  • shipworm
  • silicate
  • Teredo navalis
  • wood modification

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Resistance of modified wood to marine borers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this