Copper naphthenate - protecting America’s infrastructure for over 100 years and its potential for expanded use in Canada and Europe

References

• AASHTO (2013) Standard Specification for Preservatives and Pressure Treatment Processes for Timber. AASHTO Designation: M 133-12 (Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials), p. 7.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, K. and Preston, A. (2007) An overview of copper-based wood preservatives. In H. M. Barnes (ed.), Wood Protection 2006 (Madison, WI: Forest Products Society), c2007. http://www.forestprod.org/woodprotection06archer.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Arsenault, R. D. (1973) Factors influencing effectiveness of preservative systems. In D. D. Nicholas (ed.), Wood Deterioration and its Prevention by Preservative Treatments (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press), pp. 121–278.
   Google Scholar
• ASTM (2008) Method D 3345-08. Standard Test Method for Laboratory Evaluation of Wood and Other Cellulosic Materials for Resistance to Termites (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International). www.astm.org).
   Google Scholar
• Avis, T. J. and Bélanger, R. R. (2001) Specificity and mode of action of the antifungal fatty acid cis-9-Heptadecenoic acid Produced by Pseudozyma flocculosa. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67(2), 956–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AWPA (1950) Report of committee P-4, non-standard preservatives. . Proceedings of the American Wood-Protection Association, 46, 33–49.
   Google Scholar
• AWPA (2016) Standard P36 – Standard for Copper Naphthenate. Book of Standards (Birmingham, AL: American Wood Protection Association).
   Google Scholar
• AWPA (2017) Standard E10: Laboratory Method for Evaluating the Decay Resistance of Wood-Based Materials Against Pure Basidiomycete Cultures: Soil/Block Test. Book of Standards (Birmingham, AL: American Wood Protection Association).
   Google Scholar
• AWPA (2018) Standard Field Test for Evaluation of Field-Cut Preservatives to be Used Above Ground (UC3B): Modified Post and Rail Test (Birmingham, AL: American Wood Protection Association).
   Google Scholar
• AWPA (2019) Standard U1 - Use Category System: User Specification for Treated Wood. Book of Standards (Birmingham, AL: American Wood Protection Association).
   Google Scholar
• Baechler, R. H. and Gjovik, L. R. (1986) Looking back at 75 years of research in wood preservation at the U.S. Forest products Laboratory. Proceedings of the American Wood-Preservation Association, 82, 133–149.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, H. M., Amburgey, T. L., Sanders, M. G. and Lindsey, G. B. (2011) Supplemental treatments for timber bridge components. For. Prod. J., 61(6), 450–458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, H. M., Freeman, M. H., Brient, J. A. and Kerr, Jr. C. N. (2000) Serviceability of copper naphthenate-treated poles. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 00-30214.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, H. M., Sanders, M. G. and Amburgey, T. L. (2003) Field testing of copper carboxylate preservatives. International research group on wood preservation, Document No. IRG/WP 03-30322, 6 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, G. (1975) The effects of some organic acids on different termite species. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 33(2), 57–61.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, J. and Hopkins, S. (2008) A qualitative economic impact assessment of alternatives to pentachlorophenol as a wood preservative. USEPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 2, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Blew, J. O. (1946) Preservatives for wood poles: emergency alternative methods for the standard coal-tar creosote treatment. Report No. R1693. April 1946. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 9 p.
   Google Scholar
• BPR (2012) Consultation on potential candidates for substitution. Biocidal Products Regulation (EU) 528/2012. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). https://echa.europa.eu/public-consultation-on-potential-candidates-for-substitution/-/substance-rev/24301/term.
   Google Scholar
• Brient, J. A. (2014) Copper naphthenate treatment for wood crossties and timbers. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 14-30647.
   Google Scholar
• Brient, J. A. (2015): A bridge not too far: copper naphthenate treated Softwoods for bridge ties. Proceedings of the American Wood-Preservation Association, 101, 112–115.
   Google Scholar
• Brient, J. A. (2016) Copper naphthenate treated wood – a review and regulatory update. In Proceedings, Canadian Wood Preservation Association, 37th Annual Meeting (Vancouver, BC), pp. 101–108.
   Google Scholar
• Brient, J. A. and Freeman, M. H. (2004) Copper naphthenate update. Proceedings of the American Wood-Preservation Association, 100, 106–118.
   Google Scholar
• Brient, J. A. and Webb, D. (2002) The performance of copper naphthenate ties in service. Proceedings of the American Wood-Preservation Association, 98, 112–115.
   Google Scholar
• Brient, J A., Wessner, P J. and Doyle, M. N. (1995): Naphthenic acids. In J. I. Kroschwitz (ed.) Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4th ed., (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) 16, pp. 1017–1029.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, K. M. (2003) Literature review, computer model and assessment of the potential environmental risks associated with copper naphthenate treated wood products used in aquatic environments. Technical report prepared for Merichem Chemicals & Refinery Services LLC. (Houston, Texas USA). 23 p. https://preservedwood.org/portals/0/documents/archive/CN_Risk_Assessment.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, K. M. (2004) The effects of dissolved copper on salmon and the environmental effects associated with the use of wood preservatives in aquatic environments. Technical report prepared for the Western Wood Preservers Institute, Vancouver, Washington 98665. 20 p. https://preservedwood.org/portals/0/documents/archive/Brookscopperreview12162004.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• CFR (1988) United States Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CRF 152.160-152.175. Source: 53 FR 15986, May 4, 1988. See also https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/restricted-use-products-rup-report.
   Google Scholar
• CFR (2018) United States Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CRF 1201 - Railroad Companies.
   Google Scholar
• CFR (2020) United States Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CRF 261.31 – Hazardous wastes from non-specific sources; and 40 CRF 261.32 – Hazardous wastes from specific sources.
   Google Scholar
• Clausen, C., Coleman, R. D. and Yang, V. W. (2010) Fatty acid–based formulations for wood protection against mold and sapstain. Forest Prod. J., 60(3), 301–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cookson, L. J. (2013) 40 year results from the largest preservative in-ground stake trial conducted in Australia. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 13-30624.
   Google Scholar
• Corselli, A. (2020) Ties that bind. Railway Age, March 10, 2020 issue.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, D. M., Woodward, B. M. and Hatfield, C. A. (2002) Comparison of wood preservatives in stake tests. Progress Report. Res. Note FPL-RN-02. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 120 p.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, H. L. (1977) Comparison of wood preservatives in Mississippi Post Study (1977 Progress Report). FPL-RN-01. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Madison, WI. 17 p.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, C. G. (1958) Studies of the methodology of soil block testing. USDA Forest Service Report 2114, 108-121.
   Google Scholar
• Earle, E. (1838) Improvements in the mode of preserving timber. U.S. patent number 934, issued September 20, 1838.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, M. H., Crawford, D., Lebow, P. and Brient, J. A. (2005): A comparison of wood preservatives in posts in southern Mississippi: results from A half-Decade of testing. Proceedings of the American Wood-Preservation Association, 101, 136–143.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, M. H. and McIntyre, C. R. (2008) A comprehensive review of copper-based wood preservatives with a focus on new micronized or dispersed copper systems. Forest Products Journal, 58(11), 6–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freitag, C. and Morrell, J. (2011) Potential influence of biodiesel as a co-solvent on the performance of copper naphthenate. Proc. American Wood Protection Association, 107, 67–80.
   Google Scholar
• Gauntt, J. C. (2019) Economic and alternative preservative research with overview of North American Wood Tie Market Dynamics. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 19-30751.
   Google Scholar
• Grace, J. K., Yamamoto, R. T. and Laks, P. E. (1993) Evaluation of the termite resistance of wood pressure treated with copper naphthenate. Forest Products Journal, 43(11-12), 72–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, F. and Clausen, C. A. (2005): copper tolerance of brown-rot fungi: Oxalic acid production in southern pine treated with arsenic-free preservatives. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 56, 75–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenier, J. S. and Lebow, S. (2006) Preservative-treated wood and alternative products in the forest service. United States Department of Agriculture, Technology & Development Program, Publication No. 0667-2809P-MTDC.
   Google Scholar
• Hajlaoui, M. R., Benhamou, N. and Bélanger, R. R. (1992) Cytochemical study of the antagonistic activity of Sporothrix flocculosa on rose powdery mildew, Sphaerotheca pannosa var. rosae. Phytopathology, 82, 583–589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hundhausen, U., Mahnert, K.-C., Gellerich, A. and Militz, H. (2014) CreoSub – New protection technology to substitute creosote in railway sleepers, timber bridges, and utility poles. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 14-30644.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. H., Cho, H., Ryu, S. E. and Choi, M. U. (2000) Effects of metal ions on the activity of protein tyrosine phosphatase VHR: highly potent and reversible oxidative inactivation by Cu 2+ ion. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 382(1), 72–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krzyzewski, J. (1977) Performance of preserved railway ties. eastern forest products lab report OPX183E. Fisheries and Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada. 43 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Laughlin, K. (2020) Personal communication. Nisus Corporation. Rockford, TN USA.
   Google Scholar
• Lebow, S. T. and Tippie, M. (2001) Guide for minimizing the effect of preservative-treated wood on sensitive environments. General Technical Report. FPL-GTR-122. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Lebow, S. T., Zelinka, S. L., Arango, R. A., Woodward, B. M., Lebow, P. K., Ohno, K. M. and Chotlos, N. P. (2017) Evaluation of nonpressure wood preservatives for military applications. Research Paper FPL–RP–693. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 30 p.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, J. (2020) Personal communication. Nisus Corporation. Rockford, TN USA.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, J., Brischke, C., Bennett, R. and Taylor, A. (2017) Dual Borate and copper naphthenate treatment of bridge timbers – potential performance enhancements and cost savings. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 17-40797.
   Google Scholar
• Lombard, B. and Kubiczki, J. (2011) Research-synthesis of wood treatment alternatives for timber railroad structures – Final Report. HWA-NH-RD-15680I. Prepared by the NHDOT, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, P., Greathouse, G., Bollenbacher, K. and Butler, M. (1944) Copper soaps as rot-proofing agents for fabrics. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 36(2), 176–181.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, P. B., Greathouse, G. A., Butler, M. L. and Bollenbacher, H. (1945) Testing fabrics for resistance to mildew and rot. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 892. June 1945. 24 pp.
   Google Scholar
• McIntyre, C. R. (2000a) Copper naphthenate performance: A new way to look at old data. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 00-30215.
   Google Scholar
• McIntyre, C. R. (2000b) The performance of copper naphthenate. Sixth International Conference on Utility Line Structures. EDM International, Fort Collins, CO. March 20-22, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• McIntyre, C. R. and Freeman, M. H. (2002) Copper naphthenate – an update on new trends and changes in the last decade. Proc., Northeast Pole Conference, Binghamton, New York, USA.
   Google Scholar
• McKillop, N. A. (2014) Evaluating the effect of biodiesel on the efficacy of the wood preservative copper naphthenate. MSc. Thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Morrell, J. J., Clauson, M. and Love, C. S. (2011) Effect of initial preservative treatment on electrical conductivity in Douglas-fir pole Sections. Forest Products Journal, 61(1), 28–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, P. I. and McAfee, B. J. (1992) Pretreatment infection and premature failure of PCP-treated southern pine Poles. Proceedings of the Canadian Wood Preservers Association, 13, 73–90.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholas, D. D. (1988) The influence of formulations on wood preservative performance. Proceedings of the American Wood-Preservation Association, 84, 178–184.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholas, D. D. and Freeman, M. H. (2000) A comparison of pentachlorophenol and copper naphthenate in long term field stake tests. Proc. International Conference on Utility Line Structures, March 2000, Ft. Collins, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholas, D D, Henry, W P, Vasishth, R C (1997). The role of copper in wood preservation. Chapter 8, In H. W. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Copper Compounds and Applications (New York: Marcel Dekker), pp. 163–176.
   Google Scholar
• Nisus Corporation (2020) QNAP2. https://nisuscorp.com/product/qnap2#single-resources.
   Google Scholar
• Ohsumi, Y., Kitamoto, K. and Anraku, Y. (1988) Changes induced in the permeability barrier of the yeast plasma membrane by cupric ion. Journal of Bacteriology, 170(6), 2676–2682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrett, J. (2020) Personal communication. Wheeler Lumber. Whitewood, SD.
   Google Scholar
• Parker Rhodes, A. F. (1941) Studies on the mechanism of fungicidal action I. Preliminary investigation of nickel, copper, zinc, silver and mercury. Annals of Applied Biology, 28(4), 389–405.
   Google Scholar
• Presley, G., Sinha, A., Cappellazzi, J. and Konkler, M. (2019) Oregon State University Utility Pole Research Cooperative (UPRC). Department of Wood Science & Engineering, Oregon Wood Innovation Center. 39th Annual Report.
   Google Scholar
• Ragon, K. W., Shupe, T., Wu, Q., Donohoe, P. and Freeman, M. (2010): The electrical properties of treated wood with a focus on utility pole conductivity: part II. Proc. American Wood-Protection Assoc., 106, 153–167.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, H. W. (1997): Copper fungicides/bactericides. Chapter 5, in H. W. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Copper Compounds and Applications (New York: Marcel Dekker), pp. 95–122.
   Google Scholar
• RUS (2013) Wood pole inspection and maintenance. Bulletin 1730B-121. United Sates Department of Agriculture – Rural Utilities Service. 20 p.
   Google Scholar
• Rust-Oleum Corporation (2019) Safety data sheets for WolmanTM Woodlife® CopperCoatTM Green Wood Preservative (Product Identifier 1904A) and CreoCoatTM Black Wood Preservative (Product Identifier 14436A). https://www.rustoleum.com/en/product-catalog/consumer-brands/wolman/woodlife-coppercoat.
   Google Scholar
• Sagripanti, J. L., Goering, P. L. and Lamanna, A. (1991) Interaction of copper with DNA and antagonism by other metals. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 110(3), 477–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz, T. P. and Nicholas, D. D. (2009) Short- and long-term ground-contact decay efficacies of three copper-organic systems and possible implications for standardization criteria for copper-based systems. Forest Products Journal, 59(5), 13–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, S. S. and Dietz, K. J. (2009) The relationship between metal toxicity and cellular redox imbalance. Trends in Plant Science, 14(1), 43–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, J. L. (1994) Results of test activity on a water-borne copper naphthenate wood preservation system. Proceedings American Wood Preservers Association, 90, 385–392.
   Google Scholar
• Shupe, T. F., Wu, Q. and Freeman, M. (2011) Effect of preservative type and Gaff Style on Gaff Penetration into wood Poles. Proceedings American Wood-Protection Association, 107, 150–152.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, T., Page, D. and Bennett, A. (2014) Effectiveness of on-site remediation treatments for framing timber. International Biodeterioration Biodegradation, 86, 136–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. T. (2019) 2018 railroad Tie survey. Journal of Transportation Technologies, 9, 276–286.
   Google Scholar
• SnoPUD (2013) The copper naphthenate pole experience. Snohomish County (WA) Public Utility District (SnoPUD). Presented to the Northwest Public Power Association Environmental Task Force meeting, September 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, R., Ingram, J., Wong, D. and Morris, P. (2017) Field Testing in Canada XXVI: Posts and Poles. Submitted to the Canadian Wood Preservation Association, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario. October 25-26, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, R. and Wong, D. (2019) Performance of field cut preservatives above-ground and in ground contact exposures. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 19-30742.
   Google Scholar
• Sutter, H. P., Jones, E. B. G. and Walchli, O. (1983) The mechanism of copper tolerance in Poria placenta (Fr.) Cke. and Poria vaillantii (Pers.) Fr. Material und Organismen, 18, 241–262.
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (2007/2008) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Reregistration Eligibility Decision for: Copper and Zinc Naphthenate Salts (2007; Case 3099); Creosote (2008; Case 0139); Chromated Arsenicals (2008; Case 0132); Pentachlorophenol (2008; Case 2505).
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (2011) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Registration Numbers 64405-15 (QNAP5W waterborne copper naphthenate concentrate) and 64405-16 (QNAP8 oil-borne copper naphthenate concentrate), both registered to Nisus Corporation, Rockford, TN USA. http://npirspublic.ceris.purdue.edu/ppis/http://npirspublic.ceris.purdue.edu/ppis/.
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (2017) Overview of Wood Preservative Chemicals. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/overview-wood-preservative-chemicals#:~:text=Copper%20azole%20is%20a%20water,paintable%20surface%20after%20they%20dry.
   Google Scholar
• Wacker, J. P. and Crawford, D. M. (2003) Extending service life of timber with preservatives. Proc. 19th U.S. – Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop. U.S. – Japan Natural Resource panel on Wind and Seismic Effects (M. Ishida and M, Shirato, editors), Tsukuba, Japan, October 27-30, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Westin, M., Rapp, A. O., Hadi, Y. S. and Nilsson, T. (2002) Field trials with mini-stakes. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting, International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 02-02044.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, R. S. (2010) Chapter 16 – Finished Wood. In: Ross R J (Ed.): Forest Products Laboratory Wood Handbook – Wood As An Engineering Material. General T Report FPL-GTR-190. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Products Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Wirka, R. M. (1941) Comparison of preservatives in Mississippi fence post study. Proceedings of the American Wood-Preservation Association, 37, 365–379.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, B. M., Hatfield, C. A. and Lebow, S. T. (2011) Com­parison of wood preservatives in Stake Tests: 2011 Progress Report. Research Note FPL-RN-02. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 120 p.
   Google Scholar
• Xue, W., Kennepohl, P. and Ruddick, J. (2014) Chemistry of copper preservative treated wood. Proceedings IRG Annual Meeting. International Research Group on Wood Protection Document No. IRG/WP 14–30651.
   Google Scholar