Wood Protection Research 

Council

Research Priorities 2013

Carol A. Clausen

Frederick Green III

Grant T. Kirker

Stan T. Lebow

General Technical Report 

FPL–GTR–232

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Forest Products

Laboratory

August

2014
August 2014

Clausen, Carol A.; Green III, Federick; Kirker, Grant T.; Lebow, Stan T.

2014. Wood protection research council—research priorities 2013. 

General Technical Report FPL-GTR-232. Madison, WI: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 8 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

This report summarizes presentations and comments from 

the inaugural Wood Protection Research Council meeting. 

Research needs for the wood protection industry were identified and prioritized. Methods for successfully addressing 

research needs were discussed by industry, academia, and 

association representatives.

Keywords: Wood protection, durability, biodeterioration, 

accelerated testing, molecular ID, decay fungi, preservation, 

nanotechnology

Contents

Contributors.................................................................. 1

Executive Summary...................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................... 2

Objectives ..................................................................... 3

Research Summary ....................................................... 3

Purpose of Report ......................................................... 5

Discussion Framework.................................................. 6

Prioritized Research Needs........................................... 6

Collaborative Opportunities.......................................... 6

References..................................................................... 7

Appendix—WPRC Agenda .......................................... 8
Wood Protection Research Council

Research Priorities 2013

Carol A. Clausen, Supervisory Research Microbiologist

Frederick Green III, Research Microbiologist

Grant T. Kirker, Research Forest Products Technologist

Stan T. Lebow, Research Forest Products Technologist 

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Contributors

• Amy Blodgett, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• Bessie Woodward, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• Carol Clausen, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• Colin McCown, American Wood Protection Association, 

Birmingham, Alabama

• Dallin Brooks, Western Wood Preservers’ Institute, 

Vancouver, Washington

• Dan Imholte, Bell Lumber and Pole Company, 

New Brighton, Minnesota

• Dave Webb, Creosote Council, Butler, Pennsylvania

• David Clemens, Wheeler Lumber, LLC, Des Moines, 

Iowa

• Dragica Jeremic, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• Frederick Green III, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• Grant Kirker, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• H. Michael Barnes, Mississippi State University, 

Mississipi State, Mississipi

• Jeff Miller, Treated Wood Council, Washington, D.C.

• Jeremy Williams, Timber Products Inspection Inc., 

Conyers, Georgia

• Jim Gauntt, Railway Tie Association, Fayetteville, 

Georgia

• Jim Herdon, Hoover Treated Wood Products, Inc., 

Thomson, Georgia

• John Horton, Osmose, Inc., Griffin, Georgia

• Jonathan Schilling, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 

Minnesota

• Jun Zhang, Osmose, Inc., Griffin, Georgia

• Katie Jenkins, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• Kevin Archer, Viance, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina

• Kevin Ragon, Southern Pressure Treater’s Association, 

Starkville, Mississippi

• Lehong Jin, Viance, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina

• Mark Mankowski, American Wood Protection 

Association, Birmingham, Alabama

• Mike Freemen, Wood consultant, Memphis, Tennessee

• Patrick Schleisman, Hoover Treated Wood Products, Inc., 

Thomson, Georgia

• Peter Laks, Michigan Technological University, 

Houghton, Michigan

• Rachel Arango, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• Richard Ziobro, Osmose, Inc., Griffin, Georgia

• Sarah Dunlavy, Bell Lumber and Pole Company, New 

Brighton, Minnesota

• Stan Lebow, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, 

Wisconsin

• Steve Halverson, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

• Steve Shields, Lonza Wood Protection, Atlanta, Georgia 

• Susan Diehl, Mississippi State University, Mississipi 

State, Mississipi

• Susan Thomason, Lonza Wood Protection, Atlanta, 

Georgia 

• Ted Ladoux, Western Wood Preservers’ Institute, 

Vancouver, Washington

• Vicki Worden, Worden Associates, Camden, Maine

• Vina Yang, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin

Executive Summary

Almost 400 million cubic feet of preservative-treated wood 

is produced and consumed in the United States annually, 

with residential applications representing a significant percentage of the treated wood market. Since historic changes 

in 2004 with the voluntary withdrawal of chromated copper 

arsenate from residential applications, the wood preservation industry has undergone more than a decade of dynamic 

changes. There have been market-changing challenges with 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–232

2

corrosion, environmental concerns, preservative tolerance 

by decay fungi, and mold growth on treated products along 

with fears that replacement preservative systems may face 

environmental scrutiny. Societal pressures for environmentally compatible preservatives are difficult to solve swiftly 

because it takes many years to conduct long-term performance evaluations to vet a new preservative. Improved 

methods are needed to more rapidly assess the potential for 

a preservative to provide long-term protection from decay 

and insects. As part of the mission of the Forest Service, 

viable treatment options for non-traditional, underutilized 

wood species are needed to develop value-added markets 

for woody biomass to reduce the wildfire hazard. 

Chemicals used to protect wood from deterioration by fungi 

and insects have generally been broad-spectrum biocides 

that have been discovered by the traditional screening approach. A more logical approach is the development of 

selective and targeted biocides by defining the target first, 

characterizing that target, and then designing inhibitors 

based on the mechanism of action of the defined biotarget. 

Despite substantial progress in elucidating the biochemistry 

of wood degradation, biochemical targets for fungal inhibition have seldom been described. Discovering the mechanism of preservative tolerance(s) in economically important 

fungi and insects will enable us to design preservative systems that neutralize, block, prevent, and eliminate the preservative tolerance. Development of a genetic database of 

microbial activity during the process of wood deterioration 

will give us a better understanding of the microbial ecology 

of in vivo biodeterioration; in other words, precisely how 

and when decay or insect attack is initiated. A molecular 

database would provide a myriad of capabilities to the wood 

preservation community. For example, researchers could 

characterize decay risks for a particular location, define the 

prevalence of tolerant fungi on a national and international 

basis, and determine the influence of preservative exposure 

on the ecology at test plots. The next generation of novel 

wood protection methods may incorporate nanotechnology for design and/or controlled delivery of biocides for 

improved durability of building materials, with an emphasis 

on engineered composites. Nanotechnology may also play 

a vital role in the development of water-resistant coatings 

and treatments for the prevention of fire. Results from basic 

research on genetic analysis, biochemical processes, nanotechnology, and characterization of biotargets will lead to 

technological developments that extend the service life of 

wood and wood-based materials in all major end uses emphasizing environmentally friendly methods.

To this end, the USDA Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) 

hosted a 1-day meeting aimed at identifying the current 

research needs of the wood preservation industry and fostering collaborative efforts to partner in those research needs. 

Comprising the Wood Protection Research Council (WPCR) 

were representatives from the wood preservation and forest 

products industries, affiliated associations, and universities 

with forest products curricula. These stakeholders encompassed representation from research and development, manufacturing, distributing, treating, and product oversight and 

consumers of treated wood products. This report provides 

a summary of the critical and current research needs of the 

wood protection community expressed by the presenters and 

attendees of the WPCR.

Introduction

An important limitation to the selection of wood as a building material, and a prime cause of user dissatisfaction, is its 

vulnerability to biodeterioration by fungi and insects under 

certain conditions of storage and use. Efforts to protect 

wood from biological degradation are among the earliest 

research at the Forest Products Laboratory. This research 

has successfully reduced the demand for lumber from our 

National Forests by reducing the need to repeatedly replace 

existing wood products.

Wood protection has undergone dynamic changes since the 

industry voluntarily withdrew CCA from most residential 

uses and new products were introduced to the marketplace. 

To bring a new preservative to the marketplace, a considerable amount of performance data need to be obtained. Current laboratory methodologies to determine the durability of 

test specimens are insufficient, and long-term field testing is 

required to ensure that a treatment is effective. Improved accelerated test methods to predict performance would reduce 

the time needed for the development and acceptance of new 

preservatives. Potential improvements for accelerated testing may include selection of test fungi, techniques to detect 

incipient stages of fungal decay, methods to properly assess 

durability of wood plastic composites, use of rapid laboratory bioassays for screening, statistical analysis, and field 

tests that could measure loss in mechanical properties.

Targeted protection systems and novel advances in wood 

protection from nanotechnology could replace the broad 

spectrum biocides traditionally used to inhibit decay fungi. 

The most logical approach to develop targeted biocides is to 

take advantage of unique physiological attributes of decay 

fungi, such as their ability to sequester metals through production of oxalic acid or natural tolerance to preservatives. 

Discerning and describing these mechanisms may enable 

us to design specific, targeted inhibitors to control decay 

and circumvent preservative tolerances that are common in 

brown-rot basidiomycetes. 

Repair costs associated with structural damage caused by 

Formosan (Coptotermes formosanus) and Eastern subterranean (Reticulitermes flavipes) termites and protection 

measures to prevent termite damage are now estimated 

to exceed $10 billion annually. Economic losses resulting 

from the northward spread of major species of subterranean 

termites are projected to grow because of changes in climate, underscoring the importance of protecting structural 
Wood Protection Research Council—Research Priorities 2013

3

building components from this pest through the development of environmentally safe and effective biocides. There 

are already ecologically important indicators that changes 

in climate are affecting subterranean termite habitat. An 

understanding of colony behavior, distribution patterns, 

and characteristics of colony decline will hasten dispersal 

mitigation efforts. Basic research on the role of microbes 

in termite colony health could lead to targeted treatments 

for termite infestations for in-service wood products. New 

techniques for delivering baits that target the colony, such 

as trap, treat, and release (TTR) offer alternatives to current 

methods that rely on repellants and barriers. Targeted baiting 

would be environmentally advantageous as the effective rate 

of treatment uses much lower quantities of termiticide than 

conventional methods. 

Objectives

The objectives of the Wood Protection Research Council 

(WPRC) were to 

• present the current wood protection research focus of 

Forest Products Laboratory,

• present the current research needs of associations 

affiliated with wood protection,

• identify areas of critical research needed by the wood 

protection community, and

• foster collaborative efforts among contributors of the 

WPRC to address critical research needs.

Research Summary

Following are summaries of research presentations 

(see Appendix).

Stan Lebow, Forest Products Laboratory 

One of the challenges in wood protection is predicting 

long-term performance with relatively short-term tests. Variability within exposure conditions, organisms present, and 

within the wood itself can make it difficult to design appropriate short-term tests or to interpret their results. Although 

a range of standard test methods are available, the extent 

of acceleration represented by these methods is not well 

understood. For example, the primary laboratory leaching 

method, which immerses small cubes is overly conservative 

and is difficult to relate to leaching from wood used aboveground. Research is being conducted to evaluate the use 

of simulated rainfall and larger specimens so that leaching 

results can be more readily related to in-service leaching 

conditions. Although stake tests have been used to evaluate 

wood preservative efficacy for many years, the role of stake 

size and test duration in predicting future performance are 

not well understood. Recent research suggests that the extent of acceleration achieved by using smaller stakes varies 

substantially, and that statistical modeling approaches show 

promise in better understanding the predictive value of stake 

tests. Methods of accelerated evaluation of above-ground 

durability have proven particularly challenging because 

exposure conditions vary so greatly. Continued research is 

needed to better understand the species of fungi responsible 

for above-ground degradation, as well as the moisture conditions that exist within in-service structures. 

Frederick Green, Forest Products Laboratory 

Targeted inhibition of fungal decay and termite damage are 

now within reach of wood protection research. Production 

of chitin synthetase inhibitors for control of subterranean 

termites represents proof of concept. Most brown-rot fungi 

that exhibit copper tolerance have a common underlying 

mechanism, which is oxalic acid production and precipitation of copper oxalate. Recent research at Forest Products 

Laboratory has described the key pathways and enzymes 

responsible for fungal oxalate production within the tricarboxylic acid and glyoxalate metabolic cycles. We plan to 

investigate the elimination of key pathways that will obviate 

copper tolerance, rendering this important group of decay 

fungi impotent. By similar means and methods, termites 

live in a subterranean environment conducive to the production of molds and other pathogenic microorganisms. 

Unregulated microbial growth should be harmful or fatal to 

termite colonies. We hypothesize that subterranean termites 

have evolved mechanisms to control overgrowth of bacteria, 

molds, and decay fungi. Interfering with the precise mechanisms of microbial control should result in multiple new avenues that will permit microbial overgrowth and elimination 

of the colony. Targeted molecules can readily be distributed 

by the social behavior and grooming activities of the termite 

colony. Proof of this concept is seen by the dusting of termites (trap, treat, and release) with N’N-hydroxylamine and 

collapse of an entire colony of R. flavipes in central Wisconsin (Green et al. 2014). We conclude that targeted inhibition of both fungi and termites can extend the service life 

of wood and wood products in an environmentally friendly 

manner while protecting and extending our sustainable natural resources.

Grant Kirker, Forest Products Laboratory

Improved and existing methodologies are being used for 

sensitive and accurate DNA-based detection and identification of wood associated fungi from a wide variety of substrates including treated wood. Currently, a procedure called 

terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis 

(commonly abbreviated as T-RFLP) is being used to create 

DNA-based profiles for characterization and identification 

of wood-decay fungi. T-RFLP has previously been used to 

identify fungi in above-ground test samples (Räberg et al. 

2009) and also to characterize changes in bacterial (Kirker 

et al. 2012a) and fungal (Kirker et al. 2012b) communities 

in treated wood. DNA fragment profiles are currently being created and compiled for wood-decay fungi commonly 

occurring on treated and untreated wood products. These 

profiles will be used to create a database for rapid diagnostic identification of common wood-decay fungi even from 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–232

4

mixed cultures. These tools are being developed to assist 

industry and private entities in routine identification of common wood-degrading fungi. Concurrently, data on biodiversity and distribution of wood-decay fungi from field stake 

surveys are being collected to provide better estimates of 

service life of wooden products in a given geographic region 

of North America by properly documenting the prevailing 

fungal species in a given climatic zone, which is mostly 

overlooked in most estimates of biodeterioration hazard 

classifications. 

Carol Clausen, Forest Products Laboratory

Advances in wood protection based on nanotechnology are 

being developed to improve resistance of wood products 

to biodeterioration, reduce environmental impacts from 

chemical leaching, and resist UV degradation. Nanoparticles of copper, zinc, boron, or silver were used to vacuum 

treat Southern Pine and evaluated for biological resistance, 

leach resistance, and photostability. Both nano ZnO and 

CuO were leach resistant, and nano ZnO particles provided 

photostability against UV degradation and acted as a termite toxicant. In a study on biocide encapsulation, it was 

demonstrated that an organic biocide could be encapsulated 

in a self-assembling hyperbranched nano-polymer matrix. 

Thermogravimetric analysis showed that a subsequent incremental increase in temperature would trigger the incremental release of the biocide. Nanopolymer matrices can be designed to hold on to an encapsulated biocide until a specific 

change in the physical environment, such as elevated heat 

or moisture, releases the encapsulated biocide. Another nanoencapsulation technology used inert nanotubules of clay 

loaded with organic biocides for targeted delivery and slow, 

controlled release of biocide. Biocide-loaded nanotubules 

inhibited mold growth on MDF, gypsum, and OSB. The 

unique properties of nanomaterials enable endless innovative improvements in the field of wood protection for surface treatments, pressure treatments, or as direct additives to 

furnish for engineered wood composites.

Jeff Miller, Treated Wood Council 

With funding from the Treated Wood Council, researchers 

conducted life-cycle assessments (LCAs) to evaluate the 

environmental impacts resulting from the growth, harvest, 

manufacture, use, and disposal of treated wood products in 

comparison to alternative construction materials. The LCAs 

were conducted in accordance with ISO standards, critically 

reviewed, and published in scientific journals. LCAs have 

been completed for ACQ-treated decking, borate-treated 

framing lumber, creosote treated railroad ties, pentachlorophenol-treated utility poles, CCA-treated marine piles, and 

CCA-treated guardrail systems. With few exceptions, treated 

wood compared favorably to alternative products across a 

range of impact categories. 

Kevin Ragon, Southern Pressure Treaters’ 

Association

The Southern Pressure Treaters’ Association (SPTA) is an 

organization that is made up of industrial wood preservers 

located east of the Rocky Mountains who produce industrial 

preservative-treated wood products that are critical to U.S. 

electrical, transportation, and industrial infrastructure. Because of the recent de-rating of the strength values of southern yellow pine (SYP) (Pinus spp.) lumber by the American 

Lumber Standards Committee, the producers of SYP poles 

wanted to conduct testing of the SYP pole resource to confirm that the strength values for SYP poles shown in ANSI 

O5.1, the national standard for wood poles, were still valid. 

SPTA conducted full-size destructive testing in cooperation 

with the Mississippi State University Forest Products Laboratory to obtain strength values for untreated green southern 

yellow pine poles following the cantilever test method in 

the ASTM D 1036 standard specified for the development 

of strength values by ANSI O5.1. These green poles were 

randomly selected from stock obtained throughout the SYP 

production range of eight states: Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North 

Carolina. Poles were placed in a fixture and a transverse 

load was applied and measured until failure. Measurements 

of horizontal deflection and longitudinal movement of the 

load point were recorded during each test. Based on the 

measured breaking loads, computations of the modulus of 

rupture (MOR), and the modulus of elasticity (MOE) were 

made. These green MOR strength values were adjusted 

downward for the strength reduction associated with conditioning prior to treatment in accordance with ANSI O5.1. 

The adjusted MOR strength value was above the 

8,000-lb/in2 value found in ANSI O5.1 for SYP. Although 

the average rate of growth of the test specimens was much 

higher than that of the specimens tested in the 1960’s, the 

limitations in the ANSI O5.1 standard on growth rate and 

summerwood percentage in each piece performed their intended function of ensuring that the poles produced to the 

standard today still exhibit the historic 8,000 lb/in2 MOR 

strength attributed to SYP poles.

Dallin Brooks, Western Wood Preservers’ 

Institute

The Western Wood Preservers’ Institute (WWPI) formed 

the Environmental Performance of Treated Wood Research 

Coop (TWRC), consisting of nine full members representing industry associations and chemical suppliers and 36 

associate members representing wood treaters. The TWRC 

conducted an extensive Best Management Practices (BMP) 

verification study using different combinations of wood 

species and preservatives to evaluate the effects of rainfall, 

coatings, snow, and pre-washing on preservative leaching 

and copper migration. Additional BMP verification tests 

have been initiated that will evaluate polycyclic aromatic 
Wood Protection Research Council—Research Priorities 2013

5

hydrocarbons (PAHs). A need exists for more demonstration 

projects using Screening Level Assessment and BMPs. In 

conjunction with Washington State Department of Transportation, WWPI conducted a study on the performance of 

CCA-treated hem-fir guardrail posts after 20 years in service 

compared to new posts. Performance properties included 

residual preservative retention, residual flexural strength, 

and decay analysis. Results from this study showed that 

most posts were properly treated and those that were properly treated had lower percent decay with fungi commonly 

detected in small decay pockets. Flexural properties were 

similar for new and used posts, and most posts exceeded 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) minimum standards.

Jim Gauntt, Railroad Tie Association

The Railroad Tie Association (RTA) was first organized in 

1919 in St. Louis, Missouri, to address timber conservation 

issues and develop tie and wood preservative standards. 

At that time, creosote and zinc chloride were the preservatives used to protect railroad ties. Today, the RTA has 3,334 

members and its mission is to improve wood life cycle 

costs. It regulates three tie-related specifications in conformance with AREMA and provides a forum to the public and 

members for the exchange of technical information. The 

biggest problem in 2013 facing the otherwise uneventful 

tie marketplace was supply, in part due to record rainfall in 

the southeastern U.S., a rebound in the housing market, and 

an increase in exports of U.S. hardwoods to China. It is expected to take 18‒24 months before the marketplace equalizes. Beyond regulations, the RTA also sponsors research 

projects. A current major research project on the economics 

of dual treatments has shown that dual treatment of ties with 

creosote and borate or copper naphthenate and borate led to 

a significant extension of tie service life even in areas where 

decay was the primary source of failure. In zone 5, the most 

severe decay hazard zone, where 95% of ties fail between 

8.5 and 25.5 years, dual treatment would extend service life 

to 18 to 54 years. Another significant research project sponsored by the RTA is the alternative wood research project 

(AWRP). The goal of the AWRP is to assess the relative 

performance of new and existing preservative systems in refractory and non-refractory wood species. Phase I included 

corrosion, decay, and termite resistance and dimensional stability at two field test sites with annual inspections up to 4 

years to date. Phase II will evaluate new treatment and process options. A variety of in-track treatments including gels, 

pastes, rods, pads, and sprays were evaluated for 14 years. 

Borate treatments in the form of rods placed in holes drilled 

on either end of the plate arrested decay and were very effective as was borate paste, fluoride pads, and copper–borate 

pads, but borate rods placed in unused spike holes was not 

effective at preventing decay. It was concluded that supplemental in-track treatments during normal maintenance 

would increase the service life of ties by arresting incipient 

decay and protecting against other wood destroying organisms. Supplemental in-track treatments would also increase 

the life of reused ties and minimize the spread of pests.

Dave Webb, Creosote Council

The Creosote Council focuses on product stewardship 

through their website, online educational materials for creosote treatment workers and long-term research projects such 

as the 1958 Creosote Co-op study and the Creosote Dermal 

study. Results of the Creosote Co-op study showed that representative creosotes P1/P13 and P2 gave excellent performance after 50 years in southern yellow pine posts treated to 

96 kg/m3 (6 lb/ft3). Good correlation between soil block test 

and long-term field tests suggested that laboratory tests with 

creosote systems were good predictors of field performance. 

The objective of the Creosote Dermal study was to estimate 

dermal absorption of creosote in humans using rats as a 

model and in vivo dermal exposures to both neat creosote 

and creosote-treated wood for 8 hours. The liquid creosote 

was spiked with 12C-PAH markers and determination of radioactivity in exposed rats showed maximum absorption 21 

days after dosing was 8.86%. Human absorption is 1/8 of rat 

absorption equating the results to a human creosote dermal 

absorption of 1.1%, an acceptable exposure according to 

the EPA. Eight-hour dermal exposure to P1/P13 treated pine 

and P2 treated red oak coupons resulted in a total absorbable dose in rats of 1.54% (= 0.19% in humans) for pine and 

1.81% (= 0.22% in humans) for red oak.

Colin McCown, American Wood Protection 

Association

The American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) was 

first organized in 1904 at the St. Louis World’s Fair primarily to develop standards for treated wood and secondarily 

as a forum for the technical exchange of information. It 

currently has 623 members, 17 committees, and 172 standards. AWPA is funded through membership dues, sales 

of standards, and sponsorships. The association holds two 

annual meetings: a scientific meeting with an emphasis on 

research and a technical meeting with an emphasis on committee meetings to address proposals, additions, revisions, 

deletions, and task force items. Forest Product Laboratory 

scientists play a critical role in the AWPA through service 

on committees, committee leadership, contributions to standards activities, unbiased participation in committee deliberations and proposals, research to develop evaluation methods, science delivery, assistance with the technical forum 

and meeting organization, and networking with academia, 

industry, treated wood specifiers, and end users. 

Purpose of the Report

This report summarizes feedback generated during the 

Wood Protection Research Council meeting, both from presenters and attendees, about critical research priorities. The 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–232

6

Council meeting was designed to foster informal candid 

discussion on research needs. The top three research 

priorities from individual attendees were solicited in written 

form to facilitate equal opportunity for attendees to express 

their opinion without conflict or feedback. The main objective is to document and rank those priorities and discuss 

how to address the priorities.

Discussion Framework

Participants were asked to openly discuss critical research 

needs. Examples of topics were offered to initiate the discussion, and participants were encouraged to suggest additional topics.

A facilitated discussion included the following topics: 

• Accelerated test procedures

• Expanded testing of new preservatives

• Minimum specified retention–Variability exists in treated 

wood retentions both within and between charges. 

• Continued support of cutting edge fundamental research 

• Dipped and spray-coatings–residential lumber protection 

from fire, mold, and decay

• Growing importance of the impact of treated wood 

products on environment 

• Life cycle assessment of wood and wood products

• Efforts to focus on general promotion of wood products 

• Nanotechnology–wood protection 

• Composites–durability

• Forest fires–utility pole protection 

• Cycle changes, new treatments 

• Capabilities at FPL 

• Controlled moisture across the surface of the wood 

Prioritized Research Needs

Participants were asked to anonymously write their top three 

prioritized research needs on an index card. The facilitator emphasized that an individual’s research needs could 

be those that were discussed and listed in the discussion 

framework or research needs that were not discussed. Index 

cards were collected and the number of responses for each 

research need was recorded. In a few instances, similar 

research needs were listed together. In three instances, a participant provided more than three prioritized research needs 

and when that occurred, all research needs were included 

in the ranking. Research needs were assigned points (1, 2, 

3...) and ranked based on the average number of points per 

response with the lowest number receiving the highest priority. Ranking results are summarized below.

Collaborative Research 

Opportunities

Accelerated laboratory and field test method development 

has been a research emphasis for durability and wood protection researchers for more than two decades resulting in 

the development of numerous methods. Incipient decay 

detection (Clausen 1994), improved laboratory leach tests 

(Lebow in press; Lebow et al. 2008), miniaturized biochemical assays (Green et al. 1989), and biocide screening assays 

(Clausen and Yang 2011) are a few of the developments.

Accelerated aboveground and in-ground field test evaluations have been published and presented to the American 

Wood Protection Association. This research has clarified the 

relationship between specimen dimensions and time to failure, and the ability of short-term stake tests to predict longterm performance. However, it is recognized that more work 

is needed to understand how field test performance results 

correlate with service life. 

Significant advances have been made in molecular analysis. 

It is a burgeoning field that provides the capability to map 

the changes in a field stake during decay and to create a 

database of decay fungi that can serve to map everything 

from incidence of tolerant fungi to ecosystem changes stemming from preservative prevalence at a test site to microbial 

progression during product failure. The number of potential 

research directions that molecular analysis might take is 

staggering, especially when considering newer platforms 

Table 1. Research need ranking. 

Ranking Research need 

1 Accelerated test procedures (lab and field). Selfreporting decay detection device 

2 Molecular database for mapping and product failure; 

effect of soil and climate conditions on ground contact 

decay rate 

3 Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) 

4 Resampling for verification of minimum retention 

5 Water resistance across surfaces; moisture control 

with novel technologies 

6 Environmental impact (soil/water and biological 

organisms) 

7 Targeted wood preservatives 

8 Fire performance and fire retardance of utility 

poles/urban interface 

9 Stake test(s) of current preservatives 

10 Durability, leachability, treatability of thermally 

modified wood 

11 Fire and mold control on composites 

12 Wood, moisture, conductivity under higher voltage 

13 Treatment mechanics 

14 Make high moisture wood more treatable 

15 Treatability of refractory woods (emulsions, 

nanotechnology) 
Wood Protection Research Council—Research Priorities 2013

7

that facilitate more robust (metagenomic) analysis of environmental samples. These newer technologies enable us to 

look at ecosystem level functions and interactions among 

not only fungi, but bacteria and other groups of microbes 

as well. The limiting factor will be funding and man-power 

since data can be generated many times faster than it can be 

processed. Collaborative efforts, both nationally and internationally, will improve the potential for funding, share the 

data-processing effort and provide a more complete database in a shorter period of time.

Fundamental research on the physiology of decay fungi and 

termites will help us develop control methods in concert 

with natural processes. Utilizing biochemical and genetic 

techniques, advances have been made in our understanding 

of key metabolic processes involved with fungal tolerance 

to chemical preservatives (Green and Clausen 2005; Hastrup 

et al. 2005; Jenkins et al. 2012). Understanding symbiotic 

relationships between termites and their normal flora may 

provide pathways for new approaches to control and lead to 

new microbial inhibitors. Scientists conducting fundamental 

research would be well-served to pool expertise and capabilities on these multi-faceted and complex issues. 

References

Clausen, C.A. 1994. Dyed particle capture immunoassay for 

detection of incipient brown-rot decay. Journal of Immunoassay. 15(3):305–316.

Clausen, C.A.; Yang, V.W. 2011. A rapid colorimetric assay 

for mold spore germination using XTT tetrazolium salt. International Research Group on Wood Protection, Stockholm, 

Sweden. IRG/WP 11-20462. 11 p.

Green, F.; Clausen, C.A.; Highley, T.L. 1989. Adaptation of 

the Nelson-Somogyi reducing-sugar assay to microassay using microtiter plates. Analytical Biochemistry. 182:197–199.

Green III, F.; Clausen, C.A. 2005. Copper tolerance of 

brown-rot fungi: Oxalic acid production in southern pine 

treated with arsenic-free preservatives. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation. 56:75–79. 

Green, F. III; Arango, R.A.; Esenther, G.R.; Rojas, M.G., 

Morales-Ramos, J. 2014. Synergy of diflubenzuron baiting 

and NHA dusting on mortality of Reticulitermes flavipes.

Proceedings American Wood Protection Association, Birmingham, AL. 109:156–159. 

Hastrup, A.C.; Green, F.; Clausen, C.A.; Jensen, B. 2005. 

Tolerance of Serpula lacrymans to copper-based wood preservatives. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation. 56:173–177.

Jenkins, K.M.; Diehl, S.V.; Clausen, C.A.; Green III, F. 

2012. Enzymatic mechanism of oxalate production in the 

TCA and glyoxylate using various isolates of Antrodia radiculosa. Proceedings of the American Wood Protection 

Association, Birmingham, AL. 107:108−113. 

Kirker, G.T.; Prewitt, M.L.; Schultz, T.P.; Diehl, S.V. 2012. 

Community analysis of preservative-treated southern pine 

(Pinus spp.) using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis. Part 1: Fungal field study. 

Holzforschung. 66(4):521–527.

Kirker, G.T.; Prewitt, M.L.; Diehl, W.J.; Diehl, S.V. 2012. 

Community analysis of preservative-treated southern pine 

(Pinus spp.) using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis. Part 2: Bacteria field study. 

Holzforschung. 66(4):529–535.

Lebow, in press. Effect of precipitation pattern on leaching 

of preservative from treated wood and implications for accelerated testing. Maderas Ciencia y tecnología. 

 Lebow, S.T.; Lebow, P.K.; Foster, D.O. 2008. Estimating 

preservative release from treated wood exposed to precipitation. Wood and Fiber Science. 40(4):562–571.

Råberg, U.; Terziev, N.; Land, C. J. 2009. Early soft rot colonization of Scots sapwood pine in above-ground exposure. 

International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. 63(2): 

236–240.
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–232

8

Appendix ̶ Wood Protection Research Council Agenda

Meeting Agenda

November 13, 2013

8:00-8:30 Registration 

8:30-8:40 Welcome and WPRC Objectives – Carol Clausen 

Presentations

8:40 – 9:00 Predicting Field Performance – Stan Lebow, FPL 

9:00 – 9:20 Targeted Control of Termites and Decay Fungi – Rick Green, FPL

9:20 – 9:40 Microbial Ecology of Biodeterioration – Grant Kirker, FPL

9:40 – 10:00 Nano-Preservatives: Are they realistic? – Carol Clausen, FPL

10:00 – 10:20 Break

10:20 – 10:40 Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Treated Wood – Jeff Miller, Treated 

Wood Council

10:40 – 11:00 Testing Full Length Utility Poles – Kevin Ragon,

 Southern Pressure Treater’s Association

11:20 – 11:40 BMP Verification and Treated Wood Guardrail Study – Dallin Brooks, Western 

Wood Preservers’ Institute

11:40 – 12:00 Testing and Evaluating Creosote and Wood Crossties – Jim Gauntt, Executive 

Director of Railway Tie Association & Dave Webb, Creosote Council

12:00 – 1:00 Lunch

1:00 – 1:10 Treated Wood Products Standards – Colin McCown, Executive Vice President 

of AWPA

Roundtable Discussion

1:10 – 1:20 Objectives ̶ Carol Clausen

1:20 – 4:30 Roundtable discussion ̶ Vicki Worden, facilitator

4:30 – 5:00 Summary and closeout