MOVING TO ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY WOOD

PRESERVATIVES AND COATINGS

LAURA REYES, Wood Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Universidad del Bìo-Bìo

FABIOLA ANDANA, Civil Engineering Department, Universidad de Concepción

GRECIA AVILES, NATALIA JARA, TAMARA GONZALEZ, Building Engineering School,

Universidad del Bìo-Bìo

Forest Product Society 65th International Convention

Portland, Oregon, june 21st

OUTLINE

-BACKGROUND

-PURPOSE

-MATERIALS &METHOD

-RESULTS & DISCUSSION

-CONCLUSIONS

BACKGROUND

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT

IMPREGNATION

&

SUPERFICIAL

PROTECTION

WATER SOLVENT

COATING

COPPERAZOLES

BORON SILICATE

CCA

Pinus Radiata

D. DON

WOOD

MATERIALS & METHOD

Impregnation

WOOD

SAMPLES

Corrosion Penetration Retention Lixiviation

Chalking

Adhesion

Checking

Water

absorption

Surface

protection

Coating

selection

Varnish-Stain-Dye

Coating

application

Accelerated

weathering

X ray fluorescence ASOMA

equipment

MATERIALS & METHOD

Pilot scale impregnation plant

MATERIALS & METHOD

Coating selection and characterization

- Varnish

- Stain

- Tint

-Density

-Viscosity

-Solid content

MATERIALS & METHOD

Wood samples

Preserved wood selection Coating application

MATERIALS & METHOD

Accelerated weathering

< Ultraviolet chamber

Rain simulation >

RESULTS

Wood Impregnation Retention

PreservativesRetention

NCh 819Retention

CCA 4,0 4,1

CA-B 1,71,8

BS11,2 11,3

RESULTS

Preservatives Penetration

CCA

( Cromazurol)BS

(curcumin)

CA-B

(Cromazurol)

RESULTS

Corrosion

Preservative

solutionNail type

Weight difference

(% w/w)

CCA

Galvanized iron 1,20

Steel 0,05

Cooper 0

CA-B

Galvanized iron 1,41

Steel 0,07

Cooper 0

BS

Galvanized iron na

Steel na

Cooper na

Lixiviation

RESULTS

Lixiviate Preservative concentration

% (w/w)

Fixing time

(hour)CCA BS CA-B

24 0,00337 0,00897 0,00764

48 0,00149 0,005380,00423

RESULTS

Pot coating characteristics

Properties

CoatingDensity

(g/ml)

Viscosidty

(s)

Solid content

(%p/p)

Varnisn 0,88 190 72,9

Stain 1,02 30 21,6

Dye 0,99 116 11,3

RESULTSCoating performance

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5

Po

rce

nta

je d

e P

rob

eta

s

Grados de Adherencia

CONTROL - BARNIZ CONTROL - STAIN CONTROL - TINTEBS - BARNIZ BS - STAIN BS - TINTECA-B - BARNIZ CA-B - STAIN CA-B - TINTECCA - BARNIZ CCA - STAIN CCA - TINTE

Adhesion

RESULTS

Checking

Coating performance

varnish stain dye

RESULTS

TREATMENT COSTS

PreservativeRetention (kg /m3 )

NCh 819

Total cost

($U/m3)

Boronsilicate (BS) 50 kg. 2,14

Copperazole (CA-B) 17,67 kg. 2,27

CCA 6,67 kg. 1

Preservative Costs

RevestimientoYield

(m2/g/applic.)

Total cost

($U/m2/ applic.))

varnish 0,015 1

stain 0,008 1,98

dye 0,010 2,62

Coating application costs

RESULTS

BASE

-Volume; 1 m3 (320 boardS (½” x 4” x 2,4 m.)

•Total surface: 180 m2

Coating Cost ($U /m2/application)

Protection

Product

VARNISH STAIN DYE

Preservative

Cost (U$/m3)

BS 1,43 1,28 1,22

CA-B 1,49 1,3 1,24

CCA 1 1 1

Treatment costs

CONCLUSIONS

- Boron silicates and copperazole lixiviates

concentration are higher than CCA, but has less

environmental impact according to thie

composition

- Stain showed the best performance compared to

varnish and dye over copperazole or BS

treated wood.

CONCLUSIONS

- Preservation treatment costs are higher forCopperazole followed by Boronsilicates andcheaper for CCA.

- Stain application costs less than traditionalvarnish, with lower environmental impact.

- Combined treatment costs are similar for bothCooperazole and BS treated wood coated withstain.

THANK YOU¡¡¡

ANY QUESTIONS?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CHEMICAL SUPPLY

ARCHQUIMETAL S.A.

PRESERVA S.A.

UNIVERSIDAD DEL BÌO-BÌO

•ACADEMIC VICE-RECTOR

•RESEARCH DEVELOPMENTE AND INNOVATION DIRECTOR

•ENGINEERING FACULTY DEAN

•WOOD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HEAD & TECHNICAL STAFF