ArticlePloS one2016
Penetration and Effectiveness of Micronized Copper in Refractory Wood Species.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Copper Resistance Strategies ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Revealing the structural and chemical properties of copper-based nanoparticles released from copper treated wood.RSC advances · 2022Article
- The visualization of low-molecule phenol (LMP) and copper naphthenate on treated wood using X-ray microtomography.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Oxidation states of copper in preservative treated wood as studied by X-ray absorption near edge spectroscopy (XANES).PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The North American wood decking market mostly relies on easily treatable Southern yellow pine (SYP), which is being impregnated with micronized copper (MC) wood preservatives since 2006. These formulations are composed of copper (Cu) carbonate particles (CuCO3·Cu(OH)2), with sizes ranging from 1 nm to 250 μm, according to manufacturers. MC-treated SYP wood is protected against decay by solubilized Cu2+ ions and unreacted CuCO3·Cu(OH)2 particles that successively release Cu2+ ions (reservoir effect). The wood species used for the European wood decking market differ from the North American SYP. One of the most common species is Norway spruce wood, which is poorly treatable i.e. refractory due to the anatomical properties, like pore size and structure, and chemical composition, like pit membrane components or presence of wood extractives. Therefore, MC formulations may not suitable for refractory wood species common in the European market, despite their good performance in SYP. We evaluated the penetration effectiveness of MC azole (MCA) in easily treatable Scots pine and in refractory Norway spruce wood. We assessed the effectiveness against the Cu-tolerant wood-destroying fungus Rhodonia placenta. Our findings show that MCA cannot easily penetrate refractory wood species and could not confirm the presence of a reservoir effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.