Wood Preservatives in the National Emergency

National mobilization for defense may bring about shortages of preferred materials for wood preserving and may force widespread use of second- or third-choice materials. The problem is to do the best job with the materials available. Along with the availability of the preservative, the method of application, retention, and penetration must be considered. The extent to which specifications can be relaxed should be governed by the importance of the product or structure and the cost of maintaining or replacing it in case of early failure; fence posts, poles, and temporary structure are relatively low in cost and easy to replace in comparison with telephone and transmission line poles, bridges, wharves, railway tracks, etc. To stretch our preservative supply, we may have to dilute coal-tar creosote with other oils and to accept oils that are not up to normal specification requirements. It may be necessary to reduce permissible retentions of oil- and water-borne preservatives; however, it should never be necessary to accept poor treatment or timber that has begun to decay. If creosote importation is seriously reduced, our domestic producers will be unable to meet all demands upon them. If the amounts of copper and chromium salts available for wood preserving are curtailed, we will run short of standard preservatives, and new preservatives such as Boliden salts will not be much help, as they usually need chromium or other critical metals. Chlorinated phenols will help out in a creosote shortage, although they are not effective against marine borers; for protecting wood pile structures in salt water, only the best grades of coal-tar creosote should be used. Turning to a second- or third-choice material may jeopardize value and should be done only after careful study of all factors involved.

You must be logged in to download any documents. Please login (login accounts are free) or learn how to Become a Member