CHARACTERIZATION OF COPPER IN LEACHATES FROM ACQ- AND MCQ-TREATED WOOD AND ITS EFFECT ON BASIDIOSPORE GERMINATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unpenetrated interior of wood with a shell of preservative treatment may be exposed when the wood is cut or when checks open up. Mobile copper from wood shell-treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) has been shown to protect cut ends and checks against basidiospore germination. However, recent observations found that leachates from alkaline copper quat (ACQ)-treated wood failed to prevent basidiospore germination on untreated wood although copper levels were higher than toxic thresholds previously identified. It was hypothesized that the copper in leachate from ACQ-treated wood may be coordinated with monoethanolamine and/or lignin-based ligands and that this may result in poorer performance against basidiospores. In this study, electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy was used to determine the form of copper in leachates from ACQ, micronized copper quat (MCQ), and coppersulfate-treated wood. Leachates from ACQ-treated wood contained at least some degree of coordination with a nitrogen- and oxygen-containing ligand, probably monoethanolamine. This was not detected in leachates from MCQ and copper-sulfate-treated wood. These leachates were further evaluated for their ability to inhibit germination of Tyromyces palustris basidiospores. At low concentrations of copper, the CuSO4 and MCQ leachates were more effective than the ACQ leachate. At high concentrations CuSO4 and MCQ, leachates prevented germination in all samples, whereas ACQ leachates prevented germination in all but one sample.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".