Chromated Copper Arsenate Preservative Treatment of North American Hardwoods. Part 2. CCA Leaching Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Seven North American hardwood species were vacuum or vacuum/pressure treated with 2% CCA-C solution and fixed at temperatures of 21°C and 50°C under conditions of high relative humidity (95%). The rates of fixation results are presented in Part 1 of this study. Red maple (Acer rubrum L.), red oak (Quercus rubra L.), American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh), white birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), basswood (Tilia americana L.) and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) were evaluated. The softwood red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) was included for comparison. Adequately fixed wood blocks (99.9% chromium reduction) were exposed to leaching by the AWPA E11 procedure. All CCA components were leached in high quantities from oak wood, while from red maple and beech, high arsenic leaching occurred. Leaching losses from aspen, basswood and yellow poplar were low and comparable for both fixation temperatures. In most species, the amount of leaching was affected by the treating method, with lower leaching from pressure treated wood blocks than from vacuum treated blocks. Removal of extractives from maple and oak blocks before treatment affected the CCA leaching performance in these species. Extracted red oak had lower chromium and copper leaching, but higher arsenic leaching. In contrast, extracted red maple had reduced leaching of all CCA components compared to unextracted wood. The examined hardwoods can be classified into three groups according to their CCA fixing and leaching characteristics: fast fixing/high leaching group (beech, red oak and red maple), intermediate fixation rate and leaching group (white birch and red pine) and slow fixing and low leaching group (aspen, yellow poplar and basswood).
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".