Phosphine as a possible alternative to methyl bromide for the phytosanitary treatment of wood products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphine (PH 3 ) has gained momentum as a phytosanitary treatment to control quarantine pests in exported wood products . Originally used as a grain fumigant , its use increased after methyl bromide was banned for its ozone-depleting properties. While the effectiveness of PH 3 against grain pests is well-established, its efficacy for wood products requires review due to growing adoption. We observed insufficient evidence supporting PH 3 as a broad-spectrum quarantine treatment for wood products from peer-reviewed/gray literature and international groups. We assessed 41 research articles covering 29 insect species, 1 nematode, and 11 fungi, and observed that while PH 3 is effective against some forest insects , it generally fails to meet quarantine treatment standards and is ineffective against nematodes and fungi. Our analysis highlights concerns over the effectiveness of PH 3 as a broad-spectrum treatment for wood products. Many studies lack the quality needed to meet contemporary standards. We strongly recommend that National Plant Protection Organizations review the efficacy data supporting PH 3 use for wood products to strengthen biosecurity systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".