MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410355910 · doi:10.1016/j.jspr.2025.102672

Phosphine as a possible alternative to methyl bromide for the phytosanitary treatment of wood products

2025· article· en· W4410355910 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M.K.D. Hall, Laura M. Machuca-Mesa, Adnan Uzunovic, Sunil Kumar Yadav, Dong Woon Lee, Manoj K. Nayak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Stored Products Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaCenter for Food Safety, University of GeorgiaAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceChinese Academy of Inspection and QuarantineU.S. Department of AgricultureMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationCanadian Forest ServiceDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australian Government
KeywordsPhytosanitary certificationPhosphineBromideFumigationChemistryToxicologyHorticultureEnvironmental scienceBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Stored Products ResearchSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207