When it comes to developing new wood protection technologies, the journey from conception through to commercialisation is often extremely challenging. It can take nearly a decade to bring a new wood preservative to market, which is a huge commitment from any business. Some businesses outsource this development and buy new technologies in, helping to save on research and development costs. Reliance on third-party providers is in itself fraught with challenges; if they decide to withdraw their offering then a company can be left without a product.

Andy Hodge, Arxada marketing director for Europe, India, the Middle East and Africa (EIMEA), is well versed in bringing new wood protection technologies to the market. With a career spanning 40 years in the industry, in this article he shares his experience to help provide a better understanding of what it takes to move wood preservatives formulations from conception to commercialisation.

TTJ: HOW ARE NEW WOOD PRESERVATIVES PROVEN BEFORE THEIR LAUNCH?

Andy Hodge: The testing of wood preservatives is a well-documented procedure, covering both laboratory and field testing. In the development of new products across Europe, wood preservatives are tested to EN 252 and EN599-1:2009 + A1:2013.

EN 252 specifies a field test method for evaluating the effectiveness of wood preservatives in a ground contact situation. To assess the protective effect of the preservative, wood treated with a reference preservative is included for comparison.

EN599-1:2009 + A1:2013 specifies the biological tests required for evaluating the efficacy of wood preservatives for the preventive treatment of solid timber, together with the minimum ageing tests required for the respective use class.

At Arxada we live by the mantra ‘Tried, Tested, Trusted’. With a dedicated in-house research and development team, we go beyond standard testing requirements to provide a robust efficacy package to support the launch of any new product.

TTJ: WITHOUT YEARS OF PROVEN PROTECTION, HOW DO YOU PROVIDE CONFIDENCE IN NEW WOOD PRESERVATIVES?

AH: Take Tanasote as an example. A hot oil-based copper preservative developed as a modern alternative to Creosote, it was essential that we built trust in performance through testing before full market launch.

Whilst the EN Standards have played a significant part in the development of Tanasote, we have engaged in additional testing that goes above and beyond standard requirements.

One example of this is the Fahlstrom stake test method, which is an accepted fast approach to determine decay in a real world environment through the use of thin stakes. The combination of a very small size and harsh conditions at the aggressive, high humidity field site in Florida, has enabled us to evaluate the long-term performance of Tanasote treated timber compared with CCA as the reference preservative. In this testing we went beyond the standard CCA retention to demonstrate performance against preservative retention known to deliver a service life of 40 years.

As well as independent field testing, timber treated with Tanasote has been tested in commercial size commodities. In collaboration with customers, these commercial sites encompass railway sleepers, agricultural fencing, utility poles and fruit poles.

TTJ: CAN THE BIOCIDAL PRODUCTS REGULATION (BPR) AUTHORISATION PROCESS DELAY LAUNCH TO MARKET?

AH: BPR authorisation, as well as national approvals, is fundamental to the commercialisation of any new wood protection technology. At Arxada we commit to obtaining full BPR authorisation for products that we are planning to launch to market. This process is a substantial investment and involves passing stringent risk assessments, as well as generating extensive data and studies to prove that the wood preservative is effective against wood destroying fungi and/or insects.

The BPR requires data on the possible exposure and toxicity to humans such as reproduction toxicity, carcinogenicity, or endocrine disruption etc, as well as data on environmental impacts such as accumulation in soil or ecological toxicity.

So I wouldn’t say it ‘delays’ launch to market, rather authorisation time has to be built into the product commercialisation plan. We handle the BPR process in-house through a project team comprising of regulatory, technical and legal experts. Tanasote was nearly 10 years in the making, and all of the hard work is paying off. It has been granted the maximum 10 year authorisation under BPR for use in UC3 and UC4, including poles and sleepers through to 2031, and is currently authorised in 19 countries.

Investment in national approval schemes is also essential, and the time it takes to get that approval also needs to be factored in.

TTJ: WHAT FACTORS, APART FROM PERFORMANCE, DO YOU CONSIDER WHEN DEVELOPING NEW WOOD TREATMENTS?

AH: Our main driver is to help keep wood in the game. Within the industry it is recognised that the sustainable use of home-grown European timber requires effective wood preservation. Commercially important European wood species, such as pine and spruce, are not durable and, unless treated, are unsuitable for applications exposed to weathering (rain, moisture) or near ground level and in the ground.

If timber fails in a certain application, then it damages the reputation of its use as a high performing construction material. What we want is treated timber that requires minimum maintenance and lasts for a very long time. Treated timber stores carbon for decades longer than untreated, decay-susceptible wood.

To help show how treated timber has the least carbon impact compared with alternative materials, in the development of new formulations we invest in Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), undertaken by independent practitioners.

For example, in the development of Tanasote we invested in LCAs for treated wood used both as utility poles and as track timbers. The LCAs covered the production of raw materials, transportation, manufacturing, and emissions over the whole lifetime and at end-of-life management. For both applications, Tanasote treated timber has the lowest overall normalised impact compared with steel, composites and concrete.

TTJ: WHAT WILL BE THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES FOR WOOD PRESERVATIVES IN THE FUTURE?

AH: Legislation leads the direction of travel. In the development of all wood protection technologies we look to drive BPR-authorised modern actives forward to help make the most of timber’s unique and adaptable properties.

However, driving these forward requires an unwavering commitment to innovation and investment. Fortunately Arxada has the in-house technical, regulatory, legal and plant operation expertise to keep pushing forward and working with key stakeholders.

Working with stakeholders, from timber treaters and specifiers to timber trade associations, requires investment in performance testing to show how treated timber performs against alternative materials, as well as untreated timber. A fundamental part of this is looking at how treated timber can help further reduce the carbon impact of projects. Reducing the carbon impact means that we not only focus upon manufacturing, maintenance and performance, but also on end-of-life disposal of the treated timber.

The waste classification of treated wood is determined by the timber species, the density of the timber being treated and the percentage of sapwood within its make-up. Non-hazardous waste wood can be placed on the market as re-used wood for certain applications, as long as it does not need treating in any way (for example, unsound areas cut-out, etc) before being sold.

In the development of Tanasote, we worked with specifiers and users of the treated timber to obtain a deeper understanding of how the waste classification at end-of-life impacts choice of material. This was especially prevalent in the rail industry and, working with a commercial partner, we demonstrated how end-of-life Tanasote-treated oak sleepers, defined as non-hazardous waste, could be placed on the market for use in the construction of buildings, fencing, barriers, containment or similar above ground construction.