Das Eindringen von Holzschutzmitteln.

Biological Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Wood Preservatives against Decay1

“…Of 13 arrays of thresholds for different decay fungi encountered in the literature, the actual concentrations were positively skewed in 10, while their logarithms showed much less skewness, positive in 6 arrays, negative in 5, and none in 2. The logarithms of the threshold concentrations for the different fungi in the agar trials of Rabanus (1931), Richards (1924Richards ( , 1925, Baechler (1938) and Carswell and Hatfield (1939) agree in general with the wood-block trials of Cowling (1957) and those summarized by Schulze et al (1950) in showing wide scatter for arsenicals, decreasing through the heavy metals to a more moderate range for pentachlorophenol, and relatively narrow ones for sodium bichromate and sodium fluoride, which owe their effect to the anions. As might be expected, mix-tures such as creosote and Wolman salts showed narrower ranges than did some of the single chemicals, though there were rather large differences in reactions to mixtures that contained arsenic.…”

“…Carswell and Hatfield (1939) found a relatively high toleranice to 0-naphthol and a creosote for the white rots and a copper intolerant browvn rot fungus; the, white rots do well against some anions (Rabanus, 1981). Zabel (1954) and Schulze et al (1950) bring together a n-umber of such reports, most of which have been based on trials in vitro. Integrated field anid laboratory studies would probably show field fa,ilure of some preservatives other than copper to have beeni due to local abundance of specifically toleranit decay fungi.…”