The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
AbstractThe Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) has provided equilibrium moisture content (EMC) values of wood for given temperature and relative humidity (RH) conditions in various forms over the course of its history, primarily for practical purposes related to drying lumber and controlling moisture content. The FPL EMC data have been widely cited and reprinted, not only in literature of a practical nature such as the Wood Handbook, but also in textbooks and journal articles as a basis for scientific discourse on the thermodynamics of water vapor sorption in wood and evaluation of physical models. Using the data for such scientific purposes presupposes that the methods by which the data were acquired are well documented and accepted. This report questions previous assumptions about the historic EMC data and attempts to uncover and evaluate the original data sources. It also addresses a number of related topics, including how the presentation of data has evolved in the literature and whether the data are practically applicable to all wood species. We find that the data are unreliable for scientific purposes, such as thermodynamic analysis and testing of physical models, for three reasons: lack of proper documentation of methodology; the unsolvable problem of knowing which values are determined from direct observations and which are interpolated; and the absence of definitive measurement error analysis. However, we affirm that the data are indeed useful for practical applications, such as lumber drying, conditioning of wood specimens prior to testing physical or mechanical properties, and modeling of moisture content of wood members in buildings. We show that a number of mathematical models provide adequate fits to the data for practical use.