Andy W. C. Lee

Comparative treatability of Moso bamboo and southern pine with CCA preservative using a commercial schedule.

The United States Department of Agriculture introduced several bamboo species into the southern United States in the 1920s. One of the species included was Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens), a species native to China. This species grows well in South Carolina. In rural areas, bamboo splits are frequently used for fences and stakes for supporting crop plants. However, the decay resistance of bamboo is very low. In this study, Moso bamboo splits and southern pine lumber were treated in a commercial wood-treating plant using a full-cell process with Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) preservative to target retentions of 4.0 and 6.4kg/m3. Results indicate that bamboo is much more difficult to treat than southern pine. Using the same treatment procedures for southern pine, bamboo could only achieve approximately 22% of the target CCA retention.

A Comparison of the Performance Tests Used for Furniture Packaging

ISTA Procedure 2C and two options in NMFCC Item 181, stacked vibration and compression and vibration in separate tests, were compared to determine the equivalency of common U.S. furniture packaging performance tests. Containers constructed of two different corrugated fiberboard specifications were evaluated; Box A: a 32 lb/in. (5.6 kN/m) ECT rated board with a basis weight combination of 35HP/26/35HP, and Box B: a 200 psi (1378.95 kPa) Mullen rated board with a basis weight combination of 42/26/42. Ten corrugated fiberboard containers of each board type were tested following each of the test protocols. After testing, the contents were removed and the residual compression force at failure and deflection at failure of the containers were measured. These data were compared to the compression force and deflection at failure of control samples for the two board grades tested. Results showed that Item 181 Method A produced significantly different residual compression force at failure when compared to Item 181 Method B and Procedure 2C for both boxes. Item 181 Method B and Procedure 2C were not significantly different. Also, the two boxes showed significantly different residual compression force at failure results for each of the test protocols studied. The percent change in compression force at failure based on control samples, however, was not significantly different between the boxes studied.