impacts of impregnation with imersol-aqua on the compression strength of some solid wood materials

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Construction

www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 1402–1408

and Building

MATERIALS

Impacts of impregnation with Imersol-Aqua on thecompression strength of some solid wood materials

Hakan Keskin a,*, Musa Atar b, Abdullah Togay a

a Gazi University, Industrial Arts Education Faculty, Department of Industrial Technology Education, 06830 Golbası, Ankara, Turkeyb Gazi University, Technical Education Faculty, Department of Furniture and Decoration, 06500 Besevler, Ankara, Turkey

Received 12 May 2006; received in revised form 7 April 2007; accepted 7 April 2007Available online 27 June 2007

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of impregnation with Imersol-Aqua on the compression strength of some solidwood materials. For this aim, Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky), European oak (Quercus petrea Liebl.), Scotch pine (Pinus sylves-

tris Lipsky), Uludag fir (Abies Bornmulleriana Mattf.), Oriental spruce (Picea orientalis Lipsky) and Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra

Lipsky) wood samples were prepared according to TS 2595 and impregnated with Imersol-Aqua, commonly being used in constructionwood materials by the method of short, medium and long-term of dipping according to ASTM D 1413 and producers’ definition. Afterthe impregnation process, compression strength was measured according to TS 2595. Consequently, among the non-impregnated woodmaterials, the highest compression strength was obtained in beech and pine samples. Compression strength at this situation from thehighest to lowest can be enumerated beech, pine, oak, spruce, fir and poplar. With regard to the impregnation period, the sequence formthe highest to lowest was as long-term, medium-term and short-term dipping. In the interaction of wood material and impregnation per-iod, the highest compression strength values were obtained in Scotch pine (71.220 N mm�2) impregnated with long-term dipping methodwhereas the lowest in Lombardy poplar (35.710 N mm�2) impregnated with short-term dipping method.

In consequence, in the massive constructions and furniture elements that the compression strength after the impregnation is of greatconcern, long-term impregnation of solid wood material could be recommended.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Compression strength; Impregnation; Imersol-Aqua; Wood materials

1. Introduction

If the wood materials are used without processing bypreventive chemicals (with regard to the area of usage),fungal stains, insect infestation, humidity, fire etc damagethe wood. As a result of these damages, the woods requireto be repaired, maintained or replaced before its economiclife ends [1].

For this reason, in most places the wood materialsshould be impregnated with some chemicals [2]. In casewood is not impregnated but only painted and varnished

0950-0618/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.04.011

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 (312) 4851124x1088; fax: +90 (312)4853123.

E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Keskin).

instead, the prevention on the surfaces is limited to a max-imum of two years [3].

It is reported that, in mines, as a result of the impregna-tion of the beech and spruce wood with water-soluble salts,the bending, tensile and impact strength decreased a littlewhereas compression strength increased [4]. In anotherresearch concerning the impregnation of pine, spruce, fir,beech and poplar woods with Antrasen, it was found that,the compression strength increased by 6–40% and bendingstrength increased by 10–22% [5].

In the impregnation of pine and beech wood with UAsalts and tar oil, the tar oil increased compression strengthby 10% and UA salts increased with a small rate. On theother hand, the tar oil increased the bending strengthwhereas the UA salts diminished the bending strength [6].

mailto:[email protected]

H. Keskin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 1402–1408 1403

Among the materials used for the impregnation of pine;sodium pentaclorfenet, copper sulphate and sodium fluo-ride increased the compression strength, respectively by95%, 25% and 3% whereas zinc chloride decreased the com-pression strength by 9%. Sodium pentaclorfenet alsoincreased the bending strength [7]. In another study, pres-sure treatment caused to a decrease of 8–10% in the bend-ing strength of different wood types [8].

It was assessed that, salty impregnation materialsincreased the compression strength by 4.6–9.6%, whereasdecreased the bending strength by 2.9–16% [9]. In anotherstudy, chromate copper arsenate (CCA) and arsenate cop-per arsenate (ACA) salts did not cause any significantimpact on modulus of elasticity in bending [10].

After the impregnation of pine wood samples by hot–cold open tank method with eleven preventives, no signifi-cant difference was observed in the bending strength exceptthe decreasing effects of fluotox containing acid florid [11].

Impregnation of alder (Alnus glutinosa L.) with vinyl-monomers increased the compression strength [12]. Inanother study, impregnation of Scotch pine and Orientalspruce with zinc clor and sulphate did not cause to adecrease in the compression strength [13].

In this study, Oriental beech, European oak, Scotchpine, Uludag fir, Oriental spruce and Lombardy poplarwoods commonly being used in furniture and constructionwood materials were examined with respect to the effects ofimpregnation with Imersol-Aqua on compression strength.

2. Experimental

2.1. Wood materials

Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky), European oak(Quercus petrea Liebl.), Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris Lipsky),Uludag fir (Abies Bornmulleriana Mattf.), Oriental spruce(Picea orientalis Lipsky) and Lombardy poplar (Populus

nigra Lipsky) woods were used as test materials. Specificpains were taken for the selection of wood materials. Accord-ingly, non-deficient, proper, knotless, normally grown (with-out zone line, without reaction wood and without decay,insect mushroom damages) wood materials were selected.

2.2. Impregnation material

Imersol-Aqua used as an impregnation material in thisstudy was supplied from Hemel (Hemel-Hickson TimberProducts Co.), Istanbul. It is non-flammable, odorless, flu-ent, water based, completely soluble in water, no corrosivematerial with a pH value of 7 and a density of 1.03 g cm�3.It is available as ready-made solution. It contains 0.5% w/wtebuconazole, 0.5% w/w propiconazole, 1% w/w 3-Iodo-2-propynl-butyl carbonate and 0.5% w/w cypermethrin.Before the application of Imersol-Aqua on the wood mate-rial, all kinds of drilling, cutting, turning and milling opera-tions should be completed and the relative humidity shouldbe in equilibrium with the test environment. In the impreg-

nation process, dipping duration should be at least 6 minand the impregnation pool must contain at least 15 l ofimpregnation material for 1 m3 of wood. The impregnatedwood should be left for drying at least 24 h [14].

2.3. Determination of densities

The densities of wood materials, used for the prepara-tion of test samples were determined according to TS2472 [15]. For determining the air-dry density, the test sam-ples with a dimension of 20 · 30 · 30 mm were kept underthe conditions of 20 ± 2�C and 65 ± 3% relative humidityuntil they reached to a stable weight. The weights weremeasured with an analytic scale of ± 0.01 g sensitivity.Afterwards, the dimensions were measured with a digitalcompass of ± 0.01 mm. The air-dried densities (d12) ofthe samples were calculated by formula 1:

d12 ¼W 12

V 12

g cm�3 ð1Þ

Where W12 is the air-dry weight (g) and V12 is the volume(cm3) at air-dry conditions.

The samples were kept at a temperature of 103 ± 2 �C inthe drying oven until they reached to a stable weight for theassessment of oven-dry density. Afterwards, oven-driedsamples were cooled in the desicator containing P2O5

(phosphorus pent oxide). Then, they were weighted on ascale of ± 0.01 g sensitivity and their dimensions were mea-sured with a compass of ± 0.01 mm sensitivity. The vol-umes of the samples were determined by stereo metricmethod and the densities (d0) were calculated by formula 2:

d0 ¼ W 0

V 0g cm�3 ð2Þ

Where W0 is the oven-dry weight (g) and V0 is the oven-dry volume (cm3) of the wood material.

2.4. Determination of humidity

The humidity of test samples before and after theimpregnation process was determined according to TS2471 [16]. Thus, the samples with a dimension of20 · 20 · 20 mm were weighed and then oven dried at103 ± 2 �C till they reach to a constant weight. Then, thesamples were cooled in desicator containing P2O5 andweighed with an analytic scale of 0.01 g sensitivity. Thehumidity of the samples (h) was calculated by formula 3:

h ¼ Wr � W 0

W 0� 100 g g�1 ð3Þ

Where Wr is the initial weight of the samples (g) and W0 isthe final dry weight (oven-dry) of the samples (g).

2.5. Preparation of the test samples

The rough drafts for the preparation test and controlsamples were cut from the sapwood parts of massive woods

1404 H. Keskin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 1402–1408

and conditioned at a temperature of 20 ± 2 �C and65 ± 3% relative humidity for three months until reachingan equilibrium in humidity distribution. The samples, witha dimension of 20 · 20 · 30 mm (radial · tangential · lon-gitudinal) for compression strength experimental were cutfrom the drafts having an average humidity of 12% accord-ing to TS 2595 [17]. The densities and humidity values of alltest samples were measured before the impregnationprocess.

The test samples were impregnated according to ASTMD 1413 [18], TS 344 [19] and TS 345 [20]. The samples weredipped in the impregnation pool immersing 1 cm below theupper surface for 10 min in short-term dipping, 2 h formedium-term dipping and 5 days for long-term dipping[21]. The specifications of the impregnation solution weredetermined before and after the process.

The processes were carried out at 20 ± 2 �C [22]. Reten-tion of impregnation material (R) was calculated by for-mula 4:

R ¼ G � CV

103 kg m�3 G ¼ T 2 � T 1 ð4Þ

Fmax

20x20x30mm

Fig. 1. Universal testing machine for compression strength.

Table 1Oven-dry densities of wood materials (g cm�3)

Impregnation periods Statistics values Oriental Beech European Oa

Control samples x 0.657 0.652Min 0.605 0.596Max 0.679 0.572Sd 0.0196471 0.0206274v 0.0003862 0.0002782

Short-term dipping x 0.658 0.655Min 0.638 0.606Max 0.685 0.698Sd 0.0136902 0.0266076v 0.0001871 0.0007081

Medium-term dipping x 0.661 0.659Min 0.642 0.625Max 0.692 0.705Sd 0.014393 0.0228728v 0.000207 0.0005232

Long-term dipping x 0.666 0.665Min 0.644 0.631Max 0.698 0.708Sd 0.015125 0.0203608v 0.000229 0.0004146

x: mean, min: minimum, max: maximum, Sd: standard deviation, v: variance.

Where G is the amount of impregnation solution absorbedby the sample (g), T2 is the sample weight after the impregna-tion (g), T1 is the sample weight before the impregnation (g),C is the concentration (%) of the impregnation solution andV is the volume of the samples (cm3). Impregnated test sam-ples were kept under a temperature of 20 ± 2 �C and65 ± 3% relative humidity until they reach to a stable weight.

2.6. Application of experiment

The tests for compression strength of parallel to grainsof wood materials were carried out with the Universal Test-ing Equipment shown in Fig. 1, according to TS 2595.

The capacity of the Universal Testing Equipment was400 N. The speed of the test machine was adjusted to5 mm/min. for crushing to occur in 1–2 min.

Compression strength was calculated by formula 5:

rb ¼F max

a � b N mm�2 ð5Þ

Where Fmax is the breaking load on the scale (N), a is thecross-sectional width of test sample (mm), b is the cross-sectional thickness of the test sample (mm).

2.7. Statistical analyses

The statistical results were given by computer software,SPSS 13.0 for Windows. A total of 24 treatment groupswere obtained with six different kinds of wood materials,three different impregnation dipping method and one con-trol sample. Eleven replications were made in each treat-ment group. Thus, a total of 264 samples (6 · 4 · 11)were prepared. The effects of wood material and impregna-tion method on the compression strength were analyzed by

k Scotch Pine Uludag Fir Oriental Spruce Lombardy Poplar

0.537 0.380 0.405 0.3060.512 0.349 0.388 0.2940.572 0.406 0.435 0.3270.016681 0.0192202 0.0154602 0.01041930.000278 0.0003694 0.0002390 0.00010850.543 0.382 0.408 0.3150.524 0.352 0.393 0.2980.566 0.426 0.425 0.3440.011758 0.0228182 0.0105399 0.01146030.000138 0.0005206 0.0001112 0.00021320.561 0.389 0.409 0.3200.525 0.355 0.398 0.3020.582 0.431 0.427 0.3550.017394 0.0214683 0.0091044 0.01569310.000302 0.0004608 0.0000828 0.00024620.568 0.396 0.414 0.3250.542 0.365 0.401 0.3060.596 0.444 0.438 0.3680.014726 0.0223757 0.0111624 0.01694110.000216 0.0005006 0.0001246 0.0002870


ANOVA (analysis of variance). Duncan’s multiple rangetest was also applied where appropriate.

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Oven-dry density

Statistical values for the oven-dry densities of test sam-ples impregnated with Imersol-Aqua are given in Table 1.

Oven-dry densities may change according to the type ofwood and period of impregnation. It is observed that theoven-dry densities of pine, fir, spruce and poplar increasedby the period of impregnation. In beech and oak, oven-drydensities were approximately same with the control sam-ples in all of dipping methods.

Table 2Air-dry densities of wood materials (g cm�3)

Impregnation periods Statistics values Oriental Beech European Oak

Control sample x 0.679 0.672Min 0.655 0.655Max 0.705 0.699Sd 0.01678101 0.01382290v 0.00028202 0.00014860


Middle-term dipping x 0.689 0.678Min 0.668 0.664Max 0.716 0.704Sd 0.01648220 0.01297760v 0.00027200 0.00016840


x: mean, min: minimum, max: maximum, Sd: standard deviation, v: variance.

Table 3Retention quantities of wood materials (kg m�3)

Impregnation periods Statistics values Oriental Beech European Oa


Medium-term dipping x 274.728 44.936Min 268.256 42.521Max 281.356 49.357Sd 4.870316 2.093756v 23.719986 4.383817


3.2. Air-dry density

Statistical values for the air-dry densities of samplesimpregnated with Imersol-Aqua are given in Table 2.Air-dry densities were found different depending on thetype of wood and duration of impregnation. Air-drydensity of impregnated wood increased by dippingperiod.

3.3. Peculiarities of impregnation solutions

The pH value and density of Imersol-Aqua, used for theimpregnation process did not change either prior or afterthe impregnation. This may be due to the use of fresh solu-tion in each impregnation process.

Scotch Pine Uludag Fir Oriental Spruce Lombardy Poplar

0.577 0.401 0.420 0.3400.555 0.385 0.401 0.3110.592 0.412 0.441 0.3620.0121909 0.00922841 0.01435143 0.016799350.0001486 0.00008546 0.00020596 0.000282220.579 0.407 0.428 0.3460.558 0.392 0.407 0.3200.600 0.415 0.455 0.3710.0002416 0.00700391 0.01238621 0.016839350.0002416 0.00004905 0.00012340 0.000283560.592 0.410 0.437 0.3490.578 0.399 0.412 0.3250.605 0.422 0.460 0.3800.0076324 0.00607379 0.01568961 0.015580800.0000582 0.00003689 0.00024616 0.000242400.597 0.419 0.440 0.3520.579 0.408 0.422 0.3330.612 0.444 0.462 0.3840.0098322 0.01106592 0.01436029 0.014615600.0000966 0.00012245 0.00020621 0.00021360

k Scotch Pine Uludag Fir Oriental Spruce Lombardy Poplar

43.289 45.950 58.704 48.08336.231 32.124 54.321 44.44547.012 50.214 62.358 52.2343.413306 4.020328 3.135393 2.634260

11.65066 16.16304 9.830689 6.93932868.538 79.180 92.225 75.40565.321 75.021 88.452 69.03275.265 82.854 95.985 80.2653.260492 2.489244 2.365208 4.177241

10.630811 6.196337 5.594210 17.44934167.369 216.472 209.076 327.112159.654 205.213 203.568 319.256176.654 229.564 214.002 333.008

6.165483 7.370773 3.435018 4.63665638.013184 54.32830 11.799354 21.49858

Table 4Average compression strengths due to wood type and impregnation period

Types of materiala Compression strength (N mm�2) HG

Oriental Beech 65.140 AEuropean Oak 59.568 BScotch Pine 65.760 AOriental Spruce 51.992 CUludag Fir 47.553 DLombardy Poplar 35.404 E

Periods of impregnationb

Control samples 49.020 DShort-term dipping 52.861 CMedium-term dipping 56.700 BLong-term dipping 58.372 A

a Different letters in the columns refer to significant changes amongwood types at 0.05 confidence level (LSD = 1.323).

b Different letters in the columns refer to significant changes amongimpregnation methods at 0.05 confidence level (LSD = 1.006). HG : De-grees of homogeny.

Table 6The analysis of variance concerning the impacts of wood material andimpregnation period on the compression strength (N mm�2)

Source Degrees offreedom

Sum ofsquares

Meansquare

F

ValueSignatureP < 0.05

FactorAa

5 30117.554 6023.511 699.692 0.0000

FactorBb

3 3449.033 1149.678 133.547 0.0000

AB 15 670.876 44.725 5.195 0.0000Error 240 2066.113 8.609

Total 263 36303.576

a Factor A = Wood materials (Oriental Beech, European Oak, ScotchPine, Oriental Spruce, Uludag Fir, Lombardy Poplar).

b Factor B = Impregnation periods (Short-term, Medium-term andLong-term).

Table 7Duncan’s multiple range test results

Treatments Compressionstrength

HGa Treatments Compressionstrength

HGa

III + L 71.22 A II + C 54.32 EFIII + M 70.85 A IV + M 53.30 FI + L 69.19 A IV + S 50.49 GI + M 66.15 B V + L 49.89 GHIII + S 65.09 BC V + M 49.57 GHII + L 64.03 BCD IV + C 47.43 HIII + M 63.99 BCD V + S 46.79 II + S 63.17 CD V + C 43.96 JI + C 62.05 D VI + L 39.14 KIV + L 56.74 E VI + M 36.32 LII + S 55.93 EF VI + S 35.71 LIII + C 58.88 EF VI + C 30.45 M

I: Oriental Beech, II: European Oak, III: Scotch pine, IV: Uludag Fir, V:Oriental Spruce, VI: Lombardy Poplar, C: Control, S: Short-term dipping,M: Medium-term dipping, L: Long-term dipping, HG: Degrees ofhomogeny

a Different letters in the columns refer to significant changes amongwood types at 0.05 confidence level (LSD = 2.463).


3.4. Retention quantities

The quantities of retention due to wood species andimpregnation period are shown in Table 3. Amounts ofretention were found different depending on wood typeand impregnation period. Retention is the highest in beechand lowest in pine. Retention is found higher in hardwoods than soft woods. As the period of dipping increases,retention increased and found the highest in long-termdipping.

3.5. Compression strength

The average values of compression strength due to thetype of wood and impregnation period are given in Table4. As well as that, average values of the interaction betweenthe wood type and impregnation material and the results ofvariance analysis regarding the impacts of wood type andimpregnation period on the compression strength are givenin Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

Generally, compression strength was found the highestin pine and beech, the lowest in poplar. This may be dueto the fiber length and higher amount of lignin in pineand higher density of beech than the other tested woodmaterials. As to the impregnation period, compressionstrength was found to be the highest in long-term dippingand the lowest in short-term dipping. It can be derived fromthese results that, compression strength increased with theincrease in dipping period. The average values of the com-

Table 5Average compression strengths for the interaction of wood type and impregna

Impregnation periods Oriental Beech European Oak Scot

Control samples 62.053 54.319 55.88Short-term dipping 63.165 55.934 65.09Medium-term dipping 66.155 63.991 70.84Long-term dipping 69.189 64.029 71.21

pression strength concerning the interaction of wood mate-rial and impregnation period are given in Table 5.

Compression strength increased in all types of woodwith period of impregnation. This may be due to theexpansion of wood by the fulfilment of lumen and capillaryspaces with impregnation material. As a matter of fact, it isacknowledged that softwood species are more resistant tochemical materials than other wood types [21]. The analysisof variance concerning the impacts of wood material andimpregnation period on the compression strength is pre-sented in Table 6.

tion period (N mm�2)

ch Pine Oriental Spruce Uludag Fir Lombardy Poplar

2 47.431 43.960 30.4522 50.491 46.795 35.7089 53.297 49.566 36.3178 56.745 49.893 39.138

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Control Groups Short-term Dipping Medium-term Dipping Long-term Dipping

Impregnation periods

Com

pres

sion

Str

engt

h

Beech Oak Pine Fir Spruce Poplar

Fig. 2. Compression strength values due to wood species and impregnation periods.


As seen from Table 6, the effects of variance sources(wood material, impregnation method and their interac-tion) on the compression strength were found to be signif-icant (P < 0.05). The comparisons of the mean values of 24treatment groups as the Duncan’s multiple range test resultis given in Table 7.

According to Duncan’s multiple range test results,within the non-impregnated wood materials, compressionstrength was found to be the highest in pine(65.76 N mm�2) and beech (65.14 N mm�2) and the lowestin poplar (35.40 N mm�2).

Among the impregnated wood materials, the highestcompression strength was obtained in Scotch pine impreg-nation by long-term dipping (71.220 N mm�2) and the low-est in Lombardy poplar impregnated by short-term dipping(35.710 N mm�2). The compression strength determinedwith regard to the wood materials and impregnation peri-ods are given in Fig. 2.

For the impregnation with Imersol-Aqua, the compres-sion strength increased in all wood species with the increasein impregnation period and is the highest in Scotch pine.

4. Conclusion

The air-dry and oven-dry densities of impregnated sam-ples increased with respect to control samples. This may bedue to more penetration of impregnation solution into thewood with the extension of time. As a matter of fact, it wasobserved that, the retention amount was higher in long-term dipping than short-term dipping. In a similarresearch, it was reported that in the impregnation of Scotchpine and Oriental beech the retention increased with theincrease in impregnation period [22].

The amount of retention in the long-term dipping ofOriental beech, European oak, Scotch pine, Uludag fir,Oriental spruce and Lombardy poplar were found to behigher than those in medium and short-term dipping. Onthe other hand, the amount of retention was observed as suf-ficient in pine as but higher than expected in beech. The low-est retention amount was found in pine and oak woods. Thismay be due to pit aspiration in pine and tyloses in oak.

Among the non-impregnated wood materials, the high-est compression strength was obtained in beech and pine

samples. Compression strength at this situation from thehighest to lowest can be enumerated beech, pine, oak,spruce, fir and poplar. With regard to the impregnationperiod, the sequence form the highest to lowest was aslong-term, medium-term and short-term dipping. Highercompression strength values were observed in the samplesimpregnated with Imersol-Aqua by long-term dippingmethod. Accordingly, it can be pointed out that the com-pression strength increased with the increase in the reten-tion amount of impregnation material.

In the interaction of wood material and impregnationperiod, the highest compression strength values were foundin the samples impregnated with long-term dipping methodwhereas the lowest in the samples impregnated with short-term dipping method. These may be due to positiveimpacts of Imersol-Aqua on the structure of the woodmaterial. As a matter of fact, compression strength valuesincreased with the increase in impregnation period. Thecompression strength in long-term dipping increased11.4% in beech, 15.2% in oak, 21.6% in pine, 16.5% inspruce, 11.9% in fir and 12.3% in poplar. So, we can saythat, the amount of impregnation material penetrated intothe wood cause to increase in compression strength.

In consequence, in the massive constructions and furni-ture elements that the compression strength after theimpregnation is of great concern, long-term impregnationof wood materials could be recommended.

References

[1] Richardson BA. Wood Preservation, and Construction Press.England: Lancaster; 1987. p. 121–3.

[2] Arsenal RD. In factors influencing the effectiveness of preservativesystems; wood preservation and its preservation by preservativetreatments. Syracuse: Syracuse University; 1978. p. 278–30.

[3] Evans PD, Michel AJ, Schmalzt K. Studies of the degradation andprotection of wood surfaces. Wood Sci Technol 1992;26:151–63.

[4] Kollman F. Die eigenschaftanderung von gruben holz nach schutz-salzimpragnie-rung, Forschungsber, Des Landes Nordhrhein, Westf-alen, Germany, 1959; 54.

[5] Stabnikov VM, Puti uviliczenia sroka sluschby dreviesinyw kon-strukcjach, Leningrad, 1957. p. 19–25.

[6] Gillwald W, Der einfluss verschiedener impragnier mittel auf diephysikallischen und festigkeitseigen schaften des holzes, Holtechnol-ogie, Germany, 1961;2:4–16.


[7] Vologdin AJ, Vlijanije rozlicznych antiseptic of na fizyko mechani-tchiestkije svosjstva dreviesiny sosny svotsva dreviesin, Jejo Zaschita;Novyje Dreviesinyje Materialy, Moskova, 1966; 104.

[8] Isaacs CP. The effect of two accelerated treating methods on woodstrength. AWPA, USA 1972;68:175–82.

[9] Wazny J. Investigations of the influence of wood preservatives onstrength. Dreviesiny Sreda 1973;3:181–5.

[10] Bentsen BA. Mechanical properties of longleaf pine treated water-borne salt preservatives. USDA For Serv 1984;2:434.

[11] Lutomsky K. Effect of treatment conditions using the hot–coldmethod of impregnation pine wood with water solution of staticbending of treated wood, Zest. Probl. Nauk. Rolniczych, 1976;178.

[12] Temiz A. Physcal and mechanical properties of wood–polymercomposites prepared from alder wood (Alnus glutinosa Lipsky),Paper prepared for the 32nd Annual Meeting Nara, Japan,2001.

[13] Tetjamer L. Methoden und resultate der prufung schweizerischenbahnholzer, material prufungsaf, schweizerischen polytechnikum.Zurich: Paul Paray Verlac; 1986.

[14] Hemel-Hickson’s Timber Impregnation Co. (GB), Into the 21st.century, Imersol-Aqua brochure, Datasheet, 2000;4(2):6214.

[15] TS 2472. Odunda fiziksel ve mekanik deneyler icin hacim yogunlukdegerinin tayini (Assessment volume density for the mechanical andphysical tests of woods), TSE, 1976.

[16] TS 2471. Odunda Fiziksel ve mekanik deneyler icin rutubet miktarıtayini (Assessment of humidity for the mechanical and physical testsof woods), TSE, Ankara, 1976.

[17] TS 2595. Odunun liflere paralel dogrultuda basınc dayanımınıntayini, (The test methods for determining the compression strength ofparallel to grains of wood materials), TSE, Ankara, 1977.

[18] ASTM D 1413-76. Standard test method of testing wood preserva-tives by laboratory soil blocks cultures. ASTM Standards; 1976.

[19] TS 344. Ahs�ap koruma genel kuralları (General methods for theconservation of wood materials). Ankara: TSE; 1981.

[20] TS 345. Ahs�ap emprenye maddeleri etkilerinin muayene metotları(Test methods for determining the impacts of wood impregnationmaterials). Ankara: TSE; 1974.

[21] Bozkurt Y, Erdin N, Agac Teknolojisi (Wood technology), IstanbulUniversity, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest IndustrialEngineering, 1997;3998:220–5.

[22] Ors Y, Atar M, Keskin H, Yavuzcan HG. Impacts of impregnationwith imersol-aqua on the modulus of elasticity in bending. J ApplPolym Sci 2006;99(6):3210–7.

impacts of impregnation with imersol-aqua on the compression strength of some solid wood materials

Documents