| 53
Above left: TANASOTE S40 has been specifically designed to protect and extend the service life of industrial timber applications such as utility poles Above right: High pressure timber treatment facility
preservative. Investment in BPR authorisation allows us to confidently assure the market that timbers treated with either VACSOL Aqua 6118 or TANASOTE S40 are non-hazardous to human and animal health, and to the environment.
ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Independent bodies, including the Committee on Climate Change, have reported that favouring timber over high carbon materials such as concrete and steel is one of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions. This is where timber treatment really comes to the forefront; providing long term protection against fungal decay and insect attack to one of the most sustainable building materials. However, in the development of any new preservative treatment consideration must be given to manufacture, transportation and to the end-of-life of the treated timber to help evaluate the whole life carbon assessment. In the design of VACSOL Aqua 6118, which is both metal and VOC-free and can be used to treat timbers in Use Class 1, 2 and 3 (coated), recyclability and reuse of treated timber at end-of-life was key. In addition, it has been designed as a concentrate, which
means that it is supplied with a lower carbon footprint in terms of transportation to Lonza treatment customers.
Investment in life cycle analysis (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impact of a product from cradle to grave is critical when comparing wood products with alternatives. For the development of TANASOTE S40, which has been designed as a modern day alternative to Creosote, an LCA was carried out by independent practitioners following ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The LCA ‘ReCiPe’ method was adopted, covering analysis of the following three categories for end use applications such as railway sleepers and utility poles: (i) damage to ecosystem, (ii) damage to human health and (iii) damage to resources. A sensitivity analysis was also completed to assess the influence of agricultural land occupation and terrestrial land transformation as part of the LCA. Looking specifically at utility poles, the LCA results show that TANASOTE S40 treated wooden poles were the lowest impact pole type when compared against a cast concrete pole, fibreglass polyester pole, steel pole, spun concrete pole and fibreglass epoxy pole. The TANASOTE S40 treated wooden pole had
the lowest impact in damage to ecosystems, damage to human health and damage to resource and several sensitivity analyses also showed that the TANASOTE S40 treated wooded pole was the lowest impact option. By comparing materials in end-use application, such as in utility poles, the market is able to better understand the comparative average life time costs. Costings need to consider the cost of the timber, the treatment process, the cost and retention of the preservative, transportation to site, installation, maintenance, replacement and end-of-life-disposal.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE Wood preservative treatments are essential to making the most of sustainable wood products. Not only do they help protect the timbers, they are also a key factor when assessing the environmental impact of a project. Continual product development and working with timber treaters, specifiers and regulatory bodies are pivotal to developing timber treatments that ensure treated wood applications have a lower environmental impact than other materials at a comparable cost. ■
Above left: VACSOL Aqua 6118 low pressure preservative treatment can be used to treat timbers in Use Class 1, 2 and 3 (coated) Above right: Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) aims to protect human and animal health as well as the environment
www.ttjonline.com | May/June 2021 | TTJ
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85
