The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNCS000452_OTHER_20090122—---STORMWATER-DIVISION-CODING"SHEET--_�T--- PERMIT NO. NLSQ�`�s� DOC TYPE ❑ FINAL PERMIT ❑ MONITORING INFO ❑ APPLICATION ❑ COMPLIANCE kOTHER DOC DATE ❑ aobq 01 ).)- � YYYYM M D D � j ��ptiC�S��v L� �} �� n�� Iacment OCCUrrencc(s) file:///C:/Iaocwiicnts%20and%2OScttings113rian_L.o%atlier/My%20I)OCLunents/Permits/lndi%,id... Element Occurrence(s) Found 9 Element Occurrence(s) within 2 miles of selected point EO Common Date Last EO EO State Federal State Global Scientific Name Nb Name Observed Rank Accuracy Protection Protection Rank Rank Habitat Comments Status Status Alasmidonta Triangle Most river systems in undulata 43 Floater 2002-07-03 E Medium T S2 G4 Piedmont and Coastal Plain Basic oak --hickory 120 1998-08-28 C High S3 G4 forest Dry-mesic 81 1998-06-12 C S5 G5 oak --hickory forest Yellow A number of river Lampsiiis cariosa 19 Lampmussel 2005-06-23 E Medium E FSC S1 G3G4 systems; mainly near the Fall Line Notropis Cape Fear Cape. Fear drainage mekistocholas 18 Shiner 1999-08-03 E Medium E E S1 G1 (endemic to North Carolina) Piedmont/coastal 22 1998-06-12 C High S2? G4 plain acidic cliff Rocky bar and 16 1998-06-12 AB Medium S5 G5 shore Schoenoplectus 38 Canby's 1960-07-01 H Medium SR-P S3 G3G4 Blackwater creeks etuberculatus Bulrush Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Pee Dee, and Strophitus 59 Creeper 2002-07-11 E Medium T S2 G5 French Broad undulatus systems, perhaps P other systems in Piedmont . 1 of 1 1/22/2009 3:00 PM [ �7 y.. X r 1 } *- .R �.Y :�:� fit.-. • ,A _ i�,� �:w' \ by Theresa Coleman In 2004, after dominating the market for more than 70 vears, wood treated with CCA (chro- mated copper arsenate) was withdrawn From resi- dential use due to concerns about health risks from arsenic exposure. 'Phis created a vacuum that a wide variety of new wood preservatives have since attempted to fill. Some of chese treatments Confused by the alphabet soup of wood -treatment chemicals flooding the industry? Read on. have properties that are similar to CCA, but oth- ers are more corrosive and require differenr, pricier hardware and fasteners. Some aren't very corrosive, but aren't rated for ground contact. And For some, whether the lumber is rated for ground contact depends on the size of the material. "it used to be so simple for builders in the United States. All you had was CCA," says Richard Kleiner, direcuo:' oftreared markers for the Southern Forest Produrrs Association. "It was just easier to treat everything with the same amount of preservative, I too. You didn't have to worry about aboveground or underground [most created wood ryas rated For ground contact]. Now you have to really look at the rags." First -Generation Replacements Once the decision was made to take CCA off the residential market, wood treaters had just a year to figure our what to do (see "Why CCA \ as Taken Off the Market," a 110131Veb Exclusive ar deckmag- azine.com). They turned first to water -Lased alka- line copper quaternary (ACQ) and copper azole (CA), both oFwhich had been used for many }ears to treat wood in Europe and Asia. Like CCA, these warer-based preservatives leave a dry, painrable surface. Both come with the same type of IiFerime warranties as did CCA, and the treatment process is essentially the same — air is pulled out of the wood and liquid preservative is forced in under pressure — just wirh a different formula. To protect the wood, both ACQ and CA — like CCA — depend on copper and a co -biocide, which is a chemical added to the Forrnu]a to kill OrganiSmS (such as fungi and insects) that the copper doesn'r. In the case oFACQ, the co -biocide is the quaternary compound; in CA, the co -biocide is azole. As wirh CCA, the copper in both ofthese preservatives needs some help co dissolve in warer co create the aque- ous solution that's used to treat the wood. That's Professional Deck Builder • Se.preniber/Ocrober 2008 . ; INN rr 'A-1- r-. . �- _�!!� � Hwy'_ G - � � y+„' �� - .; ✓ - . ,y .,✓ Y i ��+�- �- -ram "-"� '�� - _ .� v -•, 1-- �r .accomplished by first dissolving the copper in an organic solvent, which is. acknowledged as the A (alkaline) in ACQ. CA and CCA use a similar solvent E t N but it's just not used as part of the product name.LZ The main downside of these first -generation re- placements is they accelerate the corrosion of steel and alumintm fasteners, flashing, and hardware (Figure 1). The culprit is the copper in the preser- Figure 1. The corrosiveness of the first generation of vatives, which reacts galvanically with the other preservatives to replace CCA took many deck build- merals, resulting in failed connections. ers by surprise. Lightly galvanized connectors and Nor only do ACQ and CA have rwo to three rimer fasteners, as well as aluminum flashing, often failed 1 • , -h CC 1 the fo • "f . th - in contact with ACQ and CA preservatives. s n ue copper as r, t m t coppel ey contain is more chemically active. According ro Dr. Jun Zhang, director of Osmose's (800/585- S161, osmosewood.corn) Buffalo Technical Center, more corrosion -resistant hardware and fasteners. the copper in CCA binds with the wood, providing The other significant issue with ACQ and CA relatively few copper ions (the reactive form of cop- has to do with ground contact. Most CCA lumber per). The formulation of ACQ and CA, on the other Was treated to a high enough preservative retention hand, allows for more free copper ions. And unlike level ro allow ground contact, bur that's nor the CCA, ACQ and CA don't contain clirotn it€ ut, which case with all of the new preservatives. Because ACQ inhibits corrosion. and CA contain more copper (an expensive cotn- The corrosion problem wasn't common knowl- modity) than does CCA, one way for iurnber rreat- edge among contractors (or DlYers) nt the rime of cars to hold down costs is to treat lumber only to a the transition away from CCA, and as a result, a level appropriare for its likely use. So, post -size — lor of ACQ and CA decks were built with the same 4s4, 4x6, and 6x6 — lumber is generally created for G-90 galvanized hardware that had worked with ground contact, but most lumber dimensions used CCA. This led to awell-publicized rash ofharclware for joists, beams, and decking are rtor. The rag on and fastener corrosion, which in turn prompred the end of each board notes the level of preservative manufacturers to produce a new generation of retention and states whether that board is allowed 2 1 Professional Deck Builder • Se-prember/Ocrober 2008 ,_t The New Preservatives to contact the ground (see sidebar " whar Should You Look for on a Treared-Lurnber Sticker?" below), Additionally, ACQ and CA have 'a greater tendency than CCA to ]each copper into soil, because they don't bind with The wood in the same .vay. Whe.ther that has a negative environ- mental impact is unclear, though the EPA, which regulates pesticides and fungicides, certainly allows the resi- denrial use oFACQ and CA. Next Generation: Micronized Formulas There's little dispute about the effectiveness of ACQ and CA. Bur, spurred in part by the corrosion issues, preservatives manufacturers have sought a better formula. The new micronized copper -based preservatives are similar to ACQ and CA in that they rely on copper a nd the same co -biocides, richer the quaternary compound or azole. They're also What Should You Look for on a Treated -Lumber Sticker? The tags at the end of each piece of lumber provide a lot of information. To begin with, the tag should indicate confor- mance with an AWPA, ICC, or other code -accepted standard for treated lumber. Next should be the use category, which can be UC3B for aboveground use or UC4A for ground -contact use. The name of the preservative is also included; the reten- tion — the amount of preservative injected into the wood - - may be noted as well. But Pr(DLUOOd^ unlike the days of CCA o�nM r7'u0_ Y \00 O when most of us knew that a retention level of .40 ib. per cubic t`\�` \ foot meant ground contact was allowed, today you will find a range of retention levels. Rather than memorizing the levels required for each preservative and use, it's easier to simply look for the AWPA use category or the words "ground contact" or "above ground use." If you want to dive into the technical aspects of lumber stick- ers, the description of the AWPA Use Categories, as well as a preservative listing, can be found at awpa.com, — T.C. Figure 2. The second .generation of pre- servatives, MCO and MCA, are less cor- rosive than ACQ and CA and leave the wood looking closer to its natural color. made by some oFrhe same manufacturers. 11hibro- Wood (800/737-9663, phibrowood.corn) makes Sustain, a micronized CA (MCA), and Osmose makes a micronized ACQ (,MCQ) called MicroPro. The difference between the micronized Formu- las and ACQ and CA is The size of the copper par- ticles. The copper in MCA and NICQ is ground into particles thar measure one -millionth of meter (a micron — thus the name "micronized"). Because the copper particles are so tiny, no organic solvent is needed to dissolve the copper into the water -based rreanncnt solution. These manufacturers claim that the smaller par- ticles retake the formulas more effective and less likely to leach out oFrhe wood. (Manufacturers add that less leaching means less bioaccumulation and less chance of toxicity to organisms. And sonic say char micronized -preserved products look more like untreated wood (Figure 2). Ofgreacest interest to deck builders, perhaps, is char these micronized formulas are said to be less corrosive. The niamrfaeturers claim that alumi- num and standard G-90 galvanized hardware can be used in direct contact with micronized copper - treated lumber. The reason is that the copper car- bonace used in MCQ and MCA produces relatively few copper ions — about the same as CCA, accord- ing to 'hang. This is not the case with ACQ and CA, kvirh which aluminum contact is forbidden, and hardware has to be either the thicker, more expensive G-18S galvanized or stainless steel. That said, while Simpson Strong -Tic (800/ 999-5099, strongtie.com), a major manufacturer of framing hardware, acknowledges that NICQ is less corrosive than ACQ or CA, it continues to recom- mend the use of G-185 or stainless steel hardware with MCQ. Not everyone thinks that IMCQ is effective. In May of th is year, MicroPro came under attack from 3 1 Professional Deck Builder • Seprenrber/Ouaber 2008 The New Preservatives Viance (800/421-8661, treatedwood.com). Viance makes Ecolife, a nonmetallic, carbon -based pre- servative (Figure 3), as well as ACQ, but it does not manufacture MCQ. Based on findings from a field test done by Viance (and verified by a third party), rhac company has claimed the MCQ formula does not provide adequate protection against prema- ture decay, particularly in ground-conracr wood, Osmose responds that Viance's test didn't fol- low the American Wood Protection Association (AWPA) standardized protocols. Gary Converse, senior vice presidenr ar Osmose, adds, "Wood treated wirh the Osmose MicroPro technology, has been field tested For over five years for fungal decay and termite attack in accordance wirh A\t'PA, ASTM, or other internationally recognized wood testing standards. Furthermore, all field testing has been either conducted or evaluated by accred- ited independent universities, research organiza- tions, or treated -wood inspection companies. In addition, since the introduction of treated wood incorporating our i 1icropro technology in early 2006, more than 3 billion board feet of NficroPro- treared wood has been sold in over 3,000 home centers and lumberyards in the U.S., and there have been no reports or claims of premature fun- gal decay or termite attack." Chris Shadday, commercial vice president at Viance, admirs that their tests did not follow AWPA protocols but explained the variation: "The AWPA stake test is intended ro show how much of a new preservative is needed to resist decay by com- paring its performance to a known preservative. Three sets of stakes, one created with the known preservative, one created with the new preservative, and one set of untreated stakes to act as a coricrol, are placed in the ground. After a period of months, the stakes are examined for decay. "To con Form to AWIIA protocols, the stakes being tested are supposed to be treated ar the testing lab with that company's preservatives. Because Viance doesn't make MCQ, we couldn't do that. Instead, we purchased both ACQ- and MCQ-rreared 4x4s For testing ac local Horne Depot and Lowe's stores and ripped them into 0/4-inch-square stakes, The use of commercially purchased lumber is lox%, our test deviated from AWPA protocols." Shadday continues, "The lumber we tested was what a contractor might purchase, so we feel the test is valid. Wle verified that the samples were full% treated on all sides to the claimed level of preserva- tive retention. There would be no point in testing improperly treated wood. "The decay eve found was due to brown and white rot fungi, two common decay-[vpc microbes. Ir's our theory chat the solid, essentially insoluble cop- per in MCQ is chemically bound and not available in nn ionic form, as the soluble copper in ACQ is. 13ecause of this, we don't think that IMCQ is as effective at preventing these organisms. We're also concerned that the copper in MCQ doesn't enter - the cell %walls during treatment, and so won't be as effective at controlling what's called soft rot. However, this rot cakes two to three years to develop and our rest only ran for about 10 months." Zhang responds that Osmose has done "a lot of resting in aggressive testing sites. MicroPro per- formed at least as well ws ACQ in independent tests, some Lilac ran for as long as five years." Zhang continues, "IMicroPro produces free copper ions at about the same level as CCA, which is above the threshold required to control brown and white rot fungi. And independent labs have observed copper in the cell walls of MCQ-treated lumber using scanning electron microscopes." There doesn't seem to be a clear answer to this debare. MCQ does offer the con tractor one solution to a real problern, hardware and fastener corrosion. And it looks more like untreated wood, which may Please your clients. The crux is whether there's sub- stance to Viance's Findings of premature decay in MCQ-rreared wood. The comperitive stakes are 41 Professional Deck Builder, Seprember/Ocrubcr 200E i 4 The New Preservatives high for both companies, and both Viance and Osmose defend their positions well. What is certain is chat time will tell. Beyond Copper While some manufacturers worked to improve ACQ and CA, others were looking beyond nieral- lic preservatives, asking what else could preserve wood. "There have been all kinds ofdevelopments," says Kleiner, from the Southern Forest products Association. "There were four new ones added in just the last two years. And I believe you are going to keep seeing even more preservatives." The trend in this group of up-and-comers is to preserve wood with little or no metal in the for- mula, "1 can tell ,you that there are a lot of prod- ucts out there; most are AVIPA standardized, but some are not," says Colin McCown of the AWPA. Figure 4. EnviroSafe Plus is a borate -based above- ground preservative l treatment approved by the International Code Council. ,o-A rt and accepted by the EPA. r= �.•..� ` r-:-. •:-,- Lumber is pressure treated with DOT (disodium octab- orate tetrahydrate) and a water-repellent polymer. Fire retardant and virtually noncorrosive, the product comes with a 40-year transferable limited warranty. Figure 5. TimberSil's heat treatment process infuses microscopic silicone - based glass crystals into wood to protect it from decay and infestation. Because the USDA has deemed that TimberSil does not fall into its treated category, TimberSil is not approved by the International Code Council. But it has been approved by the EPA as a nontoxic exempt barrier product. The company claims it can be used in both ground -contact and aboveground applications. It carries a 40-year trans- ferable warranty. "A buyer would need to look for the AW11A mark on the created wood to ensure that they're using prod- ucts standardized by experts in the field of wood protection in an open, consensus -based process." This means that if your local municipality allows, [here may be treated wood available to you that hasn't vet been approved by the national regu- lacors. Additionally, some approved new formulas are nor intended For ground -contact use. Borates, for example, have long been used to pre- serve regular framing lumber in particularly ter- mite -prone areas such as the deep South, and as an indoor pesticide (borates are nonmxic to humans), As a supplemental architectural preservation method, borate pellets are often placed in holes drilled in existing, exterior n-im. Borate treatment generally increases the fire resistance of wood and isn't corrosive. Bor-ates arc +rarer SOI[rble, however, and tend to leach from wood that's used ourside. Until recent]y, no major application using boraces had been approved for exterior use. That changed with the advent of EnviroSafe Pius (Figure 4), made by Wood Treatment products (800/345- 8102, [CC approved tear aboveground use, the boraces are locked into EnviroSafe lumber with a combination of poly- mers and stabilizers that are Forced into the niate- rial during pressure treatment. jack Rombough, president of the company, says that EnviroSafe Plus is currently distributed in some Southeast, Middle Atlantic, Midwest, and Southwest stares. TimberSil (888/346-9200, tirnbersihvood.com), which uses sodium silicate essentially glass to preserve the wood, claims its preservative can be used both in ground contact and above ground, and that it strengthens the wood (Figure 5), The company also claims its product is noncorrosive and a Class A fire retardant, which could be a grear benefit in areas prone to wildfire. While it currenrlylacks ICC approval,TimberSil's resistance to rennites has been confirmed by the New Orleans Mosquito and Termite Control Board. Lew Combs, marketing director for TimberSil, says chat he expects to have ICC approval within six months, and that building inspectors through- out the COLIntry have been allowing the use of TimberSil based on current documentation. Initial problems xirh Third -party treatment plants slowed TimberSil's introduction to the rnar- ket, and distribution has been spotty. However, 5 1 Professional Deck Builder • Seprember/October2008 4. The New Preservatives Figure 6. To create PureWood, heat is used to convert sugars in wood to a form that's unpal- atable to fungi and termites, thereby protecting it from rot. It is a nontoxic process and the wood is free of added chemi- cals. Approvals are pending. Figure 7. Intended for aboveground use, the non- metallic Wolmanized L3 wood has been evaluated by the International Code Council and is listed in the AWPA Book of Standards. The company adds a pigment to its formula to distinguish its light brown treated lumber from other types of treated lumber. It is backed by a lifetime limited warranty. Figure 8. ProWood Micro is a - micronized copper quaternary t' f O 16, TimberSiI recently signed up with American Inter- national Forest Products and is now available nation-wide. Production at TirnberSd s West Coast plant has gone from one shift to three, and an Easr Coast plant is in the -works for 2009. Fungi and termites attack -woad because the sugars it COntarnS are their food source, liay Tree Technologies' PureWood (888/573-4180, pureu-ood products.corn) preserves -wood by taking the sug- ars out (Figure 6). No chemicals are added — the -wood is heated using a process developed by the Finnish company Srellac Oy (srellac.fi/English/ stellac.htm). Woods treated in this manner are noncorrosive and rake on a toasty brown color, but they do lose. sonic strength i n the process. According to Ron Long, president of 13ay Tree, Pure%Vood is currently available in 13 southern and mid -western states. Long says thar agree- ments should be in place by the time this article is published chat will improve distribution in the South and '{jest. He predicts similar distri- bution increases in northern markets for 2009. PureWood does nor yet have full code acceptance, but Long expects co have reports from ]CC - accredited labs -within four months. He adds. "In actual application, we haven't encountered any resistance from local inspectors," Arch Treatment Technologies (770/801-6600, archchemicals.com) has moved away from met- al -based preservatives -with its Wolmanized L3 treating solution (Figure 7). Accepted by the ICC for aboveground use, Wolnianized L3 is a carbon -based preservative that's said to — .. be noncorrosive to metals. According to company spokesman Huck DeVenzio, L3 preserva ive tom smose. s w is currently available mainly on the East available with the company's "'"'"" -' Coast and in the upper Midwest. integral pigment system, called _ — In addition to developing new Formu- MiGrOShades, which adds - las for rLeservin -wood sonic manu- wood-tone colors. ProWood Micro has earned Environmen- tally Preferable Product (EPP) certification from Scientific Certification Systems. To earn EPP certification, a product Tx must demonstrate. reduced impact on human health and the environment when compared with other products that serve the same purpose, as measured by guidelines published by the U.S. EPA. } .. p , � facturers are trying our a new look by using built-in Brains. Pro\ ood Alicro -with iMicroShades from universal Forest Products (800/598-9663, rtfpi.com), for instance, combines an IMCQ-based pre- servative with integral pigments to add natural wood -tone colors to its decking and fence products (Figure 8). sr Theresa Coleman writes on construction topicsfrom her home in Ambler, Penn. 6 1 Professional Deck Builder • Seprember/October 2008 Copper Azole FAQ Sheet Cox Industries, Inc. What is copper azole preservative? In the early 1990s, as questions began to be asked about CCA preservative, Arch scientists started work on alternative products. The most promising, and the one eventually brought to market, was copper azole. It has two active ingredients: copper and azole, as a co -biocide to prevent damage from copper -tolerant fungi, an organic azole. It was introduced in Europe in 1992, and in the United States in 2001. The original formulation included borate, but that was unnecessary for typical outdoor applications in the United States and was eliminated. Now there are more than 60 North American companies treating wood with copper azole, plus others in Europe. This wood has been used in thousands of residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial applications. Is it safe to people and the environment? Copper azole and copper azole-treated wood have been studied carefully by toxicologists and biologists as well as by wood preservation experts. Results of a human health risk assessment and other tests have shown it to be harmless when used as recommended. 1 am familiar with ACQ-treated wood but not with wood treated with copper azole. Are they similar? They are very similar. Both were developed as alternatives to CCA, and both are heavily dependent on copper as their primary preservative. Both contain a small amount of organic fungicide — azole in the case of copper azole and quaternary in the case of ACQ. Where there are differences, we think that slight advantage lies with copper azole. However, many U. S. retailers have used them interchangeably. They look and perform very similarly when produced correctly. Regarding corrosion of metal hardware, the newer types of ACQ are very similar to copper azole — both are in the "excellent range" as defined in the Corrosion Engineering Handbook. ',P How do Copper Azole and ACQ differ? As mentioned above, the similarities are greater than the differences. However, there are some differences, most of which affect producers rather than retailers or users. Any direct comparison must take into account the type of ACQ. The developers of ACQ have tried to upgrade their formulations several times. Over the past 10 years they have offered ACQ type A, ACQ-B, ACQ-C, ACQ-D, ACQ-D carbo-quat, and ACQ-D with micronized copper. The two most common in the United States are ACQ-D carbo-quat and ACQ-D with micronized copper. Copper azole is probably most like ACQ type D carbo-quat. Copper azole does not contain chlorides as did the earlier versions of ACQ, and the amount of copper azole needed to protect wood is less the amount of ACQ needed. The main differences in the preservatives are in how they are produced and how they are shipped to treating companies. There is little difference in the end products, when they are properly produced. Why should a purchaser choose copper azole-treated wood over ACQ-treated wood? Unless the producer is still using an early type of ACQ (i.e., A, B, C, or D), the purchaser should consider more than the chemical. Copper azole and the later types of ACQ are similar and do not provide a good basis for a decision. Purchasers should consider other factors that are more important: • the expertise and reliability of the treating company • the quality control program assuring proper production • the brand name on the wood • the support available. Has CA-B been around longer than ACQ? Wood products treated with Copper Azole have been used effectively around the world since 1992. ACQ treated wood was first introduced in the US in 1992, but has been successfully used in Europe, Japan, New Zealand, Asia and Australia since 1987. Why should I by copper azole treated wood from Cox or a building supply store? In choosing copper azole treated wood from Cox, a purchaser gets a dependable product and a helpful partner. Cox Industries has been treating wood since 1954, and has a reputation as one of the finest, most respected producers in the United States. It has always been at the forefront of developments in wood preservation. The quality of Cox material is checked internally by on -site laboratory analysis; double- checked by the preservative manufacturer, Arch Wood Protection (an international leader with global operations); and also monitored by an independent inspection agency accredited by the American Lumber Standard Committee. Purchasers can be certain they receive wood that has been properly treated. The treated wood from Cox bears the (Wolmanized / DuraPine) name. They put this name on the wood because they are proud to stand behind the brand. Cox does not look upon their products as generic treated wood; their output is special wood in which they have full confidence. This brand name provides marketing opportunities for retailers. They can promote a particular brand that their customers can trust. (Wohnanized wood is the most widely used brand in the United States. / DuraPine is the most popular brand of treated wood in Cox's marketing area.) And from Cox you get not only a product, but the expertise and assistance to help you sell it. Cell Penetration Study Study Shows Uniform Cell Wall Penetration using µCA-C with C9 A study conducted by researchers at Oregon State University has confirmed "...uniform copper distribution across the cell walls..." for southern pine pressure -treated with a solution consisting of both dispersed copper azole (µCA-C) and dissolved copper (C9). A report on the study, submitted August 7, 2008, was authored by Scott Leavengood, Oregon Wood Innovation Center, and J. 1. Morrell, Department of Wood Science & Engineering. It is titled, "Distribution of elemental copper in southern pine sapwood blocks as visualized using SEM/EDXA" The authors investigated claims that finely ground copper preservatives do not adequately penetrate cell walls. Using scanning electron microscopy On the left, a scanning electron micrograph of a sample cross section shows the honey- combed network of cell walls. Green spots in the adjacent EDXA map reveal copper distribution throughout the cell walls, not just along their edges. This wood sample was pressure -treated with production grind copper plus 10% dissolved copper along with the appropriate levels of propiconazole and tebuconazole. (SEM) coupled with energy dispersive x-ray analysis (EDXA), chips of treated blocks were examined for copper distribution. The investigation found that penetration was not problematic for dispersed/dissolved copper azole. Dispersed copper azole type C (µCA-C) consists of finely ground copper combined with a synergistic, carbon -based co -biocide composed of propiconazole and tebuconazole. C9, which is registered with EPA as a wood preservative, is a solution of dissolved copper that can be added to µCA-C. SEM allows for imaging of wood at higher magnification than is possible with traditional light microscopy, while the EDXA permits assessment of metal distribution. September 2008