Peters Brenton C, Fitzgerald Christopher J
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Forestry Building, Gate 3, 80 Meiers Road, Indooroopilly, Queensland 4068, Australia.
J Econ Entomol. 2006 Oct;99(5):1749-56. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-99.5.1749.
Laboratory and field data reported in the literature are confusing with regard to "adequate" protection thresholds for borate timber preservatives. The confusion is compounded by differences in termite species, timber species and test methodology. Laboratory data indicate a borate retention of 0.5% mass/mass (m/m) boric acid equivalent (BAE) would cause > 90% termite mortality and restrict mass loss in test specimens to < or = 5%. Field data generally suggest that borate retentions appreciably > 0.5% m/m BAE are required. We report two field experiments with varying amounts of untreated feeder material in which Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) responses to borate-treated radiata (Monterey) pine, Pinus radiata D. Don, were measured. The apparently conflicting results between laboratory and field data are explained by the presence or absence of untreated feeder material in the test environment. In the absence of untreated feeder material, wood containing 0.5% BAE provided adequate protection from Coptotermes sp., whereas in the presence of untreated feeder material, increased retentions were required. Furthermore, the retentions required increased with increased amounts of susceptible material present. Some termites, Nasutitermes sp. and Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, for example, are borate-tolerant and borate timber preservatives are not a viable management option with these species. The lack of uniform standards for termite test methodology and assessment criteria for efficacy across the world is recognized as a difficulty with research into the performance of timber preservatives with termites. The many variables in laboratory and field assays make "prescriptive" standards difficult to recommend. The use of "performance" standards to define efficacy criteria ("adequate" protection) is discussed.
文献中报道的实验室和现场数据在硼酸盐木材防腐剂的“足够”保护阈值方面存在混淆。白蚁种类、木材种类和测试方法的差异加剧了这种混淆。实验室数据表明，硼酸盐保留量为0.5%质量/质量（m/m）硼酸当量（BAE）会导致>90%的白蚁死亡率，并将测试样本中的质量损失限制在<或 = 5%。现场数据通常表明，需要明显高于0.5% m/m BAE的硼酸盐保留量。我们报告了两项现场实验，其中未处理的喂食材料数量不同，在这些实验中测量了澳白蚁（Coptotermes acinaciformis (Froggatt)）（等翅目：鼻白蚁科）对硼酸盐处理的辐射松（Monterey pine，辐射松（Pinus radiata D. Don））的反应。测试环境中未处理的喂食材料的存在与否解释了实验室和现场数据之间明显相互矛盾的结果。在没有未处理的喂食材料的情况下，含0.5% BAE的木材提供了对澳白蚁属（Coptotermes sp.）的足够保护，而在有未处理的喂食材料的情况下，则需要增加保留量。此外，所需的保留量随着易感材料数量的增加而增加。例如，一些白蚁，如鼻白蚁属（Nasutitermes sp.）和达尔文澳白蚁（Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt），对硼酸盐具有耐受性，硼酸盐木材防腐剂对这些物种不是可行的管理选择。世界各地白蚁测试方法和功效评估标准缺乏统一标准被认为是木材防腐剂对白蚁性能研究的一个难题。实验室和现场试验中的许多变量使得难以推荐“规定性”标准。讨论了使用“性能”标准来定义功效标准（“足够”保护）的问题。
