Scientist Discuss Wood Packaging Rule Changes
By MaterialsHandling.Net Staff
Date Posted: 12/1/2008
Scientific experts and government representatives recently gathered in Rome at the sixth meeting of the International Forestry Quarantine Research Group (IFQRG), a taskforce of forestry scientists and technical experts on phytosanitary issues. They discussed a number of issues, including developing tests for evaluating treatment methods, updates on various new technologies in the development pipeline, and pending changes to the existing ISPM-15 standard for solid wood packaging.
IFQRG is developing a decision tree to evaluate new treatment methods for solid wood packaging. The participants agreed to begin by determining what pests to test first. The initial criteria should determine if there is variation in each pest group (i.e. bark beetles) and use this evaluation to determine how many of each species in each pest group should be tested. Several members advocated that surrogates can be used as long as some evidence of equivalency to the pests of concern is provided. New treatment providers will have to test the efficacy of any new process against the most important and the most resistant species.
IFQRG has looked at a number of contentious issues over the last few years. The most notable one was the debate over bark removal. In the end, the Europeans got some of what they wanted and the U.S. limited the requirement to allow some bark. The Committee for Phytosanitary Measures (CPM), which oversees ISPM-15, is considering changes that would require compliant packaging to be free of major patches of bark. The proposed standard change would limit bark to no bigger than three centimeters wide and any length, or patches that are about the size of a credit card. CPM has received so many comments about the bark rule that it is extending the process for further comments. Information provided by IFQRG has been used in developing these proposed changes.
CPM will take up the bark and other issues next April. More details should be available as CPM issues a report on the preliminary country comments. Also, under consideration are new definitions for the terms re-use, recycled and repaired wood packaging.
Dr Eric Allen with the Pacific Forestry Centre in Canada is the chairman of IFQRG as well as a leading researcher of heat treatment methods. Dr. Allen said, “We know that not all organisms are killed with the same treatment. For example, some wood organisms live in composite piles or near hot springs and can survive extreme temperatures.”
Researchers in the United States have been looking at the effectiveness of the current 56/30 heat treatment standard to kill problem pests, such as the emerald ash borer (EAB). Some research indicates that 56/30 may not be effective enough to kill the EAB. But this is far from clear because many times the outer area where many pests live are treated at much higher temperatures for far longer periods of time than 56/30. This technical reality makes it harder to estimate since kilns can vary from location to location.
Researchers continue to look at new treatment technologies that can lower cost, reduce the impact on the environment and work in less developed countries. They considered the differences between heat treatment, methyl bromide, sulphuryl fluoride and microwave treatment. Although comparison research was not conclusive, IFQRG determined that microwave treatment at a frequency of 2.45 GHz to a minimum of 62°C for two minutes applied to wood of a maximum thickness of 200mm should satisfy the requirements of ISPM-15.
