466 Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474

Chuck Yu1
Derrick Crump2
Research Article
Veronica Brown3
Exposure Risk Assessment of the Emissions of
1
Enviro-Act Consultants Ltd., Milton
Keynes, UK.
Wood Preservative Chemicals in Indoor
2
Cranfield Health, Cranfield University, Environments
Bedfordshire, UK.
3
BRE, Watford, UK. A collaborative study was undertaken to evaluate the sustainability of a new genera-
tion of biocides for the treatment of timbers in buildings and to validate the recycla-
bility of the treated timbers. The evaluation included an assessment of the impact of
emissions of the wood treatment chemicals during the service life of timbers and
recycled wood based products. This involved emission testing of active substances
(propiconazole, tebuconazole, permethrin and dichlofluanid) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from timber pretreated or coated using formulated products. The
German AgBB method for evaluating VOC emissions from construction products was
used to discuss the relative risk of the treated timbers. The emission rates of the active
substances from the treated timbers were compared to the ADI (Acceptable Daily
Intake) values given in the draft reports from the EU Biocides Directive, 98/8/EC, to
determine the exposure risk to building occupants. As a part of this study, the emis-
sions of the active substances from the stud frame of a newly built test cabin were
monitored over a two year period.
Keywords: Emissions testing; Exposure risk assessment; Indoor Air; Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs); Wood preservatives;
Received: March 2, 2009; revised: April 22, 2009; accepted: April 28, 2009
DOI: 10.1002/clen.200900046

1 Introduction
According to EU Biocides Directive 98/8/EC (May 2000), exposure
risk assessment should form an integral part of risk assessment for
a biocidal product for regulatory purposes. Preferably, representa-
tive data from well designed field studies should form the basis for
the review, registration, evaluation and risk assessment of the
chemicals. For some biocidal products, the data connected with the
release of the active ingredients to soil and water during the differ-
ent stages of the products life cycle has been assessed by EU and
industry sponsored projects. However, the emissions to air of bio-
cides from products installed in service, e. g., in buildings, have not
yet been fully assessed to provide sufficient data for exposure risk
assessment. The objective of this study was to assess the sustainabil-
ity of a new generation of wood protection and wood care products
for the treatment of timbers for buildings by considering the
impact of emissions to air of wood treatment chemicals from
treated timbers, especially during the service life of the products [1].
Exposure risk assessment is recommended by the OECD (Organiza-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development) (see following
websites: www.oecd.org/document/53/0,2340,en_2649_201185_18
97781_1_1_1_1,00.html and www.oecd.org/findDocument/0,2350,
en_2649_34383_1_119820_1_4_1,00.html).
Correspondence: Dr. C. Yu, Enviro-Act Consultants Ltd., 29 The Nortons,
Caldecotte, Milton Keynes, MK7 8HQ, UK.
E-mail: chuck.yu@btinternet.com
Previous studies in Germany [2], USA [3] and by BRE (Building
Research Establishment Ltd.) [4] could provide a guide for the devel-
opment of an exposure risk assessment. However, it should be noted
that these studies were based on PCP (pentachlorophenol) and lin-
dane formulations that are being phased out of the market and also
other types of biocides that are not relevant to the current wood
treatment market in the UK. The volume of wood preservatives used
in the German and US studies was related to in situ applications
(e. g., by spraying and brush on coating) and this would not be rele-
vant to the pretreatment products used in UK homes. The pre-
treated timbers (e. g., in trusses and timber frame houses) are
expected to have much lower amounts of wood preservatives
released by evaporation in the indoor environment. The German
studies largely related to interior room paneling, treated by occu-
pants with surface applied products over many years. The spray and
brush on applications would release much higher concentrations.
The USA study included assessment of exposure to termiticides used
post construction for curative treatments.
For biocides with low vapour pressure, some emissions to indoor
air over a long period may be expected. SVOCs (semi volatile organic
compounds) such as pesticides are readily retained on surfaces (sink
effects). Their re-emission from sinks could potentially occur for
months or years after application. Preservatives for structural tim-
ber have to be effective for decades, so their active ingredients are
expected to persist in the treated wood. Residues of pesticides found
in indoor air, homes and on floors and other surfaces contribute to
the overall exposure of the household occupants. Many studies,

i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com

Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474 Exposure Risk Assessment of Wood Preservatives in Indoor Environments 467

Table 1. Timber treated with formulated products for emission testing.

Pretreated (double vacuum impregnation) spruce

1. Pine pretreated with solvent based propiconazole/tebuconazole/permethrin/IPBCa) (P6)
2. Pine pretreated with a water based propiconazole/tebuconazole/permethrin (P3)
3. Spruce pretreated with solvent based propiconazole/tebuconazole/permethrin/IPBC (S10)
4. Spruce sample pretreated with a water based copper/propiconazole/tebuconazole (S4)

Woodcare coating, brush on applied on Scots pine

5. Pine sample coated with woodstain (teak) containing the active substance, dichlofluanid
6. Pine sample coated with a quick dry formulation containing propiconazole and flurox
7. Pine sample coated with acypetacs zinc and permethrin
8. Untreated Scots pine (P13)
9. Untreated Spruce (S13)
a)
3-iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC).

including those cited, have assessed exposure to pesticides used
indoors, sometimes for many years after the building was com-
pleted. This study focuses on wood preservatives impregnated into
wood which are used in construction as stud and structural frames
in housing, as well as wood care products, e. g., wood stain on win-
dow frames.
2 Methods
BRE 2 L microchambers were used for the assessment of emissions
to air of wood preservative chemicals from timbers treated with for-
mulated products. The emission testing of a duplicate sample of
spruce timber treated by double vacuum impregnation has been
previously reported [5]. The previous paper also reported a one year
monitoring study of the emissions of active substances from a
treated timber frame of a test cabin. This paper reports the emis-
sions of wood preservatives and VOCs from four samples of pre-
treated timbers (spruce and Scots pine) and three coated pines; and
the results of two years monitoring of a test cabin (27 m3) con-
structed using prefabricated wall panels and a treated timber
frame. The evaluation of VOC emissions was based on the 2008 ver-
sion of AgBB (German Committee for Health-related Evaluation of
Building Products) (see: www.umweltbundesamt.de/building-prod
ucts/archive/AgBB-Evaluation-Scheme2008.pdf).
2.1 Environmental Chamber Test
The treated timbers that were tested are shown in Tab. 1.
The pretreated timber stud was prepared by vacuum impregna-
tion by Arch Timber Protection according to the normal practice for
preparation of timbers for the housing market in the UK. The
treated timber was cut to the dimensions required for emission test-
ing by Arch and sealed by wrapping in aluminum foil and delivered
to BRE for testing. The sealed samples were tested in microchambers
immediately after exposure. The dimensions of the timber samples
were 0.06 x 0.2 x 0.02 m.
The formulated wood care products, as supplied by the industrial
partner (ICI Paints), were brush applied on all sides of a Scots pine
timber panel available in the laboratory (0.06860.260.2 m). The
amounts applied were as follows; 2.4 g of wood stain (teak), 5.7 g of a
,
quick dry formulation and 4.9 g of a low odour’ product.
The treated timber pieces were tested in the BRE microchambers
[5, 6]. The microchamber had a 2 L stainless steel cylindrical com-
partment for loading the test specimen for emission testing. The
microchambers were placed in a constant temperature room (238C).
Clean air was supplied to the microchamber using a zero air genera-
tor. A proportion of the zero air was humidified by passing through
a deionized water bubbler, and then mixing with the zero air to pro-
vide 50% relative humidity in the air supply. The airflow was regu-
lated to ensure a flow of 0.03 m3/h through the microchambers
when testing the timber samples. The quality of the air supply
through an empty chamber was determined prior to emissions test-
ing. The total airflow (0.03 m3/h) was sampled for the determination
of the emissions of the wood preservatives propiconazole, tebucona-
zole, permethrin, dichlofluanid and other newly developed active
substances (SVOCs) at the outlet using a polyurethane foam (PUF)
sampler in a brass cylindrical capsule. The sampling airflow rate,
i. e., the rate of air passing from the chamber outlet into the brass
capsule containing the PUF sampler, was monitored and measured
using a PrimeAir calibrator throughout the sampling period of up
to 337 h (l10.11 – 10.70 m3 of air). Due to the low volatility of the
active substances, the sampling was carried out over 5 to 10 day
periods as follows, 3 – 8, 28 – 35, 55 – 65 and 85 – 90 days after expo-
sure of the treated timber. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) was used for the analysis of propiconazole, tebuconazole
and permethrin [1].
An area specific airflow rate of 0.9 m3h – 1m – 2 was used for the test-
ing of the pretreated timber and 1 m3 h – 1 m – 2 was used for the tim-
ber coated with wood care products. These area specific airflow
rates were used as worst case examples of a small room built with a
timber floor, as given by EN ISO 16000-9: 2006. Coatings are nor-
mally applied to exposed timber beams, floors, windows and doors
and other wood trims inside a room, whereas pretreated timber
would normally be used as studs and these would be covered by plas-
terboard in an occupied environment (e. g., in the living room of a
house). A reduced area specific airflow rate was therefore selected
for the testing of the pretreated timber products.
VOCs were sampled using Tenax adsorbent tubes and determined
as described by EN ISO 16000-9: 2006. For timber treated with the
water based formulation, a sampling flow rate of 0.009 m3/h for a
period of about 0.5 h was used and for timber treated with a solvent
based product, a sampling flow rate of 0.003 m3/h for 1 min was
used. The sampling of VOCs was carried out after 3 and 28 days of
exposure of the pretreated timber. The air sampling and analysis
was as prescribed by the international standard, ISO 16000:6 using
GC/MS for identification of compounds and FID (flame ionization
detector) for quantification. The German AgBB method was used for
the evaluation of the related exposure risk of treated timbers for
building occupants. The evaluation as prescribed by AgBB requires

i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com

468 C. Yu et al.
Figure 1. The air change rate and temperature conditions during January 2005 to March 2007.
the testing of timbers using a standard environmental chamber
according to the international standard, EN ISO 16000-9. For this
evaluation, a BRE microchamber was used to determine the concen-
trations of VOCs emitted from the treated timbers. The area specific
airflow rates used were as described above.
2.2 The Test House Study
A test cabin was constructed to simulate a living room (27 m3) of a
newly built house. The treated timber (using water based tebucona-
zole, propiconazole and permethrin) was used to construct a frame
and cavity into which phenolic foam was injected for thermal insu-
lation. This was covered by cement particleboard to form the prefab-
ricated wall panel, as manufactured for the housing market in
Europe. The frame effectively acted as studs (300 mm centers) for a
timber framed house. The materials were chamber tested to deter-
mine the emissions of VOCs and wood preservatives.
The test cabin was built at BRE on 7 December 2004 by Space4 Ltd.
(a subsidiary of Westbury Homes). The emissions of active substan-
ces from the treated timber stud were monitored to provide data for
a modeling study to determine the fate of active substances in the
indoor environment. The first phase of the study started after the
construction of the test cabin, without the plasterboard cladding of
the wall panel, the window or door. The objectives of the monitor-
ing study have been described [1]. The test cabin was built to simu-
late the living room (or bedroom) of a home. The main purpose of
this test house study was to provide realistic data for exposure risk
assessment of the emissions of active substances from wood preser-
vative treated timbers in a timber framed house.
During the first period from January to March 2005, the window
and door openings were covered with plastic (polyethylene) tarpau-
lin. The emissions of wood preservatives, propiconazole, tebucona-
zole and permethrin in the test cabin were monitored by air sam-
pling using PUF samplers. The air exchange rate of the test cabin
was also monitored (in duplicate) by a tracer gas method [7]. The
temperature and humidity of the test cabin were monitored
i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474
throughout the period. While the window and door were being pre-
pared by Osmose (an industrial partner to the project) in March –
July 2005, the window opening was temporarily sealed on 1 April
2005 with polyacrylic sheeting and the door opening was sealed
with acrylic coated plywood.
During the period from October to December 2005, a window was
delivered to BRE from Osmose (on 7 October 2005) and was fitted to
the test cabin on 11 October 2005. The door was delivered to BRE on
25 November and was fitted to the test cabin on 28 and 29 Novem-
ber 2005. After fitting the window and door to the test cabin, heat-
ing was turned on and was thermostatically controlled at 238C. The
monitoring of emissions of active substances was undertaken before
and after the fitting of the window and door. The air exchange rate,
the temperature and relative humidity in the test cabin were also
monitored. The one year monitoring period (first and second phase)
of the test cabin has been reported previously [5].
The third phase of monitoring involved the fitting of plaster-
board to the test cabin on 29 March 2006. A wood stain coating (sup-
plied by ICI Paints) was applied to the window and door of the test
cabin on 2 October 2006. The mean four week air change rate in the
test cabin was monitored every month by a tracer gas method [7],
during the two year period.
The emissions of the wood preservatives tebuconazole, propicona-
zole and permethrin were sampled about once a month throughout
the two year study, using PUF samplers, over a sampling period of
five days and a sampling rate of 0.275 m3/h. Formaldehyde and
TVOC concentrations in the test cabin were also monitored by diffu-
sive methods. Diffusive measurement of formaldehyde (ISO 16000-
4) was undertaken using a badge (GMD 570) containing a 2, 4-dini-
trophenylhydrazine coated filter paper. The badge was exposed for
three days to provide a three day average measurement in the test
cabin. After sampling, the badge was solvent desorbed with acetoni-
trile and then analyzed by high performance liquid chromatogra-
phy (HPLC). Tenax TA adsorbent tubes were used to determine the
28 day average exposure by diffusive air sampling according to BS
EN 16017-2:2003, Part 2.
www.clean-journal.com
Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474 Exposure Risk Assessment of Wood Preservatives in Indoor Environments 469

Figure 2. Concentrations of active substances monitored during January 2005 to March 2007.

Figure 3. TVOC concentrations in the test cabin from January 2005 to March 2007.

3 Results of the active substances, propiconazole, tebuconazole and perme-

The two year test cabin study showed the concentrations of active
substances were consistently close to the quantitation limits of
about 2 to 8 ng/m3 for a 40 to 50 m3 air sample and less than 10 ng/
m3, except for propiconazole in the first month (13 ng/m3). The air
change rate in the test cabin was monitored (in duplicate) every
month and the temperature and humidity were continuously moni-
tored. These measurements are shown in Fig. 1. The concentrations
thrin monitored in the test cabin from January 2005 to March 2007
are shown in Fig. 2. The concentrations of TVOC and formaldehyde
are shown in Fig. 3 (TVOC) and Fig. 4 (formaldehyde).
The results of the environmental chamber test of the emissions of
active substances from pretreated timbers are shown in Tab. 2 and
the emissions from coated timbers are shown in Tab. 3. The emis-
sions of VOCs from the pretreated timbers after 3 and 28 days of
chamber tests are shown in Tabs. 4 and 5 which also includes the

i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com

470 C. Yu et al.
Figure 4. Formaldehyde concentrations in the test cabin from January 2005 to March 2007.
assessment of the relative risk factors for the individual compounds
as required by the AgBB method.
4 Discussion
Low emission rates of active substances were shown by emission
testing of the treated timber studs prepared by double vacuum
impregnation of water and solvent based wood preservatives con-
taining propiconazole, tebuconazole and permethrin. These were
consistent with measurements reported by other workers using PUF
samplers [8, 9, 10]. Most of the emission rates measured, were close
to quantitation limits.
A low emission rate for wood preservatives was expected as the
active substances interact with wood lignin (fixation), which is a
necessary process for the biocides to function effectively as preserva-
tives [11, 12]. Lignin is a highly cross-linked, amphiphilic biopoly-
mer with different phenyl-propanoid units connecting to various
ester bonds. There are many possible arrangements of lignin macro-
molecules in the surface layer. These can form hydrogen and other
non-covalent bonds, and due to their ester bonds, many different
transformations are possible which affect the molecular sizes and
volumes due to interactions at the air-water interface of the wood
surface [13, 14]. Lignin is highly cross-linked due to the polymeriza-
tion of substituted phenolic components, monolignols, catalyzed
by the enzyme peroxidase. This could be influenced by the cellulose
substrates and solution media leading to assembly systems, provid-
ing pores and channels that would allow diffusion of molecules to
take place on the surface [15]. The low vapor pressure of wood pres-
ervatives can be an important factor which determines the emis-
sions and fate of active substances in the indoor environment [16,
17]. The timber species and the depth of penetration of the wood
preservative could have a significant effect on the emissions of the
active substances [18].
i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474
The results of air monitoring of active substances from the test
cabin were at or below the limit of quantitation (a 10 ng/m3). Fitting
the window and door and the application of wood stain did not
cause any significant effect on the cabin air concentrations of active
substances. However it is worth evaluating these results and com-
paring them to acceptable daily intakes.
The total air volume in the test cabin was 27 m3 and the concen-
trations of the active substances were consistently below 10 ng/m3,
except during the first month of monitoring. A normal adult weigh-
ing 60 kg is deemed to reside in a room for 18 h a day and during
that period will inhale 18.5 m3 of air and about 185 ng of active sub-
stance per day. The exposure per kg body weight (bw) would be
about 3.083 ng kg – 1 bw day – 1, or approximately 0.000003 mg kg – 1
bw day – 1.
Active substances have acceptable daily intakes (ADI) or accept-
able operator exposure levels (AOEL) as shown in the draft reports
under the EU Biocidal Products Directive. The exception is perme-
thrin as the draft report for this substance has not been published
yet. Permethrin has been extensively studied as a crop protection
substance and its ADI is well established.
(i) Tebuconazole, ADI = 0.03 mg kg – 1 bw day – 1, based on a one
year dog study with a NOAEL (no observable adverse effect level)
of 3 mg kg – 1 day – 1 and an uncertainty factor of 100.
(ii) Propiconazole, AOEL = 0.08 mg kg – 1 bw day – 1, based on a two
generation study with a NOAEL of 8 mg kg – 1 day – 1 and an
uncertainty factor of 100.
(iii) IPBC (3-iodo-2-propynyl-butylcarbamate), AOEL and ADI both
given as 0.2 mg kg – 1 bw day – 1.
(iv) Dichlofluanid, AOEL = 0.2 mg kg – 1 bw day – 1, the secondary
long term exposure is given as 0.025 mg kg – 1 bw day – 1, based
on a NOAEL of 20 mg kg – 1day – 1 and an uncertainty factor of
100.
(vi) Permethrin, ADI = 0.05 mg kg – 1 bw day – 1, based on a NOAEL of
5 mg kg – 1 day – 1 and an uncertainty factor of 100.
www.clean-journal.com
Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474 Exposure Risk Assessment of Wood Preservatives in Indoor Environments 471

Table 2. Emissions of wood preservative active substances from pre- The lowest ADI/AOEL is the secondary long term exposure value
treated timber. for dichlofluanid of 0.025 mg kg – 1day – 1. Therefore, 0.00000308/
0.0256100 = 0.0123% of the ADI. The ADI/AOEL for the other sub-
Wood Emission rates, ng m – 2h – 1 (microchamber test)
preservative stances is of the same order, so similar values would result.
The results showed that the exposure to active substances from
1. Scots pine pretreated with solvent based propiconazole/tebucona- treated wood in indoor air during the first two years after comple-
zole/permethrin/IPBC (P6) tion was low and that a tiny fraction of the acceptable daily intake
3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days would result. Even where a number of active substances may be
Propiconazole 54 63 45 45
used in a formulation, and if all had similar effects, the combined
Tebuconazole 18 27 27 27
Permethrin 18 18 27 27 exposure would still be of very low significance.
IPBC ND ND ND ND The results have shown that emission rates of active substances
from the pretreated timbers were negligible compared to the ADI
2. Pine pretreated with a water-based propiconazole/tebuconazole/ (Acceptable Daily Intake) values given in the draft reports from the
permethrin (P3) EU Biocidal Directive and should not be a concern as an inhalation
3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days
Propiconazole 27 27 33 27 exposure risk to building occupants.
Tebuconazole 18 18 20 18 The TVOC concentrations monitored in the test cabin, showed an
Permethrin 20 27 33 27 initial high concentration, 1471 lg/m3 due to the emission of C5 – C7
alkanes and toluene, mainly from the foam insulant and other nat-
3. Spruce pretreated with solvent based propiconazole/tebuconazole/ ural products such as butanal, hexanal, a-pinene, limonene and hex-
permethrin/IPBC (S10)
anoic acid. TVOC concentrations declined to 90 to 130 lg/m3 after
3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days
Propiconazole 108 144 85 90 three months, which is below the 50 percentile value of TVOC con-
Tebuconazole 45 48 27 27 centrations monitored by a BRE survey of 870 homes [19] and below
Permethrin 27 32 27 27 the recommended value of 200 to 300 lg/m3 for good indoor air
quality [20]. The concentration rose to 271 and 876 lg/m3, soon after
4. Spruce sample pretreated with a water based copper/propicona- the window was fitted to the test cabin in October 2005 and rose
zole/tebuconazole (S4)
again to 4846 lg/m3 after fitting the door. The high TVOC concentra-
3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days
Propiconazole a 18 18 20 a 18 tion was mainly attributed to white spirit solvent chemicals, possi-
Tebuconazole a 18 18 20 a 18 bly from the coating on the door. The lower air exchange rate also
Permethrin a 18 18 20 a 18 contributed to the increase in TVOC concentration. The concentra-
tion declined to the acceptable level (a 300 lg/m3) during February
8. Untreated Scots pine (P13) and March 2006 but rose again when the plasterboard was fitted
3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days
Propiconazole a 18 a 15 a 18 a 18 (June 2006) and when wood stain was applied to the window and
Tebuconazole a 18 a 15 a 18 a 18 door (October 2006). The concentration declined to below 200 lg/m3
Permethrin a 18 a 15 a 18 a 18 from November 2006 to March 2007.
The formaldehyde concentration monitored in the cabin was
9. Untreated Spruce (S13) within the normal range (geometric mean: 30 lg/m3) as shown by
3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days
the BRE survey of 870 homes [19] in England. These studies also
Propiconazole a 17 a 15 a 18 a 18
Tebuconazole a 17 a 15 a 18 a 18 showed an increase in formaldehyde concentration during summer
Permethrin a 17 a 15 a 18 a 18 as the temperature in the cabin reached 268C (maximum). The form-
aldehyde concentration fell to 20 lg/m3 during autumn, specifically

Table 3. Emissions of wood preservative active substances from coated Scots pine.

Wood preservative Emission rates, ng m – 2h – 1 (microchamber test)

5. Pine sample coated with woodstain (teak) containing active substance, dichlofluanid
3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days
Dichlofluanid a 20 a 20 a 20 a 20

6. Pine sample coated with a quick dry formulation containing propiconazole and flurox
3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days
Propiconazole a 18 ng m – 2h – 1 a 18 ng m – 2h – 1 a 18 ng m – 2h – 1 a 18 ng m – 2h – 1
Fluroxa) 1 lg m – 2h – 1 7 lg m – 2h – 1 6 lg m – 2h – 1 a 2 lg m – 2h – 1

7. Pine sample coated with acypetacs zinc and permethrin

3 – 10 days 28 – 34 days 56 – 61 days 79 – 90 days
Permethrin a 18 ng m – 2h – 1 a 18 ng m – 2h – 1 a 18 ng m – 2h – 1 a 18 ng m – 2h – 1
Acypetacs 553 lg m – 2h – 1 460 lg m – 2h – 1 NMb) NMc)
a)
Flurox was analyzed by HPLC; the detection limit was about 2 lg m – 2 h – 1 in an 8 m3 air sample.
b)
ND = not detected; NMc) = not measured. The quantitation limit for propiconazole, tebuconazole and permethrin was about 18 ng m–2
h–1 in an 8 m3 air sample.

i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com

472 C. Yu et al. Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474

Table 4. Concentrations of VOCs emitted from the pretreated timbers after three days.

Compound Concentration, lg/m3 (microchamber test)

P3 P6 P13 S4 S10 S13

Acetonitrile (3.2)a) (a 1.0) (1.7) (a 1.0) (a 1.0) (a 1.0)
n-Heptane 1.7 a 1.0 2.1 1.6 a 1.0 1.0
Pentanal a 1.0 12.3 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0
n-Octane 1.5 a 1.0 2.6 2.1 a 1.0 1.0
Hexanal a 1.0 37.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0
Pentan-1-ol 6.2 3.9 6.1 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0
n-Nonane a 1.0 20.6 1.5 a 1.0 1.1 a 1.0
a-pinene 1.0 30.4 0.7 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0
C10 – C12 alkanes and aromatics NDb) (4,530) ND ND (184) ND
OMCTS a 1.0 a 1.0 1.7 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0
n-Octanal 5.0 ND 3.4 a 1.0 ND a 1.0
Hexanoic acid 22.4 a 1.0 17.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 3.1
n-Nonanal 1.8 ND 2.5 2.7 ND 1.9
n-Decanal a 1.0 ND 2.8 1.9 ND 1.1
TVOCFIDc) 37.9 4,690 44.7 21.5 189 13.9
TVOCFID AgBBd) 13.7 4,590 11.9 a 5.0 41.1 a 5.0
a)
Compounds for which concentration values appear in brackets, acetonitrile and the range of hydrocarbons, had no available response
factor and so the calibration for toluene has been applied.
b)
ND = not detected, for n-octanal, n-nonanal and n-decanal it is possible that small amounts may be obscured by the range of hydrocar-
bons present.
c)
The TVOCFID value was that obtained using ISO16000-6, i. e., the sum of VOCs eluting between and including n-hexane and n-hexadecane,
quantified as toluene.
d)
The TVOCFID AgBB value is that obtained using the September 2008 version of the AgBB, also quantified as toluene, but only summing
those compounds with a concentration A 5 lg/m3.

Table 5. Concentrations of VOCs from the pretreated timbers after 28 days of exposure.

Compound Concentration, lg/m3 (microchamber test)

P3 P6 P13 S4 S10 S13

Pentanal 3.2 3.8 3.5 a 1.0 a 1.0 2.1
n-Octane a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 2.2 a 1.0
Hexanal 12.5 (Ria) = 0.014) 6.8 (Ri = 0.008) 13.7 (Ri = 0.015) a 1.0 a 1.0 3.3
Pentan-1-ol 5.2 (Ri = 0.0014) a 1.0 5.6 (Ri = 0.0014) a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0
n-Nonane a 1.0 4.2 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0
a-pinene a 1.0 3.8 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0
C10 – C12 alkanes and aromatics NDb) (587)c) ND ND (21.9) ND
n-Octanal a 1.0 ND 1.1 a 1.0 ND a 1.0
n-Nonanal 1.2 ND 1.9 a 1.0 ND a 1.0
n-Decanal a 1.0 ND 1.3 a 1.0 ND a 1.0
TVOCFIDd) 18.2 590 21.1 2.5 28.3 4.4
TVOCFID AgBBe) 12.3 409 13.4 a 5.0 a 5.0 a 5.0
a)
Ri is the relative risk factor for the individual compounds defined by the AgBB as Ri = Ci/LCIi where Ci is the concentration of the individ-
ual VOC and LCI is the lowest concentration of interest.
b)
ND = not detected, for n-octanal, n-nonanal and n-decanal it is possible that small amounts may be obscured by the range of hydrocar-
bons present.
c)
Compounds for which concentration values appear in brackets, acetonitrile and the range of hydrocarbons, have no available response
factor and so the calibration for toluene has been applied.
d)
The TVOCFID value is that obtained using ISO16000-6, i. e., the sum of VOCs eluting between and including n-hexane and n-hexadecane,
quantified as toluene.
e)
The TVOCFID AgBB value is that obtained using the September 2008 version of the AgBB, also quantified as toluene, but only summing
those compounds with a concentration > 5 lg/m3.

in September. The low air exchange rate in the cabin and the
summer temperature could have affected the concentration during
the summer of 2006. Fitting the window, door and plasterboard
also affected the formaldehyde concentration in the cabin but the
concentration was consistently below the WHO guideline value of
0.1 mg/m3 [21].
The evaluation of emissions of VOCs have shown that the total rel-
P
ative exposure risk values (R = Ri) due to emissions from pre-
treated timbers were less than 1. There were no carcinogens
detected and the TVOC concentration was less than 10 mg/m3 after
three days of exposure and less than 1 mg/m3 after 28 days. All the
unidentified compounds and compounds that do not have a LCI
(Lowest Concentration of Interest) value under the current AgBB
procedure were present at concentrations below 5 lg/m3. TVOC con-
centrations emitted from the treated Scots pine and spruce timber
that used solvent based formulations were shown to be dominated

i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com

Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474 Exposure Risk Assessment of Wood Preservatives in Indoor Environments
by aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. VOC emissions from the
treated timbers containing either solvent based or water based
wood preservatives, were shown to pose a low risk to occupants of
buildings.
Previous testing of untreated and treated spruce samples showed
a higher TVOC emission rate from the control spruce (untreated)
sample in comparison to the treated spruce sample [1]. This could
be due to the loss of VOCs during vacuum treatment when the wood
preservatives, carried by water are applied using pressure to the
spruce timber, or it could be due to the fixation of preservatives to
the wood, inhibiting the release of VOCs from natural products. The
testing of pretreated timber samples reported in this paper showed
a low emission of VOCs in Tabs. 4 and 5 except for the spruce timber
sample (P6) treated with a solvent based wood preservative.
Although emissions of terpenes are expected from timbers, an
uncharacteristically low emission of terpenes was shown by all the
samples including the untreated spruce and pine samples. This may
be due to the treatment and kiln drying process of the timber or the
exposure condition of the timbers prior to emissions testing.
The emission of terpenes would depend on the condition of the
timber available; a-pinene was consistently found in all the timbers
tested by BRE but not the other terpenes, such as b-pinene and 3-
carene [22]. The sample P6 (a pine sample pretreated with a solvent
based wood preservative) showed a relatively higher emission rate
of a-pinene in comparison to the pine sample treated by the water
based formulation and the untreated pine sample. It is possible that
leaching of terpenes would be more significant in a water medium
than an organic carrier leading to a higher loss of the terpenes dur-
ing processing and therefore a lower emission when the timber is
used for building. The water based wood preservative could have an
effect on the chemistry of the wood and on the emissions of hexa-
nal, pentanal and, to a lesser extent, hexanoic acid from the treated
timber. A relatively high emission of these compounds was shown
by the control samples, P13 and S13.
5 Conclusions
Environmental exposure risk assessment is now an essential part of
industry product development, and this is especially the case for
biocides for the treatment of timbers for building applications. To
establish exposure risk assessment of biocides released from treated
timbers, there is a need to undertake the measurement of emissions
of wood preservative chemicals to air in order to develop the data
needed for an appropriate review of the product.
The timber (spruce and pine) treated with water based formula-
tions containing propiconazole, tebuconazole, permethrin, dichlo-
fluanid, IPBC and flurox included in the study showed emission
rates close to quantitation limits in the chamber tests after expo-
sure, and this was also reflected in the monitoring results in the test
cabin constructed using the treated timber, and should therefore
not pose an inhalation risk to occupants in building environments.
However, it should be noted that the timber treated by solvent
wood protection products could have an impact on VOC concentra-
tions in a fitted house during a short period of time. The VOC emis-
sions evaluated by the AgBB method were shown to represent a low
risk to building occupants.
To contribute to the evaluation of the wood preservatives as
required by the EU Biocidal Products Directive, there is a need for
further research to include; (i) a leaching test of the wood preserva-
i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
473
tives to soil and water to determine the possible impact on ecology
and the aquatic environment; (ii) the determination of exposure via
dermal contact and ingestion, as well as by inhalation and (iii) an
assessment of the possible intake of active substances via particu-
lates and dusts.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank John Rowley of BRE for analysis of wood preserva-
tives, The Sustainable Development & Regulatory Directorate,
Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR),
UK, for funding and the British Wood Preserving and Damp Proof-
ing Association including ICI Paints and Arch Timber Protection
Limited for their collaboration and support for this project.
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
References
[1] C. Yu, D. Crump, Measurement of Emission to Air of Wood Preserva-
tive Chemicals as Part of an Assessment of Sustainability of Treated
Timber Products, in Proc. of Indoor Air 2005, Beijing 2005, pp. 2492 –
2496.
[2] C. Krause, M. Chutsch, N. Englert, Pentachlorophenol Exposure
through Indoor Use of Wood Preservatives in the Federal Republic of
Germany, Environ. Int. 1989, 15, 443 – 447.
[3] R. W. Whitmore et al., Non-occupational Exposures to Pesticides for
Residents of two US Cities, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1994, 26, 47 –
59.
[4] A. J. Dobbs, N. Williams, Indoor Air Pollution from Pesticides Used in
Wood Remedial Treatments, Environ. Pollut. B Chem. Phys. 1983, 6,
271 – 296.
[5] C. Yu, D. Crump, J. Rowley, Assessment of Emission to Air of Wood
Preservative Chemicals from Treated Timber Stud Frame of a Newly
Built Test Cabin, in Proc. of Healthy Buildings 2006, Lisbon 2006, pp.
125 – 129.
[6] C. W. F. Yu, D. R. Crump, Methods for Measuring VOC Emission from
Interior Paints, Surf. Coating. Int. B Coating. Trans. 2000, 11, 548 – 556.
[7] S. Dimitroulopoulou et al., Ventilation, Air Tightness and Indoor Air Qual-
ity in Homes in England Built After 1995, BRE report BR 477, BRE, Wat-
ford, UK 2005.
[8] W. Horn et al., Biocide Emissions from Materials into Indoor Air, in
Proc. of Indoor Air 2002, Santa Cruz, CA 2002, pp. 926 – 931.
[9] O. Jann, O. Wilke, in Organic Indoor Air Pollutants (Ed: T. Salthammer),
Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany 1999, pp. 31 – 43.
[10] W. Horn, O. Jann, O. Wilke, Suitability of Small Environmental
Chambers to Test the Emission of Biocides from Treated Timbers
into the Indoor Air, Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37, 5477 – 5483.
[11] D. F. Purslow, Methods of applying wood preservatives, BRE Report, CRC,
London 1974.
[12] R. J. Orsler, G. E. Holland, The Rate of Redistribution and Loss of
Leachable Preservatives Under Service Conditions, in Int. Research
Group on Wood Preservation 1993, Orlando, FL 1993.
[13] M. Micic et al., ZL-DHP Lignin Model Compound at the Air-Water
Interface, Biophys. Chem. 2002, 99, 55 – 62.
[14] K. Radotic, M. Micic, M. Jeremic, New Insight into the Structural
Organization of the Plant Polymer Lignin, Ann. New York Acad. Sci.
2005, 1048, 215 – 229.
[15] M. Micic, K. Radotic, M. Jeremic, R. Leblanc, Study of Self-assembly of
the Lignin Model Compound on Cellulose Model Substrate, Macro-
mol. Biosci. 2003, 3 (2), 100 – 106.
www.clean-journal.com
474 C. Yu et al.
[16] M. G. M
ller, H. K. Cammenga, T. Salthammer, E. Uhde, Biocides in
the Indoor Environment, Correlation of Saturation Vapor Pressure
and Test Chamber Experiments for Estimation of Concentrations in
Indoor Air, Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2003, 12 (6), 497 – 502.
[17] M. G. M
ller, M. Wulf, H. K. Cammenga, The Evaporation Behavior of
the Pesticide Triallate on the Basis of its Thermodynamic Parame-
ters, Thermochim. Acta 1998, 310 (1 – 2), 223 – 227.
[18] H. J. Petrowitz, Zur Abgabe von Holzschutz-Wirkstoffen aus behan-
deltem Holz an die Raumluft, Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff 1986, 44 (9),
341 – 345.
i 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Clean 2009, 37 (6), 466 – 474
[19] S. Coward et al., Indoor Air Quality in Homes in England, BRE report BR
433, CRC, London 2001.
[20] European Concerted Action, Guidelines for Ventilation Requirements in Build-
ings, ECA Indoor Air Quality and its Impact on Man, Report No. 11, EUR
14449 EN, Commission of European Communities, Luxembourg
1992.
[21] WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2nd Ed., European Series No. 81,
WHO Regional Publications, Copenhagen, Denmark 2000.
[22] C. Yu, D. Crump, VOC Emissions from Building Products, BRE Digest 464,
Part 1, CRC, Watford, UK 2002.
www.clean-journal.com