EVALUATION OF WOOD PRESERVATIVES 465 



for the butt sections, but the top and butt figures, respectively, seem 

 to bear some relation to each other. 



R. E. Waterman in a Bell Telephone Laboratories' memorandum 

 dated January 23, 1928, reported losses of creosote from poles removed 

 from the ]\Iontgomery-New Orleans line and in a memorandum dated 

 March 7, 1931, reported creosote losses, determined by periodic extrac- 

 tions, from the aerial sections of southern pine posts treated in 1926 and 

 1927. Companion posts are among the earliest lots reported on by Lums- 

 den.^^ Part of Waterman's data are condensed in Table XIX. His figures 

 confirm in general the conclusions reached by Bond,^^ namely, that the 

 losses were greater for the light than for the hea\'y treatments, for the 

 empty cell than for the full cell treatments, and in addition, for the 

 lighter oil than for the heavier oil. Such conclusions are in line with 

 what might be expected from the physical characteristics of the creosotes 

 and general knowledge of the distribution and dispersion of the creosotes 

 in the various treatments. 



The losses shown in Table XIX are rounded figures that apply to the 

 whole cross section of the pole-diameter posts. Of more significance are 

 data on creosote losses from the outer 1 inch of the helow ground section 

 of companion posts in the Gulf port plot. Tables XX and XXI show 

 distillation figures for the original creosotes and for the extracted oils, 

 from full cell and from empty cell posts, after varying exposure periods 

 up to about seven years. The oils were both low residue creosotes. The 

 indicated percent losses are based on the increase in the residue above 

 35o°C — of which more later. The losses are greater for the empty cell 

 treatments than for the full cell treatments. The fact that so much of the 

 loss occurred within the first four years is extremely important in evalu- 

 ation philosophy. 



Tables XXII and XXIII present data for whole cross sections of two 

 posts that had begun to decay and that were removed for assay four 

 years after installation at Gulf port. Table XXII shows the original 

 analysis of the creosote and the average analysis of the extracted oil 

 from the two posts. The indicated loss in the ground line decay ar6a, 

 figured from the residue increase, was 61.1 per cent. Table XXIII shows 

 the distribution of creosote at treatment by zones — from the outside 

 toward the heartwood line — from extracted borings, and the distribu- 

 tion of creosote after removal from test, based on extraction of sectors 

 cut from whole cross section disks. The indicated losses, figured from 

 average over-aU retention at treatment and after removal were 65.1 and 

 55.5 per cent, or an average of 60.3 per cent. This figure can be considered 

 to be in agreement with the 61.1 per cent figure cited above. 



