Cited by 38Municipal Solid Waste ManagementRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesAgricultural and Food Sciences

Evaluation of methods for sorting CCA-treated wood

Jacobi, Gary, Solo-Gabriele, Helena, Townsend, Timothy, Dubey, Brajesh·2007·Waste Management

Abstract

Construction and demolition (C&D) wood frequently contains treated wood including wood treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA). Many recycling options for such wood require that the product be essentially free of preservative chemicals. The objectives of this study were to document the characteristics of the wood waste stream and to evaluate the effectiveness of sorting methods for identifying treated wood. Sorting methods evaluated included visual sorting and visual sorting augmented with the use of PAN indicator stain and/or hand-held X-ray fluorescence (XRF) units. Experiments were conducted on two types of construction and demolition (C&D) wood: source separated loads containing only C&D wood and wood hand-picked from commingled loads of general C&D waste. Results showed that 77% of the treated wood was CCA-treated. For uncontaminated piles (<1% treated wood) of source separated C&D wood, visual sorting was found to effectively remove the small amounts of treated wood present. For piles of source separated wood that were contaminated (approximately 50% treated wood), visual sorts were not accurate and benefited from augmented sorting using PAN indicator stain. The handheld XRF devices were found to be effective for sorting commingled C&D wood, as PAN indicator stain was not as effective due to the excessive amount of surface dirt associated with commingled wood waste. Visual sorting of source separated wood was estimated to cost between US$21 to US$96 per metric ton. These costs depended upon the amount of treated wood and whether or not augmentation with PAN indicator was necessary. Visual sorting augmented with hand-held XRF units was estimated at US$113 per metric ton. The bulk of these costs were associated with labor. Future efforts should focus on reducing labor costs by mounting automated XRF units on conveyor systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.09.014

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Solo-Gabriele, 2005, Warning signs: certain chemical preservatives are unwelcome contaminants in the mulch and wood fuel markets, Construction & Demolition Recycling, 24

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacobi, G., Solo-Gabriele, H., Townsend, T., & Dubey, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Venue
Waste Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-01
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1617-1625
ISSN
0956-053X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2011315378
Cited by
38
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
11.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Waste Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Recycling and Waste Management Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agricultural and Food Sciences
Keywords
chromated copper arsenate, CCA-treated wood, wood recycling, wood sorting, labor costs
MeSH terms
Arsenates, Costs and Cost Analysis, Time Factors, Waste Products, Wood, Waste Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review