Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Commodity risk assessment of maple veneer sheets from Canada

EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) et al. EFSA J. .

Abstract

The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to deliver a risk assessment on the likelihood of pest freedom from Union quarantine pests and pests subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/2031 for the maple veneer sheets manufactured according to the process set out by Canada, with emphasis on the freedom from Davidsoniella virescens and Phytophthora ramorum (non-EU isolates). The assessment was conducted for veneer sheets of up to 0.7 mm and up to 6 mm thickness, taking into account the different phases in the veneer production in a systems approach. Some of those phases, taken alone, including the heat treatment of logs in a water bath, the cutting into thin veneer sheets and the final high heat drying of veneer sheets are expected to be effective against some of the pests, without uncertainties, making the system approach fully effective. The panel considers that no insects would survive cutting of logs into thin veneer sheets of 0.7 mm and that Xylella fastidiosa will not survive the temperatures in the water bath and final drying of veneers. The degree of pest freedom for the different groups of organisms is generally very high with slightly lower degree of pest freedom for veneer sheets of 6 mm thickness because of lower temperatures reached in the final drying of veneer sheets compared to thinner sheets. P. ramorum is not expected to survive the high heat drying of thin veneer sheets, but it may survive the lower temperatures inside thicker veneer sheets. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9989 and 10,000 veneer sheets (thickness 6 mm) per 10,000 will be free from living P. ramorum. For D. virescens, the EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9984 and 10,000 veneer sheets (0.7 mm) per 10,000 and that between 9954 and 10,000 veneer sheets (6 mm) per 10,000 will be free from living inoculum. For other relevant groups of pests, the greatest likelihood of pest presence was observed for wood decay fungi. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9967 and 10,000 veneer sheets (0.7 mm) per 10,000 and that between 9911 and 10,000 veneer sheets (6 mm) per 10,000 will be free from living wood decay fungi.

Keywords: Acer; European Union; commodity risk assessment; plant health; plant pest.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The likelihood of pest freedom of maple veneer sheets of 0.7 and 6 mm thickness at the end of the production process.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Explanation of the descending distribution function describing the likelihood of pest freedom for wood decay fungi of veneers of 6 mm thickness.
FIGURE E.1
FIGURE E.1
Log core temperature development over time in the water bath for logs with a diameter of 36 cm.
FIGURE E.2
FIGURE E.2
Log core temperature development over time in the water bath for logs with a diameter of 56 cm.
None
FIGURE G.1 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. =1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
None
FIGURE G.2 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
None
FIGURE G.3 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. =1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
None
FIGURE G.4 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. =1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
None
FIGURE G.5 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
None
FIGURE G.6 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
None
FIGURE G.7 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
None
FIGURE G.8 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest‐free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
None
FIGURE G.9 (A) Elicited uncertainty of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets (histogram in blue–vertical blue line indicates the elicited percentile in the following order: 1%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 99%) and distributional fit (red line); (B) uncertainty of the proportion of pest free sheets per 10,000 (i.e. = 1 – pest infestation proportion expressed as percentage); (C) descending uncertainty distribution function of pest infestation per 10,000 sheets.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abe, Y. (1989). Effect of moisture on the colonization by Lentinus edodes and Hypoxylon truncatum in wood. Forest Pathology, 19(7), 423–434. 10.1111/j.1439-0329.1989.tb00280.x - DOI
    1. Adams, K. B. (2017). The bionomics of a monophagous, native woodborer, Glycobius speciosus (say) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). (Publication No. 10288047) [Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
    1. Adams, K. B. , Allen, D. C. , & Stehman, S. V. (2023). Life history and bionomics of Glycobius speciosus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae: Cerambycinae: Clytini). Environmental Entomology, 52(4), 692–708. 10.1093/ee/nvad045 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Agarwal, K. , Kathuria, S. , Sundar, G. , Singh, P. , Khanna, G. , & Chowdhary, A. (2014). A case of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis due to Ceratocystis adiposa . Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 78(2), 196–198. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2013.10.018 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allen . (2014). ST 05: Review of heat treatment of wood and wood packaging Draft. NAPPO,Science and Technology Documents, 35 pp. https://assets.ippc.int/static/media/uploads/resources/review_of_heat_tr...

LinkOut - more resources