United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
^m^r. air'r
••• «9B
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-08/091 | September 2008 www.epa.gov/ord
Material Demand Studies:
Interaction of Chlorine Dioxide Gas
With Building Materials
Philip W. Bartram
Joseph T. Lynn
Louis P. Reiff
Mark D. Brickhouse
Teri A. Lalain
EDGEWOOD CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CENTER
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Shawn Ryan
Blair Martin
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
David Stark
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Abingdon,MD21009
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
-------
Disclaimer
EPA through its Office of Research and Development partially funded and collaborated in
the research described herein under Interagency Agreement (TAG) DW 939917-01-0 with
the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC). The work performed
in association with this report was conducted from November 2003 through July 2006.
The report has been subject to an administrative review but does not necessarily reflect
the views of the Agency. No official endorsement should be inferred. EPA does not
endorse the purchase or sale of any commercial products or services.
-------
Executive Summary
1.0 BACKGROUND
The material demand effort was initiated to determine how building materials impact
the ability to maintain a target decontaminant vapor concentration within an enclosed
interior space. The building materials may impact the decontaminant vapor concentration
by either sorption or decomposition of the decontaminant. Since building interiors
may contain large surface areas composed of concrete cinder block, wood, steel,
carpet, ceiling suspension tile, and painted wallboard, data are needed to determine
how these interior surfaces affect the ability to maintain a stable target concentration.
Vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP®) and chlorine dioxide (C1O2) were selected since
these decontamination technologies have been used to decontaminate indoor surfaces
contaminated by anthrax and/or show potential for use in decontaminating indoor
surfaces contaminated by chemical agents. Chlorine dioxide results are presented in this
report. The representative building interior materials tested were unpainted concrete
cinder block, standard stud lumber (fir, type-II), latex-painted '/2-inch gypsum wallboard,
ceiling suspension tile, painted structural steel, and carpet. The collaborative effort was
funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Homeland Security
Research Center (NHSRC).
2.0 TEST PROTOCOL
The tests were monitored under an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
The Deposition Velocity QAPP specified procedures for the review of data and
independent technical system audits. All test data were peer reviewed within two weeks
of data generation. The project quality manager (or designee) was required to audit at
least 10% of the data. In addition, the project quality manager (or designee) performed
four technical system audits over the course of testing. A technical system audit is a
thorough, systematic, on-site qualitative audit of the facilities, equipment, personnel,
training, procedures, record keeping, data validation, data management, and reporting
aspects of the system.
3.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The chlorine dioxide material demand tests showed that the feed concentration and
time required to reach the target concentration (1000 and 2000 parts per million volume
[ppmv]) were a function of building material. The chlorine dioxide demand for the
building materials over the 0-12000 concentration time (CT) range was (from highest to
lowest) ceiling tile > wood > gypsum wallboard > carpet > concrete = steel = baseline for
the 1000 ppmv tests and ceiling tile > gypsum wallboard > carpet > wood > concrete =
steel = baseline for the 2000 ppmv tests. Concrete and steel were not statistically different
from the baseline in unpaired Student's t Tests at a = 0.05.
-------
Preface
Data were recorded in ECBC laboratory notebook 04-0055, entitled EPA Material
Compatibility Study.
Reproduction of this document either in whole or in part is prohibited except with
permission of the Director, U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, ATTN:
AMSRD-ECB-RT-OM, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5424, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (MD-E343-06), Office of Research and Development,
National Homeland Security Research Center, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
However, the Defense Technical Information Center is authorized to reproduce the
document for U.S. government purposes.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the following individuals for their contributions toward the successful
completion of this test program: Mr. Brian Maclver and Mr. Dave Sorrick for assistance
with acquiring materials and equipment fabrication; Ms. Diane Simmons for assistance
with the issuance of this report; and Dr. David Cullinan for preparing many coupon run
baskets, performing coupon measurements, and preparing chain-of-custody forms during
the time his assigned laboratory was closed.
-------
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. OBJECTIVE 1
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 1
3.1 Representative Building Material Test Coupons 1
3.2 Chlorine Dioxide Test Glove Box, Auxiliary Equipment,
and Operation 3
3.3 Calibration of INTERSCAN Detectors 5
3.4 Calculation of Material Surface Area 6
3.5 Humidity and Temperature Control 7
3.6 Additional Requirements for Humidity Conditioning 7
3.7 Fumigation Cycle 7
3.7.1 Control of Chlorine Dioxide Concentration in Exposure Chamber 7
3.7.2 Aeration Cycle 7
4. DATA REVIEW AND TECHNICAL SYSTEM AUDIT 8
5. MATERIAL DEMAND CALCULATIONS AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 8
5.1 Material Demand Calculations 8
5.2 Descriptive Statistical Analysis 10
6. RESULTS 10
6.1 Evaluation of Empty Glove Box 10
6.1.1 "Fog" Test Results and Discussion 10
6.1.2 Material Demand of the Baseline Chamber 11
6.2 Material Demand of the Selected Building Materials 12
6.2.1 Carpet 13
6.2.2 Painted Steel 13
6.2.3 Gypsum Wallboard 14
6.2.4 Ceiling Tile 14
6.2.5 Wood 15
6.2.6 Concrete 15
6.3 Total CT Demand for Baseline and Materials 16
6.4 Discussion 17
7. OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED 17
8. QUALITY ASSURANCE FINDINGS 18
9. CONCLUSIONS 19
10. LITERATURE CITED 20
-------
Appendices
A. DETAILED COUPON PREPARATION AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES A-l
B. COUPON IDENTIFIER CODE B-l
C. TYPICAL TIME/CONCENTRATION AND TIME/CT PROFILES FOR CHLORINE DIOXIDE TESTS C-1
D. EXCEL DATA WORKSHEET FOR COMPARISON OF INTERSCAN DETECTORS
AND TITRATION CHECKS D-l
E. RESULTS OF CHLORINE DIOXIDE MATERIAL DEMAND TESTS E-l
Figures
1. Representative Building Material Test Coupons 2
2. Glove Box Used for Chlorine Dioxide Material Demand Tests 3
3. Photograph of Chlorine Dioxide Material Demand Test Equipment 5
4. Typical Calibration Curve for INTERSCAN Detector 6
5. Illustration of Time Zero (Baseline Test on 18 Jan 06) 8
6. Illustration of the Calculation of the Material Demand 8
7. Exposure Chamber Fog Test 11
8. Photographs of the Interior of an INTERSCAN Detector 18
9. Comparison of Chamber Fans Exposed to Chlorine Dioxide and VHP® 19
Tables
1. Representative Building Materials 2
2. Exposed Surface Area of Coupons 6
3. Baseline Material Demand Test Results 12
4. Baseline-Corrected Material Demand Test Results for Each Material Type
(Target Chamber Concentration = 1000 ppmv C1O2) 12
5. Baseline-Corrected Material Demand Test Results for Each Material Type
(Target Chamber Concentration = 2000 ppmv C1O2) 13
6. Total Feed and Effluent CT for Each Material Test 16
-------
List of Acronyms and Symbols
ACGIH8
APG
ASTM
atm
bp
°C
CAS
CB
C102
cm
CoC
CT or CT.
CTinlet
CToutlet
CTmass
decon
ECBC
EOR
EPA
BSD
ft
g
hr
IAW
in.
IOP
J
1
L
K
m
mg
MD
min
mL
mp
MWC102
NHSRC
NIOSH
OSHA
ppm
ppmv
P
sys
PEL
ppmv-hr
Q
QA
American Conference of Government Industrial Hygientists, Inc.
Aberdeen Proving Ground
American Society for Testing and Materials
atmosphere
boiling point
Celsius
Chemical Abstract Services
chemical and biological
chlorine dioxide
centimeters
chain-of-custody
concentration • time (units of ppmv-hr)
CT of stream entering the glove box
CT of stream exiting the glove box
CT in mass concentration units (g • hr/m3)
decontamination
Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center
end of run
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
extreme studentized deviate
feet
grams
hour or hours
in accordance with
inches
Internal Operating Procedure
flux (g • m-2 • hr1)
length
liters
Kelvin
meters
milligram
material demand
minutes
milliliters
melting point
molecular weight of C1O2
National Homeland Security Research Center
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
part per million
parts-per-million (volume)
chamber pressure in units of atmosphere
permissible exposure limit
inlet and outlet flow rate
quality assurance
-------
QAPP
QMP
R
REL
RH
SAorA
SOP
SD
STEL
T
t
TWA
TICs
TIMs
TR
T
sys
U.S.
uv
VHP®
Vi
Vo
w
ACT
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
Quality Management Plan
universal gas constant
recommended exposure limits
relative humidity
surface area
standing operating procedures
("standard" may also be used in place of "standing" with the same meaning)
standard deviation
short-term exposure limits
temperature
time
time-weighted average
toxic industrial chemicals
toxic industrial materials
technical report
chamber temperature
United States
ultraviolet
Steris' registered "vaporized hydrogen peroxide" procedure
affluent flow rate in m3 • min'1
effluent flow rate in m3 • min"1
width
CTMet- CToutiet for baseline study
ACTk
ACT
k(mass)
difference between target CT and input CT after baseline subtraction
difference between inlet and outlet C1O2 in units of g • hr1 • nr3
difference in chlorine dioxide between feed and effluent in grams
Coupon Specific Coding
"W"
"R"
"T"
"G"
"S"
"C"
"V"
"N"
bare wood
carpet
ceiling suspension tile
latex-painted gypsum wallboard
painted structural A572 steel
unpainted concrete cinder block
exposed to chlorine dioxide fumigation
no fumigant exposure
-------
Material Demand Studies:
nteraction of Chlorine Dioxide Gas
With Building Materials
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established a collaborative Interagency Agreement with
the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center
(ECBC) to conduct research and specialized testing in
building decontamination. ECBC has been the major
government agency for chemical and biological (CB)
decontamination research and product development since
World War I. The EPA National Homeland Security Research
Center (NHSRC) and Decontamination Sciences Team,
Research & Technology Directorate collaborated to study
the effects of hydrogen peroxide vapor and chlorine dioxide
gas on interior building materials and to determine the rate of
adsorption (and/or decomposition) of these decontaminants
by the materials. Laboratory tests confirmed that chlorine
dioxide at a concentration of > 600 parts-per-million volume
(ppmv) and > 75 % relative humidity (RH) was very effective
in killing (~ 7 log reduction in 12 hour [hr]) Bacillus
anthracis var. ames, and Bacillus anthracis var. vollum.1 The
hydrogen peroxide fumigant was initially used to sterilize
pharmaceutical processing equipment and clean rooms.2'3
Chlorine dioxide (C1O2) and vaporized hydrogen peroxide
(VHP®) technologies have since been used to decontaminate
(fumigate) the interior of buildings contaminated with
anthrax. In 2001, chlorine dioxide was successfully employed
to decontaminate the anthrax-contaminated Hart Senate
Office Building in Washington, D.C. In 2003, VHP® was
used to disinfect the U.S. Department of State SA-32,
Sterling Mail Facility, in Virginia, and the General Services
Administration (GSA) Building 410, Anacostia Naval Base,
in Washington, D.C.
Gaseous reactive compounds provide several advantages
over standard liquid decontaminants for the decomposition
of chemical and biological warfare agents deposited in the
interiors of building. The most significant advantages are
the ease of dispersal of reactive molecules throughout a
defined space and access to non-line-of-sight areas. However,
building interiors may contain large surface areas composed
of complex materials such as concrete, wood, steel, carpet,
ceiling tile, and painted wallboard that may affect or be
affected by the fumigant. The NHSRC and Decontamination
Science Team collaboration was initiated to determine
how building materials impact the concentration of the
decontaminant in the vapor phase and how the materials are
impacted by the fumigant. The building interior materials
used for testing are a subset of the variety of structural,
decorative, and functional materials common to commercial
office buildings regardless of architectural style and age.
The building materials encompass a variety of material
compositions and porosities.
In this study, the material demand for chlorine dioxide was
determined in tests designed to simulate decontamination of
a building. The term "material demand" includes adsorption
and decomposition of the fumigant that will affect its
concentration within the fumigation volume. Data from these
tests could be used to predict the concentration of chlorine
dioxide in the feed stream that would be required to maintain
the target concentration inside a facility. Material demand
and compatibility data will be used by facility managers, first
responders, groups responsible for building decontamination,
and other technology buyers and users for purposes of
restoring a public building to a usable state after a terrorist
contamination incident.
2. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to determine the material
demand, expressed as mass flux, of selected building
materials (concrete, painted steel, wood, gypsum wallboard,
ceiling tile, and carpet) for chlorine dioxide at 1000
ppmv and 2000 ppmv during tests similar to a building
decontamination process.
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The material demand testing was conducted in compliance
with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)4 developed
under the Quality Management Plans (QMP)5-6 and EPA
Quality Assurance (QA) Category 4 requirements.7'8-9-10
3.1 Representative Building Material
Test Coupons
Test coupons were prepared in accordance with the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) requirements for
the material compatibility testing11 and under the QAPP,4
entitled "Effects of Vaporized Decontamination Systems on
Selected Building Interior Materials." The coupons were
cut from stock material in accordance with the procedure in
Appendix B of the QAPP4 and reproduced in Appendix A
of this report. Coupons were prepared by obtaining a large
enough quantity of material that multiple test samples could
be obtained with uniform characteristics (e.g., test coupons
were all cut from the interior rather than the edge of a large
piece of material). The building materials studied, including
supplier and coupon dimensions, are provided in Table 1 and
shown in Figure 1. Complete information on the materials
can be found in Appendix A and the QAPP4
-------
Table 1. Representative Building Materials
(Dimensions from Selected Sampling of Specimens)
Structural Wood
(fir, type II)
Concrete Block
Painted Steel
Latex- Painted Gypsum
Wallboard
Carpet
Ceiling Suspension Tile,
Acoustical
RSEHI^^B
Home Depot
York Supply
Specialized Metals
Home Depot
Home Depot
Home Depot
Length (cm) Width (cm) Thickness (cm)
25.4
19.4 ±0.2
30.4 ±0.04
15.2
20.4 ±0.1
30.5
3. 7 ±0.05
9.8 ±0.5
5.1 ±0.02a
15.2
15.2 ±0.07
7.6
1.2 ±0.02
4.1 ±0.1
0.6
1.3
0.6
1.4
1 The width was measured at the end of the "dog bone" shaped specimen. The width in the center of the dog bone was 1.9 ±
0.02 cm. Two lots of painted steel were used. Both lots had similar length and width; however, the thickness of one lot was 0.6
± 0.003 cm and the thickness of the second lot was 0.7 ± 0.01 cm. The standard deviation when not shown was either zero or
rounded to zero.
Chain-of-custody (CoC) cards were used to ensure that the
test coupons were traceable throughout all phases of testing.
The test coupons were measured and visually inspected prior
to testing. Coupons were measured to ensure that they were
within the acceptable tolerances (Appendix A). Coupons
were visually inspected for defects and/or damage. Coupon
measurements and visual inspection were recorded on the
CoC card. Coupons that were not within the allowable
size tolerances and/or were damaged were discarded. Each
coupon was assigned a unique identifier code that matched
the coupon with the sample, test parameters, and sampling
scheme as detailed in Appendix B (e.g., Some codes are
displayed in Figure 1.). The unique identifier code was
recorded on the CoC card. The CoC cards followed each
sample from material demand testing through material
compatibility testing to disposal.
Figure 1. Representative Building Material Test Coupons
Note: Coupons are not shown to scale . Coupon codes were not required for this study;
however, they were used for traceability to determine loss of physical integrity in
subsequent tests.
-------
3.2 Chlorine Dioxide Test Glove Box, Auxiliary
Equipment, and Operation
APlas-Labs (PLASLABS, Inc., 401 East North Street,
Lansing, MI 48906) compact glove box (Model 830-ABC)
fitted with Hypalon® gloves and glove port plugs was
used as the exposure chamber (Figure 2). The glove box
was acrylic with an internal volume of 317 L (71.1 cm x
58.4 cm x 73.7 cm) or 11.2 cubic feet (28 in. x 23 in. x
29 in.) with an isolated transfer chamber having a 30.5 cm
long x 27.9 cm inside diameter. The glove box was sealed
with black cardboard and plastic to prevent ultraviolet light
(UV) from decomposing the chlorine dioxide; the laboratory
window was also blocked with black plastic. An exposure
rack constructed of Lexan® and horizontal stainless steel bars
was used to hold the test specimens. The exposure rack was
30.5 cm long x 30.5 cm wide x 61 cm tall with four levels.
Coupons were placed in the glove box in accordance with
Internal Operating Procedure (IOP) DS0401612 and shown
for each material type in Appendix B. A photograph of the
coupon placement in the exposure chamber for the concrete
cinder block material is provided in Figure 2.
The C1O2 feed and effluent concentrations were monitored by
INTERSCAN RM Series detectors (InterScan Corporation,
P.O. Box 2496, Chatsworth, CA 91313-2496). The inlet
detector measured the chlorine dioxide concentration by
sampling the inlet stream prior to entering the Plas-Labs
glove box. The chlorine dioxide concentration within the
glove box was measured by sampling the effluent stream
exiting the glove box. The sampling rate for each detector
was 200 mL/min. The sensors were factory preset to measure
from 0 to 4000 ppmv C1O2 with sensitivity < ± 5% of the
measured value. The inlet and outlet C1O2 detectors were
calibrated over a range of 0 to 4000 ppmv in accordance with
IOPDS04017.13
The INTERSCAN detectors were checked during the tests
by sampling the affluent and effluent streams by bubblers
and analyzing by the classical iodometric titration method.
In this method, iodine produced from the reaction of iodide
with C1O2 was titrated with sodium thiosulfate. The endpoint
was determined by color change. Detailed procedures for
sampling and determination of C1O2 were documented in IOP
DS0401713andDS04002.14
RH and temperature were monitored using either a General
Eastern Humiscan industrial sensor or a HOBO® U12
Temp/RH Data Logger (Onset Computer Corporation, 470
MacArthurBlvd., Bourne, MA 02532). The Humiscan sensor
was preset to measure 0 to 100% RH (noncondensing). The
accuracy of the sensor was ± 1% at 0.5 to 90% RH and ± 2%
at 90 to 100% RH (noncondensing). The sensor operating
temperature range was -40 °C to 80 °C. The Humiscan was
preset to measure from -40 °C to 80 °C. The accuracy of the
temperature sensor was ± 0.20 °C. The HOBO® accuracy
was ± 0.35 °C from 0 to 50 °C and ± 2.5% from 10 to 90 %
RH. Initially, a Vaisala temperature - humidity sensor was
evaluated; however, the sensor was severely affected by the
chlorine dioxide and, therefore, not used further.
The sensor data were collected electronically using a portable
data logging system manufactured by Omega Engineering
(OMP-MODL). The system had four channels of input. The
collected data were transferred to a PC running the Omega-
supplied Microsoft Windows-based HyperWare™ software
for data plotting, real-time trending, and initial analysis.
An Omega OMP-MLIM-4 expansion module was used to
monitor output from the device. Data were collected at a rate
of at least one data point per minute.
Figure 2. Glove Box Used for Chlorine Dioxide Material Demand Tests
Plas-Labs glove box
Sample rack loaded with
concrete coupons
Note: Glove box and exposure chamber are used interchangeably in this report.
-------
Chlorine dioxide (C1O2, CAS 10049-04-4, mp -59.0 °C, bp
11.0 °C) is a strong oxidizer and must be generated at the
point of use due to its instability. C1O2 was generated using
a chlorine dioxide bench-scale generator (Model "Micro")
manufactured by CDG Technology, Inc. (140 Webster
Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015). This system produced C1O2
by the reaction of chlorine over dry sodium chlorite; the
stoichiometry of the reaction is provided in Equation 1.
Cl, + 2NaC10,
, +2NaCl
Equation 1
Two molecules of chlorine dioxide are produced from one
molecule of chlorine; the volumetric concentrations of C1O2
= 2CC12 / (1 + CC12) are expressed in decimals.15 For example,
the certified mixture of 4.0% chlorine in nitrogen (40,000
ppmv; 0.04 decimal concentration) used in these studies
will theoretically produce 7.7% C1O2 in nitrogen. CDG
Technology claims this reaction produces no by-products,
just pure chlorine dioxide gas (in nitrogen), free of chlorite
ion, chlorate ion, and molecular chlorine. The results from
the iodometry titrations did not agreed with the hypothetical
chlorine dioxide concentration, based on flow, during the
evaluation of the system. Titrations using the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) method ID-
126SGX (available at www.OSHA.gov) indicated that a
small amount of chlorine was present in the feed stream.
Therefore, during all tests a bubbler containing 200 mL of
25-35 % sodium chlorite was placed in the stream after the
chlorine dioxide generator to eliminate any free chlorine.
The OSHA-permissible exposure limit (PEL) for C1O2 in air
is 0.1 ppm (0.3 mg/m3) as an 8-hour time-weighted average
(TWA). NIOSH and ACGIH® short-term exposure limits
(STEL) are 0.3 ppm (0.83 mg/m3) for periods not to exceed
15 minutes and four exposures per day with each exposure
separated by an interval of > 60 minutes.15
The desired C1O2 concentration was determined by manual
adjustment of the chlorine-nitrogen flow rate to the flow
rate of dilution air. Dilution air was provided by house air
conditioned by a Miller-Nelson model HCS-401 series
Flow-Temperature-Humidity Control System (Miller-Nelson
Research, Inc, 8 Harris Court Building C-6, Monterey,
CA 93940). The chlorine dioxide flow was controlled by a
certified flow meter (Gilmont Instruments, Inc.). Material
demand tests were conducted at a minimum of 25 °C and
75% RH. The total flow rate through the glove box was ~ 5.3
L/min(0.321m3/hr).
A small recirculation fan was used in the glove box to mimic
the air circulation provided by fans in commercial large-room
decontamination. Prior to testing, air circulation patterns
were observed using a "fog" test of dry ice and warm water
rather than a "smoke" test. There was concern that the smoke
test might leave a residue inside the glove box that could
interfere with the material demand studies.
The effluent from the glove box and sensors was
scrubbed in sodium hydroxide and sodium thiosulfate
solution and released inside a hazardous fume hood. A
Scott Instruments Mini-SA portable gas detection
instrument was used to monitor for C1O2 vapor in the
work area. The standard measuring range of the C1O2
monitor was 0.00 to 2.00 ppmv C1O2.
A photograph of the chlorine dioxide bench-scale generator,
INTERSCAN detectors, and exposure glove box is shown in
(Figure 3).
-------
Figure 3. Photograph of Chlorine Dioxide Material Demand Test Equipment
3.3 Calibration of INTERSCAN Detectors
The correlation of response to concentration was determined
by plotting INTERSCAN voltage output to concentration
determined by iodometry titration over a range of 0 to
4000 ppmv. The correlation was determined at or near
200, 1000, 2000, and 3500 ppmv. Feed and effluent
INTERSCAN detectors were calibrated in accordance
with IOP DS04017.13. The frequency of calibration was
approximately one time per month. Some baseline drift
required that the detectors be zeroed before the start of each
test. A representative calibration curve is shown in Figure 4.
The data points (diamonds) in Figure 4 were fitted using a
polynomial equation.
-------
Figure 4. Typical Calibration Curve for INTERSCAN Detector
Effluent InterScan
4000
3500 -
3000 -
~ 2500 -
o.
— 2000 -
C«J
o
5 1500 -
1000
500 i
y = 130789x2 +22166x +30.563
R2 = 0.9975
CI02
•Poly. (CIO,
0
0.0000
0.0200
0.0400
0.0600
Volts
0.0800
0.1000
0.1200
Note: Calibration of effluent INTERSCAN detector on 22 February 06.
3.4 Calculation of Material Surface Area
The total surface area of each material exposed to chlorine
dioxide was approximately 5000 cm2. The number of
material coupons in the glove box per test was dependent
on the coupon surface area. The sample surface area was
calculated by summing the area for each exposed sample
face. For example, the wood surface area was 4863 cm2
[(2 * 1 * w) + (2 * 1* h) + (2 * w * h)] using data from Table
2. The coupon surface area, total surface area per test, and
the ratio of chamber volume to material surface area are
provided in Table 2. The interior surface area of the chamber
and coupon support was 38,766 cm2.
Table 2. Exposed Surface Area of Coupons
Material Coupon Surface Coupons per Total Area Chamber Volume per
Area (cm2)3 Test (cm2) Sample Surface Area
(cm3/cm2)
Structural Wood (fir, type II)
Concrete Block
Painted Steel
Latex-Painted Gypsum Wallboard
Carpet
Ceiling Suspension Tile, Acoustical
270
495
267
539
600
586
18
10
18
9
8
8
4863
4952
4798
4854
4800
4691
65.2
64.0
66.1
65.3
66.1
67.6
aThe coupon surface area was rounded to the nearest whole number for this table.
-------
3.5 Humidity and Temperature Control
The coupons were exposed to chlorine dioxide in accordance
with Section 6.0, entitled "Test Procedures for Deposition
Velocity Testing," of the Deposition Velocity QAPP.4 The
coupons were placed in the exposure glove box in accordance
with IOP DS04016.12 The glove box was maintained above
75% RH using conditioned air supplied by a Miller-Nelson
generator prior to the introduction of chlorine dioxide into the
glove box. The temperature of the glove box was maintained
above 25 °C by varying the Miller-Nelson temperature
control. Additional controls were required when the room
temperature fell to the point that the temperature inside the
glove box could not be maintained by the Miller-Nelson
generator. A heating mantel positioned beneath the glove box
was sufficient for small corrections in temperature. However,
a plastic tent had to be erected around the glove box and a
small hot air blower used to heat the enclosure for some tests
when the lab temperature was outside of the range in which
the Miller-Nelson could be used to compensate.
3.6 Additional Requirements for Humidity
Conditioning
Typically, materials were conditioned as required at >75%
RH for 2-3 days in a plastic chamber to reduce the time
required for equilibrium to occur in the glove box during a
test. The materials were inspected after the humidification
process; no precipitation occurred on the materials.
3.7 Fumigation Cycle
After the chamber with the coupons in place reached the
desired temperature and RH, the fumigation cycle was
started. An example of the overall fumigation cycle is
shown in Figure 5. The three phases of the cycle are initial
(or ramp-up), steady-state, and aeration. Time zero (0,0)
on all graphs corresponds to the start of chlorine flow to
the chlorine dioxide generator and the start of data logging
by the Hyperware™ software. The combination of the
initial and steady-state phases until a CT of 12,000 ppmv
• hr was reached can be defined as the decontamination
cycle; therefore, the difference between the fumigation and
decontamination cycles is the inclusion of the aeration phase
in the former. The total flow through the glove box was 5.31
L/min (25 °C) for all phases. This flow rate was equivalent to
~ 1 turnover or air exchange per hour.
3.7.1 Control of Chlorine Dioxide Concentration in
Exposure Chamber
The feed concentration was set between 3500 and 4000 ppmv
during the ramp-up cycle of the test (T= 0, effluent = 0 to the
target concentration) in order to shorten the time required
to reach the target concentration within the chamber. Once
the target chamber concentration was achieved, the chlorine
dioxide concentration within the glove box was maintained
within the target concentration range of either 1000-1250
ppmv or 2000-2500 ppmv manually by adjusting the feed
until the target CT of 12,000 ppmv • hr was obtained (~ 10.0
and 5.5 hr, respectively). This latter phase is the steady-
state region, where the inlet and chamber chlorine dioxide
concentrations are approximately constant.
The chlorine dioxide stream was controlled manually by
adjusting a flow meter during the tests. The operation
required constant monitoring and correction. Therefore,
several artifacts, recognized as uncharacteristic spikes,
appear in the affluent concentration profiles. Examples of
those artifacts are found in Figures C3a, C8a, C15a, C29a,
C31a, C32a, C33a, C35a, C36a, C37a, C38a, C39a, C41a,
and C42a (Appendix C). In Figure C20a, an artifact spike
was created by accidentally turning the INTERSCAN
detector off and on. In Figures ClOa and C26a, the effluent
concentration profiles show spikes that exceed the target
limits. The spikes were due to momentary problems with the
INTERSCAN detector. The problems were self-correcting
and did not invalidate the tests.
An electronic switch was evaluated as a control for the
chlorine dioxide stream. The switch was either on or off
when the effluent concentration exceeded limits set within the
target concentration zone. The switch worked well; however,
because the chlorine dioxide flow was not continuous,
agreement between the feed INTERSCAN reading and the
titration could not be done.
3.7.2 Aeration Cycle
After the target CT of 12,000 ppmv • hr (end of test) was
reached, the feed was stopped and aeration of the glove box
with air (~ 5.35 L/min, > 25 °C and > 75 % RH) continued
until the C1O2 concentration fell to a safe level (nondetect).
Chlorine dioxide concentration within the glove box was
monitored for > 20 hours. The concentration (~0 ppmv at t
> 20 hr) was lower than the criterion of 10% of the target,
which defined the end of the run. The concentration was
then considered safe by the Risk Reduction Office to open
the glove box to remove the specimens. The procedures
for safely opening the glove box and coupon removal after
fumigant exposure were documented in Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) RNG-10816 and IOP DS04014.17
-------
Figure 5. Illustration of Time Zero (Baseline Test on 18 Jan 06)
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
E
Q.
— Concentration. Enclosure — Concentration. Feed — — cone, limits
>
Q.
s«yOa
1 initial or ramp-
AlTp phase
'V f\
^/^pHW^
steady-
/ statBhase
/
/
\
\ aeration phase
\
I \
'""^zerotime jV^J^^^
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
4. DATA REVIEW AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS
AUDITS
The approved Deposition Velocity QAPP specified
procedures for the review of data and independent technical
system audits.4 Test data (Excel worksheets created for
each test, which contained material information, affluent
and effluent concentrations and CT, exposure chamber
temperature and humidity, detector and titration comparisons)
were peer reviewed within two weeks of data generation. The
project quality manager (or designee) was required to audit at
least 10% of the data. In addition, the project quality manager
(or designee) performed four technical system audits over
the course of testing. A technical system audit is a thorough,
systematic, on-site, qualitative audit of the facilities,
equipment, personnel, training, procedures, record keeping,
data validation, data management, and reporting aspects of
the system. The results of the audits are discussed in Section
8.0, "Quality Assurance Findings."
5. MATERIAL DEMAND CALCULATIONS AND
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
This section of the report provides details on the calculation
of the material demand and the statistical tools used in the
analysis of the data. The focus of this section is on only the
ramp-up and steady-state phases of the fumigation cycle.
Thus, the material demand for each building material type is
calculated as an average over the fumigation cycle duration
required to reach the target 12,000 ppmv • hr.
5.1 Material Demand Calculations
The difference between the target chamber outlet CT (CTouflet,
in ppmv • hr) and the inlet CT (CTinlet, ppmv • hr) required
to achieve the target (12,000 ppmv • hr) at the target chamber
concentration (1000 ppmv or 2000 ppmv) can be attributed
to the demand of the material in the chamber for C1O2.
This demand is composed of reversible adsorption (e.g.,
physisorption) and chemical reaction (e.g., decomposition
or chemisorption) on the materials within the chamber. A
contribution of homogeneous decomposition (gas-phase
decomposition) may also be present; however, efforts were
made to minimize the contribution of this mechanism (e.g.,
turnover rate and shielding from UV light). The mass balance
for the chamber can be expressed as:
w - W = W, + W.
md
Equation 2
where,
W; = the total amount of C1O2 that entered the chamber via
the inlet flow;
Wo = the total amount of C1O2 that was removed from the
chamber by the exit flow;
Wc = the total amount of C1O2 remaining in the chamber; and
Wmd = the total amount of C1O2 adsorbed and/or consumed by
the material (and/or chamber).
The difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
concentrations in the empty chamber (ACTb) and with
materials in the chamber (ACTmb) can be determined by
subtracting CTMet from CTou4et for each experiment. These
values represent the CT added over the target CT at the time
the target CT was achieved. An illustration of this calculation
is shown in Figure 6. These differences do not correct for
the amount of C1O2 left in the chamber (Wc) at the point in
time that the target CT is achieved; i.e., the difference in
CT is not due entirely to the loss (i.e., material demand) of
C1O2. In order to correct for this, the theoretical aeration
curve starting at the chamber concentration at the time the
target CT was achieved can be integrated to determine CTa.
This value represents the concentration and time product
(ppmv • hr) removed via aeration at the conclusion of the test
and not lost due to material demand. Since it is the theoretical
aeration curve, it is normalized for all experiments since
the experimental conditions remained consistent (e.g., size
of the chamber, air exchange rate). Accounting for the loss
to aeration in each experiment, the difference between the
inlet and outlet can be expressed as ACTb.a (= ACTb - CTa)
and ACTmb.a (= ACTmb - CTa) for the baseline and materials,
respectively. CTa is calculated specific to each experiment
(i.e., using the exact concentrations in the chamber at the
time the target CT was achieved). However, due to the
insignificant differences in these concentrations, a single
-------
CTa could have also been used for each concentration (e.g.,
1000 and 2000 ppmv) without adding any significant error
to the calculation. For the demand of each material, CT does
' a
not practically factor into the calculation due to essentially
canceling out. However, for the baseline acrylic chamber, the
demand determined using this approach is specific to the size
of the chamber and the experimental parameters.
Figure 6. Illustration of the Calculation of the Material Demand
10 1$
Tim* (hr)
irnn-
Tim* (hr)
The impact of each material type on achieving the target
fumigant concentration in the chamber can be determined by
subtracting the observed difference in CT in the baseline tests
corrected for the loss to aeration in that test (ACTb_a) from
that observed with a specific material type in the chamber
(ACTmb_a). This is shown in Equation 3, where ACTk is the
difference between the target CT and input CT required to
achieve the target CT at the target chamber concentration
attributed directly to the impact of the material.
ACTt = ACTmb., - ACTb., = (CToutlet - CTinlet - CT, )mb - (CToutlet - CTinlet - CT, )b
Equation 3
It should be noted that ACT , and ACT, are the differences in
mb b
the outlet and inlet CT values without subtracting the loss to
aeration.
The surface area specific material demand for each material
(MDk) over the fumigation period (up to 12,0000 ppmv • hr)
can be calculated according to Equation 4, where ACTk
is divided by the material surface area (A, in m2) and the
time (t, in hr) required to reach the target CTou4et. A similar
expression can be used for the material demand of the
baseline chamber (MDb). The units of MD are ppmv • hr per
hr per m2. The total surface area added to the chamber for
each material type is reported in Table 2. The total interior
surface area of the chamber and material support structures is
3.8766m2.
The material demand can also (and more traditionally) be
expressed as a time-average mass flux to the material surface.
This can more traditionally be determined using Equation 2
and converting the volume concentration units (ppmv) to
mass concentration (e.g., g/m3). For the purpose of this
report, CT was converted from volume units (ppmv • hr) to
mass concentration units (g • hr/m3) according to Equation 5:
CT MW P
J-x±ppmv-hr1V±VVC102-rsys
1000RT.
Equation 5
sys
where,
CT = the cumulative mass concentration of CIO,, over a
mass 2
defined time period (g • hr/m3);
CTppmv = the cumulative volume concentration of C1O2 over a
defined time period (ppmv • hr);
MWC10 = molecular weight of C1O2 (67.5 g/mole);
Ps s = chamber pressure (in units of atmosphere [atm]);
R = universal gas constant (0.0826 L atm/mole K); and
T = chamber temperature (in units of K).
ACT
MD, = (for materials),
tA
ACT
MD,. = — (for baseline) Equation 4
b tA
-------
The mass flux (J) for each material can then be calculated
according to Equation 6:
J =
ACTk(mass)Q
tA
Equation 6
where,
J is in units of g • hr1 • nr2;
Q = the inlet and outlet flow rate (equal for all experiments) =
0.319m3/hrat25°C;
t = time (in hr) to reach target CT of 12,000 ppmv • hr; and
A = exposed coupon surface area (in m2).
A similar expression can be used to determine the mass flux
to the empty chamber surfaces (i.e., baseline) by replacing
ACT, . . with ACT, . . . J, is denoted as the mass flux to the
k(mass) b-a(mass) k
materials, and Jb is the mass flux to the chamber surfaces.
ACTkmass is determined by first converting ACTmb_a and
ACTb a from ppmv • hr to mass concentration units according
to Equation 4 and then subtracting these values to obtain the
background (baseline) corrected mass concentration and time
product difference between inlet and outlet C1O2 in units of
g • hr1 • nr3.
This time-averaged material demand assumes that the
adsorption and consumption of C1O2 by a material is
relatively constant over the time period defined as t. For
materials showing a high initial adsorption amount and
limited reaction of C1O2 on the material, this assumption will
become less valid with increasing time. In this stated case,
the material demand will occur over an initial period and the
material will have little to no further demand with increasing
time. Since the inlet concentration of C1O2 was adjusted
to decrease the time needed to reach the target chamber
concentration (1000 or 2000 ppmv), an analysis of the change
in material demand with time over this period is not possible.
5.2 Descriptive Statistical Analysis
The average and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for
three replicates for each material and C1O2 concentration.
Data were processed in Microsoft® Office Excel 2003 SP2
and rounded to the nearest tenth. The error propagation
was determined for all arithmetic calculations.18 The
determination of statistical outliers was performed according
to the Grubb's test, also known as the extreme studentized
deviate (BSD) method. No data were discarded as an outlier
with a data set (i.e., a set of triplicate experiments at each
concentration for each material). Statistical comparisons
between the data sets were then performed using the
Student's t Test calculator available from graphpad.com.
All statistical probabilities (p , ) were determined for
r ^values'
an unpaired test at a confidence interval a = 0.05. The
Pvdues represent the probability (ranging from zero to one)
that the difference between sample means is unlikely to
be a coincidence; i.e., how much evidence exists that the
null hypothesis is not true. However, the p , is not the
^ A ? A value
probability that the null hypothesis is true. A two-tail pvalue
was used for this testing; this approach is used to determine
the chance that randomly selected samples could have means
at least as far apart as observed if the null hypothesis were
true. The null hypothesis for this work is that there is no
difference in the means of the test groups; i.e., the means
are likely from the same population. The magnitude of the
p , is used to indicate whether the two means might be
^value G
from the same population; the traditional criteria of rejecting
the hypothesis if the pvalue was less than 0.05 was used for
this analysis. A small p , (e.g., below 0.05) is evidence
^ ^value v G ' '
against the null hypothesis; in other words, a small pvalue is
an indication that the difference of the means of the two
populations is statistically significant.
A large pvalue may suggest that the null hypothesis is true;
however, other factors may also contribute and the evidence
should, therefore, be automatically taken to indicate the truth
of the hypothesis. The 95% confidence level (a = 0.05) used
in this study can provide additional evidence against the
null hypothesis in the case of large pvalues. To further support
the acceptance of the null hypothesis, the 95% confidence
interval should lie entirely within the range of indifference. A
confidence interval of 95% means that there is a 95% chance
that the calculated interval included the true difference
between the population means.
6.0 RESULTS
6.1 Evaluation of Empty Glove Box
The empty glove box, defined as not having the coupons
to be tested in place, was evaluated for mixing and for
establishing a baseline effect on C1O2. The mixing evaluation
was done to ensure that all the coupons experienced the same
concentration of C1O2 and that the chamber could indeed be
considered a well-stirred chambered. The baseline material
demand studies were done in order to be able to isolate the
impact of the building materials from that of the chamber in
subsequent testing (Section 6.2).
6.1.1 "Fog" Test Results and Discussion
A "fog" test was conducted to observe the glove box air
circulation pattern created by the glove box recirculation
fan. The small recirculation fan was used in the glove box
to mimic the air circulation provided by fans in commercial
large-room decontamination. The fan was placed on the
bottom of the glove box in the back right corner and blew
toward the opposite corner of the glove box. The "fog"
test was used to verify that the coupons placed on the
exposure rack would have decontaminant vapor contact
during testing. A container of dry ice and warm water was
placed in the glove box. The fog produced could be sustained
for several minutes. Air was introduced into the glove box
on the lower right side and the flow observed. Figure 7
shows the photographs taken of the fog test within the
exposure chamber. The density of the fog was hard to
photograph; however, the fog developed an even density
and did not stratify.
-------
Figure 7. Exposure Chamber Fog Test
Note: Figures (a), (b), (c) are close-up photographs of different areas (a, b, c) of the chamber, as illustrated
in the upper left corner photo. The close-up photos are intended to provide an indication of how appropriate
mixing was assessed during the fog test.
6.1.2 Material Demand of the Baseline Chamber
Three baseline tests were conducted for each chlorine dioxide
concentration of 1000 and 2000 ppmv. The sample rack
without material coupons was in the glove box during the
baseline tests. For the first three tests, the titration verification
of INTERSCAN readings was performed at the beginning,
middle, and end of run. Afterwards, the titration check was
performed only at target CT/2. Three replicate samples were
collected from the feed and effluent streams and assayed
in accordance with IOP DS04002.14 The concentration of
C1O2 was initially calculated in mg/mL and then converted
to ppmv. The data were recorded in an Excel worksheet
specific to that test for peer review and validation (reference
section 4). The maximum acceptance criterion for the
agreement between detector and titration was ± 15%. An
example of the detector and titration results is provided in
Table Dl, Appendix D.
The overall effect of the baseline chamber (without materials
included) on maintaining the desired C1O2 concentration can
be determined from the data presented in Table 3. The data
in the table includes (in order from left to right) the average
chamber temperature, average concentration of C1O2 in the
feed to the chamber, the time to achieve a chamber CT of
12,000 ppmv • hr, the difference between the total inlet and
chamber cumulative CT values corrected for the amount
remaining in the chamber at the target CT, the material
demand calculated according to Equation 4, and the mass
flux calculated according to Equation 6. The average values
for these columns described above for the three runs at
each condition (1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv target chamber
concentrations) are presented together with the corresponding
standard deviations (± SD). The target CT value for all
experiments was 12,000 ppmv • hr. There was no statistical
difference between the input CT required to reach the target
CT value at chamber concentrations of 1000 ppmv compared
to 2000 ppmv at a confidence interval of a = 0.05 (pvalue =
0.0537). On average, 6% more C1O2 was required to be added
to the chamber than the amount required for the target CT.
The average material demand (MDb) of the baseline chamber
and mass flux to the chamber surfaces (Jb) over the time
required to achieve the 12,000 ppmv • hr can be determined
as outlined in Section 5.1 (Equations 4 and 6, respectively).
The difference in CT between the target and required inlet
for each experimental fumigation test can be found in Table
El of Appendix E. Concentration profiles (Figures Cla-
C6a) and CT profiles (Figures Clb - C6b) are provided in
Appendix C.
-------
Table 3. Baseline Material Demand Test Results
Baseline (1000 ppmv)
Baseline (2000 ppmv)
Average
Chamber
Temperature
29.2 ± 0.2
27.2 ± 1.2
Average Feed
Concentration
(ppmv)
1278.7 ± 50.6
2327.4 ± 246.0
Time
(t, in hr) to
reach target
CT
10.99 ± 0.43
6.22 ± 0.27
(ppmv-hr)
896.2 ± 208.3
764.5 ± 370.8
(ppmv-hr/hr
m2)
21.0 ± 5.0
31.7 ± 15.4
(g/hr m2)
0.02 ± 0.004
0.03 ± 0.01
6.2 Material Demand of the Selected Building
Materials
Three replicate tests were conducted at each of the two target
concentrations (1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv) for each of the
six building material types investigated. The concentration-
time and CT-time plots for each of the experiments are
included in Appendix C. The baseline-corrected average
differences between the inlet and outlet CT (ACTk) for each
material type are reported in Tables 4 and 5 for each of the
target chamber concentrations tested. The baseline-corrected
average material demands (MDk) and mass fluxes to the
material surfaces (Jk) are also reported in Tables 4 and 5.
The data in the table includes (in order from left to right) the
average chamber temperature, average concentration of C1O2
in the feed to the chamber, the time to achieve a chamber
CT of 12,000 ppmv • hr, the baseline-subtracted difference
between the total inlet and chamber cumulative CT values,
the material demand calculated according to Equation 4,
and the mass flux calculated according to Equation 6. The
average values for these columns described above for the
three runs at each condition (1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv
target chamber concentrations) are presented together with
the corresponding standard deviations (± SD). The inlet and
outlet CT values for each experiment used for the calculation
of the average values presented in Tables 4 and 5 can be
found in Table E2 of Appendix E.
The baseline-corrected impact of the materials on the
C1O2 feed required to achieve the target conditions can be
determined by a comparison of the material demand or
mass flux between each material type and the baseline, and
among each material type. This can be done for both the 1000
ppmv and 2000 ppmv target chamber C1O2 concentrations.
In addition, a comparison of the material demand or mass
flux for a single material at the 1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv
conditions may also indicate the extent of the impact of
the material on the required C1O2 feed to the chamber to
achieve and maintain the target concentration. The following
subsections of Section 6.2 discuss these comparisons and the
statistical significances of the difference observed.
Table 4. Baseline-Corrected Material Demand Test Results for Each Material Type
(Target Chamber Concentration = 1000 ppmv CI02)
Average Time
Chamber Average Feed (t, in hr) to
Temperature Concentration reach target
(°C) (ppmv) CT
(ppmv-hr) (ppmv-hr/hr m2) (g/hr m2)
Carpet
Steel
Wall board
Ceiling Tile
Wood
Concrete Block
27. 2 ±0.4
26.0 ± 0.3
28.4 ± 1.9
28.3 ± 0.2
29.6 ± 0.3
28.5 ± 0.6
1489.6 ± 26.8
1125.9 ± 45.4
1683.4 ± 30.7
2146.8 ± 42.9
1770.2 ± 59.8
1375.4 ± 42.3
10.77 ± 0.07
10.85 ± 0.22
10.62 ± 0.06
10.84 ± 0.07
10.65 ± 0.14
10.91 ± 0.16
1960.7 ± 278.2
-1832.0 ± 300.0
3801.7 ± 397.1
9213.5 ± 560.4
4774.9 ± 769.0
833.4 ± 615.8
379.3 ± 53.9
-351.9 ±58.1
737.5 ± 77.1
1811.9 ± 110.8
922.0 ± 149.0
154.3 ± 114.0
0.33 ± 0.05
-0.31 ± 0.05
0.64 ± 0.07
1.58 ± 0.10
0.80 ± 0.13
0.13 ± 0.10
-------
Table 5. Baseline-Corrected Material Demand Test Results for Each Material Type
(Target Chamber Concentration = 2000 ppmv CI02)
Average Time
Chamber Average Feed (t, in hr) to
Temperature Concentration reach target
(°C) (ppmv) CT
(ppmv-hr) (ppmv-hr/hr m2) (g/hr m2)
Carpet
Steel
Wall board
Ceiling Tile
Wood
Concrete Block
26.9 ± 1.2
25.7 ± 0.1
27.6 ± 0.7
29.4 ± 1.2
30.0 ± 0.4
26.2 ± 0.9
2978.2 ± 246.0
2342.7 ± 42.6
3353.9 ± 108.4
3646.7 ± 61.8
2675.9 ± 42.6
2327.1 ± 77.3
5.94 ± 0.12
5.97 ± 0.12
6.02 ± 0.09
7.07 ± 0.21
6.24 ± 0.06
6.22 ± 0.17
2609.0 ± 784.7
-1056.2 ± 619.4
5137.8 ± 530.7
10612.3 ± 821.5
1582.7 ± 726.6
-378.0 ± 613.1
915.1 ± 275.8
-368.7 ± 216.4
1758.3 ± 183.5
3199.8 ± 265.3
521.6 ± 239.6
-122.7 ± 199.1
0.80 ± 0.24
-0.32 ± 0.19
1.53 ± 0.16
2.79 ± 0.23
0.45 ± 0.21
-0.11 ± 0.17
6.2.1 Carpet
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 1000 ppmv tests at the time the target
CT was achieved was ACTmb = 4015.9.5 ±191.8 ppmv •
hr, as listed in Table E2 of Appendix E. Corrected for the
amount of fumigant remaining in the chamber at this time,
the difference due to material demand was ACT , = 2856.9
mb-a
± 183.3 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). An extremely
significant (pvalue = 0.0006) difference between the baseline
(ACTbJ and tests with carpet in the chamber (ACTmbJ
was observed, indicating that the carpet had a statistically
significant impact on the concentration of C1O2 within the
chamber. The difference in CT after baseline subtraction
was ACTk = 1960.7 ± 278.2 ppmv • hr, as reported in Table
4. Converted to a volume or mass flux, the material demand
can be reported as MDk = 379.3 ± 53.9 ppmv • hr • hr1
• ni'2 and Jk = 0.33 ± 0.05 g • hr1 • m2, respectively. The
differences between these values and those reported for
the corresponding baseline tests (Table 3) are statistically
significant (p , = 0.0003 for MDt and 0.0051 for I). The
G vlvalue k k'
time required to achieve the target CT was not statistically
different from that observed for the baseline tests at 1000
ppmv. Concentration profiles (Figures C7a - C9a) and CT
profiles (Figures C7b - C9b) are provided in Appendix C.
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 2000 ppmv tests was ACTmb = 5625.9
± 668.8 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). Corrected for
the amount of fumigant remaining in the chamber at the
time the target CT was achieved, the difference due to
material demand was ACTmb a = 3373.5 ± 691.6 ppmv • hr
(Appendix E, Table E2). As in the 1000 ppmv tests, this
value was determined to be very statistically different (pvalue
= 0.0045) from that of the baseline tests (CTb_a) reported in
Table 3. The difference in CT after baseline subtraction was
ACTk = 2609.0 ± 784.7 ppmv • hr, as reported in Table 5.
Converted to a volume or mass flux, the material demand
can be reported as MDk = 915.1 ± 275.8 ppmv • hr • hr1
• m'2 and Jk = 0.80 ± 0.24 g • hr1 • m2, respectively. The
differences between these values and those reported for
the corresponding baseline tests (Table 3) are statistically
significant (pvalue = 0.0052 for MDk and 0.0004 for Jk). The
difference in CTk of carpet at 1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv was
not statistically significant (pvalue = 0.2487). However, when
converted to a volume or mass flux (i.e., normalized for the
fumigation time), the differences in material demand (MDk)
and mass flux (Jk) at the two concentrations were statically
significant; this indicates that the material demand (and mass
flux) is likely a function of the concentration (i.e., not zero
order in concentration). The time required to achieve the
target CT was not statistically different from that observed
for the baseline tests at 2000 ppmv. Concentration profiles
(Figures ClOa - C12a) and CT profiles (Figures ClOb -
C12b) are provided in Appendix C.
6.2.2 Painted Steel
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 1000 ppmv tests at the time the
target CT was achieved was ACTmb = 199.0 ± 292.8 ppmv
• hr, as listed in Table E2 of Appendix E. Corrected for the
amount of fumigant remaining in the chamber at this time,
the difference due to material demand was ACTmb_a = -937.7
± 215.0 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). An extremely
significant (pvalue = 0.0005) difference between the baseline
(ACTb_a) and tests with painted steel in the chamber (ACTmb_a)
was observed. The difference in CT between the inlet and
chamber after baseline subtraction was ACTk = -1832.0
± 300.0 ppmv • hr, as reported in Table 4. Converted to a
volume or mass flux, the material demand can be reported
as MDk = -351.9 ± 58.1 ppmv • hr • hr1 • m2 and Jk = -0.31 ±
0.05 g • hr1 • m2, respectively. The differences between these
values and those reported for the corresponding baseline
tests (Table 3) are statistically significant (pvalue = 0.0004
for MDk and 0.0333 for Jk). However, a negative demand
does not make physical sense since this would mean that
additional C1O2 was generated within the chamber due to
the presence of the painted steel. This was certainly not the
case and is an artifact of the measurement method; the minor
demand of the painted steel is within the limits of detection
of the experimental method used. Further tests would need
to be performed to understand this response. This result
is discussed further in Section 6.4. The time required to
achieve the target CT was not statistically different from that
observed for the baseline tests at 1000 ppmv. Concentration
-------
profiles (Figures C13a - C15a) and CT profiles (Figures
C13b - C15b) are provided in Appendix C.
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 2000 ppmv tests was ACTmb = 1964.0
± 446.6 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). Corrected for
the amount of fumigant remaining in the chamber at the
time the target CT was achieved, the difference due to
material demand was ACTmb_a = -291.7 ± 496.2 ppmv • hr
(Appendix E, Table E2). The difference between this value
and that determined for the baseline tests (ACTb_a, Table
3) was determined to be statistically significant (pvalue =
0.0418). The difference in CT after baseline subtraction was
ACTk = -1056.2 ± 619.4 ppmv • hr, as reported in Table 5.
Converted to a volume or mass flux, the material demand
can be reported as MDk = -368.7 ± 216.4 ppmv • hr • hr1-
m2 and Jk = -0.32 ± 0.19 g • hr1 • m2, respectively. The
differences between these values and those reported for
the corresponding baseline tests (Table 3) are statistically
significant (pvalue = 0.033 for MDk and 0.0003 for Jk).
The difference in CT (ACTk) due to the material was not
determined to be statistically significantly different from the
baseline-corrected average difference observed in the 1000
ppmv tests (Pvalue= 0.1224). Similarly, the material demand
(MDk) and mass flux (Jk) determined at 1000 ppmv and
2000 ppmv are not statistically significantly different (Pvalue
= 0.9029 for MDk and Pvalue = 0.934 for Jk). As discussed' ""
previously, the negative demand (or flux) is likely an artifact
of the testing and not due to additional generation of C1O2
due to the painted steel in the chamber. The average time
required to achieve the target CT at 2000 ppmv was not
statistically different from the average time observed for the
respective baseline tests. Concentration profiles (Figures
C16a - C18a) and CT profiles (Figures C16b - C18b) for the
2000 ppmv tests are provided in Appendix C.
6.2.3 Gypsum Wallboard
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 1000 ppmv tests at the time the
target CT was achieved was ACTmb = 5856.3 ± 331.4 ppmv
• hr, as listed in Table E2 of Appendix E. Corrected for the
amount of fumigant remaining in the chamber at this time,
the difference due to material demand was ACTmb_a = 4697.9
± 337.5 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). An extremely
significant (pvalue = 0.0001) difference between the baseline
(ACTb_a) and tests with painted wallboard in the chamber
(ACTmb_a) was observed, indicating that the material had a
statistically significant impact on the concentration of C1O2
within the chamber. The difference in CT after baseline
subtraction was ACTk = 3801.7 ± 397.1 ppmv • hr, as reported
in Table 4. Converted to a volume or mass flux, the material
demand can be reported as MDk = 737.5 ± 77.1 ppmv • hr
• hr1 • nr2 and Jk = 0.64 ± 0.07 g • hr1 • nr2, respectively.
The differences between these values and those reported
for the corresponding baseline tests (Table 3) are extremely
statistically significant (pvalue = 0.0001 forMDk and 0.0001
for Jk). The time required to achieve the target CT was not
statistically different from that observed for the baseline tests
at 1000 ppmv. Concentration profiles (Figures C19a- C21a)
and CT profiles (Figures C19b - C21b) are provided in
Appendix C.
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 2000 ppmv tests was ACTmb = 8135.7
±419.1 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). Corrected for the
amount of fumigant remaining in the chamber at the time
the target CT was achieved, the difference due to material
demand was ACTmb_a = 5902.2 ± 530.7 ppmv • hr (Appendix
E, Table E2). As in the 1000 ppmv tests, this value was
determined to be extremely statistically different (p , =
•> •> XA value
0.0001) from that of the baseline tests (ACTbJ reported in
Table 3. The difference in CT after baseline subtraction was
ACTk = 5137.8 ± 530.7 ppmv • hr, as reported in Table 5.
Converted to a volume or mass flux, the material demand can
be reported as MDk = 1768.3 ± 183.5 ppmv • hr • hr1 • nr2 and
Jk = 1.58 ± 0.16 g • hr1 • nr2, respectively. The differences
between these values (MDk, and Jk) and those reported for
the corresponding baseline tests (Table 3) are extremely
statistically significant (pvalue = 0.0001 for MDk, and 0.0001
for Jk). The difference in CTk of painted wallboard at 1000
ppmv and 2000 ppmv was statistically significant (pvalue =
0.0251); similarly, the material demand and mass flux at 1000
ppmv were statistically different (pvalue = 0.0009 for MDk
andp , = 0.0009 for I) from the demand and flux at 2000
^value k'
ppmv. These results suggest a nonzero dependence of the
demand on the chamber concentration. The time required to
achieve the target CT was not statistically different from that
observed for the baseline tests at 2000 ppmv. Concentration
profiles (Figures C22a - C24a) and CT profiles (Figures
C22b - C24b) are provided in Appendix C.
6.2.4CeilingTile
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 1000 ppmv tests at the target CT was
achieved was ACT , = 11254.4 ± 552.9 ppmv • hr, as listed
mb rF ;
in Table E2 of Appendix E. Corrected for the amount of
fumigant remaining in the chamber at this time, the difference
due to material demand was ACT , = 10109.7 ± 519.9
mb-a
ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). This value was extremely
statistically different (pvalue = 0.0001) from the baseline
(ACTb_a) test results reported in Table 3; this difference
indicates that the ceiling tile had a pronounced impact on the
concentration of C1O2 within the chamber. The difference
in CT after baseline subtraction was ACTk = 9213.5 ± 560.4
ppmv • hr, as reported in Table 4. Converted to a volume or
mass flux, the material demand can be reported as MDk =
1811.9 ± 110.8 ppmv • hr • hr1 • m2 and Jk = 1.58 ± 0.10 g •
hr1 • nr2, respectively. The differences between these values
and those reported for the corresponding baseline tests (Table
3) are extremely statistically significant (p , =0.0001 for
/ J JO lvalue
MDk and 0.0001 for Jk). The time required to achieve the
target CT was not statistically different from that observed
for the baseline tests at 1000 ppmv. Concentration profiles
(Figures C25a - C27a) and CT profiles (Figures C25b -
C27b) are provided in Appendix C.
The average difference between the inlet and outlet
chamber CT values for the three 2000 ppmv tests was
ACTmb = 13723.1 ± 745.9 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table
E2). Corrected for the amount of fumigant remaining in
the chamber at the time the target CT was achieved, the
difference due to material demand was ACT . =11376.8
-------
± 733.1 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). As in the 1000
ppmv tests, this value was determined to be extremely
statistically different (p , = 0.0001) from that of the baseline
^ vlvalue '
tests (ACTb_a) reported in Table 3. The difference in CT after
baseline subtraction was ACTk = 10612.3 ± 821.5 ppmv • hr,
as reported in Table 5. Converted to a volume or mass flux,
the material demand can be reported as MDk = 3199.8 ±
265.3 ppmv • hr • hr1 • nr2 and Jk = 2.79 ± 0.23 g • hr1 • nr2,
respectively. The differences between these values (MDk, and
Jk) and those reported for the corresponding baseline tests
(Table 3) are extremely statistically significant (pvalue = 0.0001
forMD,, and 0.0001 for I). The difference in CT, of ceiling
k> k' k G
tile at 1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv was not quite statistically
significant (p , = 0.0715); however, the material demand
G vlvalue " '
and mass flux at 1000 ppmv were very statistically different
(p , = 0.0011 for MD, and p , = 0.0011 for I) from
vlvalue k fyalue k'
the demand and flux at 2000 ppmv. Concentration profiles
(Figures C28a - C30a) and CT profiles (Figures C28b -
C30b) are provided in Appendix C.
6.2.5 Wood
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 1000 ppmv tests at the time the target
CT was achieved was ACT , = 6817.9 ± 707.1 ppmv • hr, as
mb rF >
listed in Table E2 of Appendix E. Corrected for the amount of
fumigant remaining in the chamber at this time, the difference
due to material demand was ACT , = 5671.1 ± 740.0 ppmv
mb-a rF
• hr (Appendix E, Table E2). An extremely significant (pvalue =
0.0004) difference between the baseline (ACTb-a) and tests
with wood in the chamber (ACTmb_a) was observed, indicating
that the material had a statistically significant impact on the
concentration of C1O2 within the chamber. The difference
in CT after baseline subtraction was ACTk = 4774.9 ±769.0
ppmv • hr, as reported in Table 4. Converted to a volume or
mass flux, the material demand can be reported as MDk =
922.0 ± 149.0 ppmv • hr • hr1- nr2 and Jk = 0.80 ± 0.13 g •
hr1 • nr2, respectively. The differences between these values
and those reported for the corresponding baseline tests (Table
3) are statistically significant (p , = 0.0005 forMD, and
' JO lvalue k
0.0258 for Jt). The time required to achieve the target CT was
not statistically different from that observed for the baseline
tests at 1000 ppmv. Concentration profiles (Figures C31a-
C33a) and CT profiles (Figures C3 Ib - C33b) are provided in
Appendix C.
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 2000 ppmv tests was ACTmb = 4638.3
± 637.4 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). Corrected for the
amount of fumigant remaining in the chamber at this time,
the difference due to material demand was ACTmb_a = 2347.1
± 624.8 ppmv • hr (Appendix E, Table E2). As in the 1000
ppmv tests, this value was determined to be statistically
different (pvalue = 0.0196) from that of the baseline test
results (ACTb_a) reported in Table 3. The difference in CT
after baseline subtraction was ACTk = 1582.7 ± 726.6 ppmv
• hr, as reported in Table 5. Converted to a volume or mass
flux, the material demand can be reported as MDk = 521.6 ±
239.6 ppmv • hr • hr1 • nr2 and Jk = 0.45 ± 0.21 g • hr1 • nr2,
respectively. The differences between these values (MDk and
Jk) and those reported for the corresponding baseline tests
(Table 3) are statistically significant (pvalue = 0.0241 for MDk
and 0.0005 for Jk). The baseline-corrected difference between
the inlet and chamber CT from the 1000 and 2000 ppmv
tests were determined to be statistically different (pvalue =
0.0064). However, the material demand (MDk) and mass flux
(Jk) of the wood for C1O2 at a target concentration of 1000
ppmv was not different (p , = 0.0695 forMD, andp , =
A A ^ value k A value
0.0701 for Jk) from the demand at 2000 ppmv. The fact that
these normalized (for time and surface area) values are not
different potentially indicates that the demand is not highly
dependent on chamber concentration. The time required to
achieve the target CT was not statistically different from that
observed for the baseline tests at 2000 ppmv. Concentration
profiles (Figures C34a - C36a) and CT profiles (Figures
C34b - C36b) are provided in Appendix C.
6.2.6 Concrete
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three tests at a target chamber concentration
of 1000 ppmv at the time the target CT was achieved was
ACT , = 2904.9 ± 581.7 ppmv • hr, as listed in Table E2 of
mb rF >
Appendix E. Corrected for the amount of fumigant remaining
in the chamber at this time, the difference due to material
demand was ACTmb_a = 1729.6 ± 579.1 ppmv • hr (Appendix
E, Table E2). This value was not quite statistically different
(Pvalue= 0-070) from the average baseline value (ACTb_a).
The difference in CT due to the material, after baseline
subtraction, was ACTk = 833.4±615.8 ppmv • hr, as reported
in Table 4. Converted to a volume or mass flux, the material
demand can be reported as MDk = 154.3 ± 114.0 ppmv • hr •
hr1 • nr2 and Jk = 0.013 ± 0.10 g • hr1 • nr2, respectively. The
differences between these values and those reported for the
corresponding baseline tests (Table 3) are not statistically
significant (p , =0.1131 forMD, and 0.2276 for I). The
G vlvalue k k'
time required to achieve the target CT was not statistically
different from that observed for the baseline tests at 1000
ppmv. Concentration profiles (Figures C37a - C39a) and CT
profiles (Figures C37b - C39b) are provided in Appendix C.
The average difference between the inlet and outlet chamber
CT values for the three 2000 ppmv tests at the time the
target CT was achieved was ACTmb = 2580.5 ± 512.6 ppmv
• hr (Appendix E, Table E2). Corrected for the amount of
fumigant remaining in the chamber at this time, the difference
due to material demand was ACTmb_a = 386.5 ± 488.3 ppmv
• hr (Appendix E, Table E2). The difference between this
value and that determined for the baseline tests (ACTb_a, Table
3) was not determined to be statistically significant (pvalue
= 0.3458). The difference in CT after baseline subtraction
was ACTk = -378.0 ± 613.1 ppmv • hr, as reported in Table
5, and was not determined to be statistically different from
baseline-corrected average difference observed in the 1000
ppmv tests (pvalue = 0.0732). Converted to a volume or mass
flux, the material demand can be reported as MDk = 521.6
± 239.6 ppmv • hr • hr1 • nr2 and Jk = 0.45 ± 0.21 g • hr1 •
nr2, respectively. These values were not determined to be
statistically different from the corresponding baseline tests
(Pvaine = °-2515 f°r MDk and pvalue = 0.1297 for Jk). The
differences in these determined values (ACTk, MDk, and Jk)
between the 1000 and 2000 ppmv tests were not statistically
-------
significant (p , = 0.0732 for ACT,, p , = 0.1047 for MD,
G ^value k> *value k
and p , =0.1028 for J,). As discussed for the painted steel,
^value k' ^ •>
the negative demand is likely an artifact of the testing and
not due to additional generation of C1O2 due to the concrete
in the chamber. In this case, the value is not different from
zero and is well within the analytical noise of the system.
The times required to achieve the target CT at 1000 and 2000
ppmv target concentrations were not statistically different
from the times observed for the respective baseline tests.
Concentration profiles (Figures C40a - C42a) and CT profiles
(Figures C40b - C42b) for the 2000 ppmv tests are provided
in Appendix C.
Table 6. Total Feed and Effluent CT for Each Material Test
6.3 Total CT Demand for Baseline and Materials
The total CT for the affluent and effluent is shown in Table 6
for the baseline and each material during the 1000 and 2000
ppmv tests. The total CT for each material includes the sum
of concentration • time over the three phases of the test, the
initial or ramp-up phase, the steady-state or decontamination
(decon) phase, and the aeration phase. The file number is the
date of the test, month/day/year.
Experiment Total Feed CT Total Effluent CT
Material Concentration (ppmv) (file number) (ppmv • hr) (ppmv • hr)
Baseline
Carpet
Concrete
Painted Steel
Ceiling Tile
Wall board
Wood
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
1000
1000
1000
2000
2000
2000
011906
020106
020206
011806
041905
042005
040506
041006
041106
033006
040406
040606
112905
120105
120505
101105
101205
101305
092905
100405
100505
091905
092105
092705
030106
032806
032906
022306
022706
022806
041806
042006
042406
041206
041306
041706
020706
020906
021306
120605
120705
120805
14216
14253
14559
16309
17063
15501
16989
17330
17151
18561
19969
19630
15803
16055
15568
16275
15221
16405
12879
13267
12714
15885
15912
14982
24129
25163
24223
27631
28607
27156
19795
18772
19490
22278
22851
22034
19683
18699
20411
22554
17820
17394
13514
13572
13563
15637
15707
14638
13453
13477
13418
15693
14681
15035
13571
13581
13422
16543
16907
17397
13716
13801
13654
17048
17250
17690
13712
13670
13767
15428
15239
15264
13490
13346
13514
14606
14623
14609
13501
13570
13546
16476
16442
16752
-------
6.4 Discussion
The average feed concentration for the baseline study was
1278.7 ± 50.6 ppmv and 2327.4 ± 246.0 ppmv (Table 3)
for the 1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv exposures, respectively.
The averages include the ramp-up and steady-state phases.
Similarly, the average feed concentrations required to
achieve and maintain the target concentrations with the
materials in the chamber are shown in Table 4 (1000 ppmv)
and Table 5 (2000 ppmv). The average concentration can
be used to qualitatively rank the chlorine dioxide demand
of the materials, as follows: ceiling tile > wallboard ~ wood
> carpet > concrete > steel ~ baseline for the 1000 ppmv
exposures. The ranking for the 2000 ppmv tests was
ceiling tile > wallboard > wood > carpet > concrete ~
steel ~ baseline.
Ceiling tile required a higher average feed concentration
than the baseline test to reach and maintain the effluent
within the target concentration limits over the 0 - 12,000 CT
range. A feed concentration 68% higher than the feed in the
baseline tests was required for the 1000 ppmv tests and 57%
higher for the 2000 ppmv tests. The times to reach the target
concentrations were observed to be significant longer for the
ceiling tile (Figures C25a - C30a) than for the other materials
(concentration profiles in Appendix C). The observation is
especially true for the 2000 ppmv test and is also reflected in
the time required to achieve 12,000 CT (Table 5). This time
is reflective of the strain on the generation system due to the
material demand; however, it should be mentioned that the
generator had adequate capacity at the scale tested to achieve
the desired target concentrations and CT values. Conversely,
steel required an average concentration of only 1125.9 ±
45.4 ppmv and 2342.7 ± 42.6 ppmv to obtain and maintain
the target concentration in the 1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv
tests, respectively; these concentrations were not statistically
different from those required for the baseline tests.
A similar qualitative ranking for chlorine dioxide demand
was made using the total feed CT (Table 6) since the exposed
surface area was maintained nearly the same for all material
types. The average total feed CT for the 1000 ppmv baseline
tests over the entire fumigation duration [ramp-up, steady-
state (decon), and aeration phases] was 14342.7 ± 188.3
ppmv • hr, and 16291.0 ± 781.2 ppmv • hr for the 2000 ppmv
tests. The average total feed CT for ceiling tile was 24505.0 ±
571.8 ppmv • hr for the 1000 ppmv tests and 27798.0 ± 739.8
ppmv • hr for the 2000 ppmv tests (to achieve the effluent CT
of 12,000 ppmv • hr). These required feed CT values were
71% higher than the average feed CT of the respective (1000
ppmv or 2000 ppmv) baseline tests. The qualitative ranking
based on feed CT for the 1000 ppmv and 2000 ppmv tests
was ceiling tile > wallboard > wood > carpet > concrete >
steel. This ranking is in agreement with those shown above
based upon the feed concentration requirements.
These qualitative rankings agreed well with the ranking
based on the material demand (MDk) and mass flux (Jk)
(Table 4) determined for the 1000 ppmv tests: ceiling tile >
wood > wallboard > carpet > concrete > steel. The ranking
for materials in the 2000 ppmv tests was ceiling tile >
wallboard > carpet > wood > concrete ~ steel. The mass
fluxes for carpet, painted wallboard, and ceiling tile at 2000
ppmv were approximately twice the fluxes at 1000 ppmv.
This difference is suggestive of a nonzero order dependence
on the concentration of the reaction of C1O2 with materials;
however, the limited concentration study performed here
does not allow for further determination of this dependence.
Additional studies are being performed by EPA at facilities
in Research Triangle Park, NC. There was no difference
in average material demand value or mass flux determined
for the 1000 ppmv compared to the 2000 ppmv tests for
wood, steel, and concrete. With respect to wood, although
the difference in the feed and effluent CT values (ACTk) for
the 1000 and 2000 ppmv tests was statistically different,
normalization to fumigation time and surface area (e.g., MDk)
resolved the difference.
The concrete and steel exhibited the lowest material demand
of the materials investigated. The difference between the
baseline and the concrete tests was not statistically different.
This suggests a very minimal, if any, reaction of chlorine
dioxide with the concrete coupons used in these tests. While
the statistics suggested that the tests with steel were different
from the baseline, no net mass flux of chlorine dioxide to the
materials was observed. More tests are required to determine
whether the negative fluxes are either within the experimental
variability or an artifact of the detection system. In either
case, the calculated flux is minimally significant.
7.0 OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
Corrosion due to the interaction of chlorine dioxide and
moisture with electronic items contributed to numerous
equipment failures during the material demand tests.
Corrosion was observed on the stainless steel support bars
inside the exposure chamber, inside flow meters, on all
metal parts inside the INTERSCAN detectors, and inside
the temperature and humidity sensors. Unfortunately, the
frequency of failures was not recorded. Listed below in bullet
format are the most significant problems encountered.
• Corrosion on metal parts of flow meters combined with
the moisture in the air stream produced a metal oxide
paste that migrated up the tube causing the float to stick.
• The pump (used for sampling the stream) inside the
INTERSCAN detectors leaked. The leaks were small;
however, chlorine dioxide caused failures of the
potentiometers and circuit boards. Attempts were
made to seal the new potentiometers with silicone,
but the fix was only temporary. The circuit boards
were replaced. The pumps were removed from the
INTERSCAN detectors, and a single pump (Cole
Farmer, Model number 075360-40) was used to
sample the feed and effluent. A photograph of the
interior of an INTERSCAN detector showing corroded
parts due to exposure to chlorine dioxide is provided
in Figure 8. The chlorine dioxide CT for the detector
is not available.
• Failures due to corrosion occurred with the General
Eastern Humiscan and Hobo® temperature-humidity
-------
sensors. Because of cost, the Humiscan was replaced
by the Hobo® sensor. Corrosion at the USB port on
the Hobo® occurred frequently. Attempts to apply a
protective coating further delayed but did not eliminate
the failures. Significantly longer times occurred only
when the USB cable was soldered to the Hobo® circuit
board and protected with liquid electrical tape. A back-
up Hobo® was used during the tests because failure was
unpredictable.
Most of the sodium chlorite cartridges received from
CDG Technology, Inc. leaked. The cartridges had to be
pressure checked, repaired, and checked again before
being installed in the generator.
Poor temperature control in the laboratory during winter
months resulted in condensation inside the exposure
chamber. A plastic tent had to be erected around the
exposure chamber and the area heated with a small hot
air blower to maintain the proper test environment.
Condensation was not observed inside the exposure
chamber during any test either with or without the
plastic tent configuration.
Chlorine cylinder regulators and flow meters did not
maintain set values; manual adjustments were required
almost constantly.
Fluctuations, possibly due to changing the pressure
equilibrium inside the laboratory by opening the door
to the corridor, were observed in the INTERSCAN
detectors. The fluctuations were not always observed
and were minimized by entering and exiting a
side office door. The fluctuations were infrequent,
momentary, and relatively small in magnitude and,
therefore, not consider significant errors.
• Corrosion-related failure occurred with the circulation
fan inside the exposure chamber. The chlorine dioxide
CT value on the fan shown in Figure 9 was not
available.
8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCES FINDINGS
Three technical audits of the chlorine dioxide exposure
process were conducted over the course of the program.
The first technical audit, conducted 22-23 February 2005,
was a control run using wood. This run ended up being
aborted when, after more than 24 hours had passed, the
chamber was unable to reach the minimum starting humidity.
The wood samples absorbed so much moisture from the
ambient air that it was not possible to equilibrate the
humidity in the chamber. This resulted in a change to the
sample storage protocol for the wood samples to prevent this
problem in future testing.
A second technical audit was conducted on 17 August 2005.
The chamber concentration recorded by the sensors reached
the test level far more rapidly than should have been possible.
Corrective actions taken by the testers failed to explain
the unusual behavior of the chamber, and the test run was
aborted. Further work corrected the problem.
A third technical audit was conducted on 19 September
2005. With the exception of a minor deviation in the marking
scheme from the IOP— the test team used the acronym SS
to designate a new lot of structural steel instead of S (as was
specified in the IOP)—everything went as planned. All other
operations were in accordance with the IOP and SOP.
Figure 8. Photographs of the Interior of an INTERSCAN Detector
(Not exposed to Chlorine Dioxide) (Exposed to Chlorine Dioxide)
-------
Figure 9. Comparison of Chamber Fans Exposed to Chlorine Dioxide and VHP®.
VHP SYSTEM
FAN
FRONT
CHLORINE DIOXIDE
SYSTEM FAN
FRONT
BACK
COOLING FAN
NO »
»4«|^l
Data quality audits were conducted on 20 of the 57 chlorine
dioxide deposition velocity tests (35%). All were found to be
acceptable, in accordance with the QAPP.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
The chlorine dioxide material demand tests showed that
the feed concentration and time required to reach the target
concentration (1000 and 2000 ppmv) were a function of
building material. The chlorine dioxide demand for the
building materials over the 01-2,000 CT range was (from
highest to lowest) ceiling tile > wood > gypsum wallboard
> carpet > concrete = steel for the 1000 ppmv tests, and
ceiling tile > gypsum wallboard > wood > carpet > concrete
= steel for the 2000 ppmv tests. Results for concrete and steel
were not statistically different from the baseline in unpaired
Student's t Tests at a = 0.05.
-------
10. LITERATURE CITED
1. Larsen, L., Harper, B. G., Rome, W., Ramachadran, C., Westwood, S., Abbreviated Test Report for the Laboratory
Validation of Chlorine Dioxide Decontamination, WDTC-TR-02-059, West Desert Test Center, Dugway Proving
Ground, UT, Sep 2002, UNCLASSIFIED Report.
2. McDonnell, G., Grignol, G., Antloga, K., "Vapour-Phase Hydrogen Peroxide Decontamination of Food Contact
Surfaces," Dairy, Food Environmental Sanitation, Vol. 22, 2002, pp. 868-873.
3. Jahnke, M. and Lauth, G., "Biodecontamination of a Large Volume Filling Room with Hydrogen Peroxide," Pharm.
Eng., Vol. 17(4), Jul-Aug 1997, pp. 96-108.
4. Brickhouse, Mark D. "Quality Assurance Project Plan and Work Plan for Deposition Velocity Studies: Materials
Sorption of Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide or Chlorine Dioxide," DSQAPP2004DV, 2004.
5. "Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) Office of Research
and Development (ORD)," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2003.
6. "Quality Management Plan for Environmental Programs," Edgewood Chemical Biological Center Research,
Development and Engineering Command, 2003.
7. "EPA Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation, EPA QA/G-8," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2002.
8. "EPA Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, Practical Methods for Data Analysis, EPA QA/G-9," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000.
9. "EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/R-5," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001.
10. "EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA QA/G-5," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
11. Brickhouse, M. D., Lalain, T. A., Bartram, P. W., Hall, M. R., Hess, Z. A., and Zander, Z. B., Effects of Vaporized
Decontamination Systems on Selected Interior Building Materials: Chlorine Dioxide, Unpublished Manuscript.
12. Lalain, T. A., IOP DS04016, "Placement of Coupons in Glove Boxes for Material Demand Velocity/Material
Compatibility Testing for the EPA Program," Mar. 2005.
13. Bartram, P. W, IOP DSO4017, "Procedure for the Calibration of INTERSCAN Detectors," Aug. 2005.
14. Hall, M. R., IOP DS04002, "Titration of Chlorine Dioxide Samples," Feb. 2005.
15. CDG Technology, INC., "Chlorine Dioxide MSDS," in Chlorine Dioxide Bench-Scale Generator Manual, 140
Webster Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015.
16. Hall, M. R. and Bartram, P. W., SOP RNG-108, "Materials Exposure to Chlorine Dioxide," July 05.
17. Bartram, P. W, IOP DS04014, "Procedure for the Operation of the Chlorine Dioxide Glove Box and Exposure of
Material," Oct. 05.
18. Skoog, D. A. and Leary, J. J., Principles of Instrumental Analysis, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1992.
-------
Appendix A
Detailed Coupon Preparation
and Inspection Procedures
-------
Appendix A: Detailed Coupon Preparation and Inspection Procedures
(From the Quality Assurance Project Plan, Document Number: DSQAPP04DV,
Version 3, 10 December 2004)
COUPON PREPARATION PROCEDURE
The coupon preparation, unless otherwise noted, will be conducted at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center Experimental
Fabrication Shop.
Mechanically Graded Lumber (Bare Wood)
• Stock Item Description: 2 x 4 x 8 KD WW/SPF Stud
• Supplier/Source: Home Depot, Edgewood, Maryland
• Coupon Dimensions: 10 in. x 1 1/2 in. x 1/2 in.
• Preparation of Coupon:
- The machined ends of the stock will be discarded by removing > 1A in. of the machined end. Coupons will be cut
from stock using a table saw equipped with an 80-tooth crosscut blade.
Latex-Painted Gypsum Wallboard
• Stock Item Description: 1/2 in. 4 ft. x 8 ft. Drywall
• Supplier/Source: Home Depot, Edgewood, Maryland
• Coupon Dimensions: 6 in. x 6 in. x 1/2 in.
• Preparation of Coupon:
- The ASTM method requires that the samples be taken from the interior of material rather than from the edge
(machined edge). The machined ends of the stock will be discarded by cutting away > 4 inches from each side.
- Coupons will be cut from stock using a table saw equipped with an 80-tooth crosscut blade.
- The 6 in. x 6 in. coupons will be painted with 1-mil of Glidden PVA Primer, followed by 1-2-mils of Glidden latex
topcoat. The primed coupons will be allowed to stand for > 24 hours prior to the application of the topcoat.
- All six sides of the 6 in. x 6 in. coupon will be painted.
Concrete Block
• Stock Item Description: 8 in. x 16 in. x 1 1/2 in. concrete block cap
• Supplier/Source: York Supply, Aberdeen, Maryland
• Coupon Dimensions: 4 in. x 8 in. x 1 1/2 in.
• Preparation of Coupon:
- Coupons will be cut from stock using a water-jet.
- Four coupons will be cut from each stock piece.
Carpet
• Stock Item Description: 12 ft. Powerhouse 20 Tradewind
• Supplier/Source: Home Depot, Edgewood, Maryland
• Coupon Dimensions: 6 in. x 8 in.
• Preparation of Coupon:
- Coupons will be cut from the stock using a utility knife.
- The longer direction (8 in.) will be cut parallel to the machined edge.
- The machined edge will be discarded by removing > 1/2 in.
-------
Painted Structural Steel
• Stock Item Description: A572 Grade 50, 4 ft. x 8 ft. x 1/4 in.
• Supplier/Source: Specialized Metals
• Coupon Dimensions: 1/4 in. x 12 inches total, dog bone shaped with 2 in. wide at ends, 3/4 in. wide at center
• Preparation of Coupon:
- Coupons will be cut from stock using a water-jet.
- A visual observation will be conducted of each coupon to determine whether size and shape have deviated from
dimension and been discarded.
- Coupons will be cleaned and degreased following procedures outlined in TTC-490.
- Coupons will be prepared for painting per TT-P-645 with red oxide primer.
The Edgewood Chemical Biological Center Experimental Fabrication Shop prepared the materials IAW the
standards used for the preparation and painting of steel. TTC-490 is a federal standard providing cleaning methods
and pretreatment for iron surfaces for application of organic coatings. The pretreatment is the application of a zinc
phosphate corrison inhibitor. TT-P-645 is a federal standard for the application of alkyd paint. These standards were
not obtained through this program but were purchased by the shop for their work.
Ceiling Suspension Tile
• Stock Item Description: Armstrong 954, Classic Fine Textured, 24 in. x 24 in. x 9/16 in.
• Supplier/Source: Home Depot, Edgewood, Maryland
• Coupon Dimensions: 12 in. x 3 in. x 9/16 in.
• Preparation of Coupon:
- Coupons will be cut from stock using a table saw equipped with an 80-tooth crosscut blade.
- Sixteen samples will be removed from each stock item.
COUPON INSPECTION PROCEDURE
All coupons will be inspected prior to testing to ensure that the material being used is in suitable condition. Coupons will be
rejected if there are cracks, breaks, dents, or defects beyond what are typical for the type of material. In addition, coupons will
be measured to verify the coupon dimensions. Coupons deviating from the dimension ranges listed below will be discarded.
Mechanically Graded Lumber (Bare Wood) 10 in. ± 1/16 in. x 1.5 in. ± 1/16 in. x 1/2 in. ± 1/32 in.
Latex-Painted Gypsum Wallboard 6 in. ± 1/16 in. x 6 in. ± 1/16 in. x 1/2 in. ± 1/16 in.
Concrete Block 4 in. ± 1/2 in. x 8 in. ± 1A in. x 1.5 in. ± 3/16 in.
Carpet 6 in. ± 1/8 in. x 8 in. ± 1/8 in.
Painted Structural Steel 1/4 in. ± 1/128 in. x 12 in. ± 1/16 in. with 2 in. ± 1/16 in. wide at ends,
3/4 in. ± 1/16 in. wide inch center
Ceiling Suspension Tile 12 in. ± 1/8 in. x 3 in. ± 1/16 in. x 9/16 in. ±1/16 in.
-------
-------
Appendix B
Coupon Identifier Code
-------
Appendix B: Coupon Identifier Code
All coupons will be marked with an ID number that will consist of a nine-character alphanumeric code. A description of the
identifier pattern and an example code are shown below.
Code Pattern
Character Explanation
1 Material
wood
W
G
S
T
C
R
B
gypsum
A572 steel
acoustic ceiling tile
concrete cinder block
carpet
circuit breakers
Fumigant:
V = C1O2
N = no fumigant
3
4,5
6,7
Test start date
year for example: 4 = 2004
month for example: 06 = June
day for example: 10 = the 10th of a month
8,9
Glove box position (see IOP DS04016 Figure 1)
Example
GV4101104
Gypsum wallboard with chlorine dioxide having a test start date of October llth, 2004, and is
sample number 4.
-------
Figure Bl. Coupon Placement in Chamber
1OP DS04016 Figure 1, "Coupon Placement in Chambers"
a) Concrete
b) Carpet
c)71le
f) Wood
Coupons shown on rack shelves from direction of glove box transfer chamber. Pictoral
coupon scaling for length and width is (0.75 * 2 * [cm/10]).
-------
-------
Appendix C
Typical Time/Concentration and Time/CT Profiles
for Chlorine Dioxide Tests
-------
Figure Cl. Baseline Profiles at 1000 ppmv Chlorine Dioxide (19 Jan 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure ^Concentration, Feed cone, limits
4000
3500
3000
a.
. 2500
O
!E 2000
1500
Q_ 1000
500
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
E
Q.
Q.
O
O
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
^CT, Feed
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C2. Baseline Profiles at 1000 ppmv Chlorine Dioxide (01 Feb 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure
Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
4000
3500
3000
> 2500
E
Q_
°- 2000
CM
O
O 1500
1000
500
#
b. CT versus Time Profile
Q.
Q.
O
O
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
^CT, Feed
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C3. Baseline Profiles at 1000 ppmv Chlorine Dioxide (02 Feb 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
^Concentration, Enclosure ^Concentration, Feed cone, limits
E
Q_
0
CM
O
:
A,*
L>-~*t __ .pA* . __Ji-J~l
— ' -" — ^ L v
r v
/ vV__
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
^CT, Feed
14000
f 12000
>
£ 10000
o
o"
o
8000
2000
01234567
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C4. Baseline Profiles at 2000 ppmv Chlorine Dioxide (18 Jan 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
3500
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
Enclosure
, Feed
14000
12000
E
Q.
Q.
— 8000
1-
O
,
g
O 4000
2000
10000
6000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C5. Baseline Profiles at 2000 ppmv Chlorine Dioxide (19 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run (baseline)
— CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
18000
16000
i
£ 10000
£ 8000
" 4000
2000
0
z
77
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C6. Baseline Profiles at 2000 ppmv Chlorine Dioxide (20 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure
Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
b. CT versus Time Profile
45
Time (hours)
CT Throughout Run
^CT, Enclosure
^CT, Feed
0.
o
0
o
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
45
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C7. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Carpet (05 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
1234567
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
— CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
20000
18000
16000
;p 14000
E 12000
0.
5; 10000
I-
U 8000
Q 6000
o
4000
2000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C8. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Carpet (10 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure ^ Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
Q.
Q.
CM
g
o
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
— CT, Enclosure
— CT, Feed
20000
14000
12000
Q.
Q.
O
o 600°
4000
01234567
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C9. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Carpet (11 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
Q.
Q.
CM
g
o
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
14000
* 12000
o DUUU
CM
O 6000
o
4000
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure CIO. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Carpet (30 Mar 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
Q.
Q.
CM
g
Points not real- problem with Sensor
b. CT versus Time Profile
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
0.
0.
o
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
^ 6000
/
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure Cl 1. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Carpet (04 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
*>
0.
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
O
8 6°°°
4000
2000
z z
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C12. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Carpet (06 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure
Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
~CT, Feed
Q.
o
CM
g
o
18000
14000
10000
6000
4000
7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure CIS. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Painted Steel (29 Sep 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
2500
2000
1500
2 1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
_ 12000
£ 10000
Q.
5; sooo
O
6000
g
O 4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C14. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Painted Steel (04 Oct 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
18000
16000
14000
^
*> 12000
E
- 10000
O
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure CIS. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Painted Steel (05 Oct 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
3500
3000
2500
I 2000
Q.
Q.
O 1500
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
16000
14000
— 12000
•K
1 10000
a.
— 8000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-------
Figure C16. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Painted Steel (19 Sep 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure —Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
18000
16000
14000
S"
*> 12000
E
O. 10000
Q.
O
O
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
z
0 1 2 3 4 5
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C17. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Painted Steel (21 Sep 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
4000
Q.
Q.
q
o
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
12000
Q. 10000
I— 8000
O
O" 6000
o
4000
zz
zz
zz
zz
z
012345
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure CIS. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Painted Steel (27 Sep 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
E
Q.
_Q.
I-
o
CM
g
o
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C19. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Wallboard (18 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure ^ Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
22000
20000
18000
a.
0.
o
g"
o
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-------
Figure C20. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Wallboard (20 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
Peak not real- InterScan accidentally turn off and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
a.
o
Q"
o
20000
18000
14000
8000
6000
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C21. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Wallboard (24 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
20000
16000
« 14000
E 12000
Q.
5; 10000
I-
U 8000
CM
O 6000
O
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C22. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Wallboard (12 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
—CT,Feed
a.
a.
O 10000
g
o
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
8000
4000
2000
0123
-------
Figure C23. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Wallboard (13 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
Q.
Q.
CM
g
o
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
i
Q.
o
CM
g
o
24000
22000
20000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
2000
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
/ z
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C24. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Wallboard (17 Apr 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
01234567
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
Q.
o
22000
18000
16000
12000
10000
o 600°
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C25. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Ceiling Tile (01 Mar 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4500
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
— CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
E
Q.
_Q.
I-
o
CM
O
o
24000
18000
16000
8000
6000
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C26. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Ceiling Tile (28 Mar 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Points not real - problem with sensor
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
a.
a.
O
26000
24000
22000
20000
16000
12000
^ 8000
O
6000
2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C27. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Ceiling Tile (29 Mar 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
E
Q.
Q.
O
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1000
500
b. CT versus Time Profile
22000
20000
16000
i
Q. 14000
0.
—' 12000
O 10000
g
O
8000
6000
2000
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C28. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Ceiling Tile (23 Feb 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
3500
3000
C 2500
Q.
Q.
,— , 2000
1500
1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
0.
30000
28000
18000
16000
14000
O 12000
o" 10000
O 8000
6000
4000
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-------
Figure C29. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Ceiling Tile (27 Feb 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
Q.
Q.
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
b. CT versus Time Profile
30000
28000
t 18000
Q.
Q. 16000
^ 14000
O 12000
o" 10000
(J 8000
4000
2000
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
~7_
/
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C30. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Ceiling Tile (28 Feb 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure
Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b. CT versus Time Profile
.G
«
0.
£.
O
g"
o
30000
28000
26000
24000
22000
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
, Feed
~z_
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C31. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Wood (07 Feb 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure
Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
g
o
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b. CT versus Time Profile
Q.
Q.
16000
14000
8000
^ 6000
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C32. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Wood (09 Feb 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
>
Q.
Q.
CM
g
o
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b. CT versus Time Profile
18000
14000
Q.
5; 10000
I-
U 8000
O" 6000
O
4000
Time (hours)
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C33. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Wood (13 Feb 06).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
f
\l
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
, Feed
0.
o
CM
o
o
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
z
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C34. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Wood (06 Dec 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
a.
a.
O
^ 6000
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-------
Figure C35. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Wood (07 Dec 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure ^ Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
•>= 14000
>
E 12000
Q.
5; 10000
I-
O 8000
CM
Q 6000
O
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C36. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Wood (08 Dec 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
— Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
Q.
Q.
CM
g
o -
^L
f I
f &
"^^/^^
f*^"*^ \
i \
I1 \
!/ IV
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
Q.
Q.
18000
16000
10000
O 8000
CM
Q 6000
O
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C37. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Concrete (29 Nov 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
3500
3000
2500
Q. 2000
Q.
-------
Figure C38. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Concrete (01 Dec 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
^Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — — cone, limits
>
E
Q. 2000
^a
o 150°
^
kft
' \
]i J*«tJ*_ .. Sr
1
mvM'vAiNjfr\
1 \
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b. CT versus Time Profile
Time (hours)
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
i
Q.
Q.
O
CM
g
o
12000
10000
6000
4000
z
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C39. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 1000 ppmv on Concrete (05 Dec 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
— CT, Enclosure
— CT, Feed
£ 12000
*>
£_ 10000
_g.
r^ sooo
O
g« 6000
0 4000
2000
01 234567
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C40. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Concrete (11 Oct 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
16000
12000
Q. 10000
O
0"
O
8000
6000
4000
2000
z
zz
zz
zz
zz
z
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C41. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Concrete (12 Oct 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
3500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT,Feed
16000--
Q.
Q.
14000
8000
cv 6000
4000
z
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
Figure C42. Profiles for Chlorine Dioxide at 2000 ppmv on Concrete (13 Oct 05).
a. Concentration versus Time Profile
Vapor Concentration Throughout Run
Concentration, Enclosure — Concentration, Feed — —cone, limits
3500
3000
2500
Q. 2000
2 1500
O
1000
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hours)
b. CT versus Time Profile
CT Throughout Run
CT, Enclosure
CT, Feed
a.
a.
O
CM
g
o
16000
14000
12000
6000
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (hour)
-------
-------
Appendix D
Excel Data Worksheet for Comparison of
NTERSCAN Detectors and Titration Checks
-------
Table Dl. Example of INTERSCAN Detectors and Titration Checks (Baseline 19 Apr 2005).
INLET
Titration (time)
1 hr
Mean
SD
Titration / InterScan Agreement
CT/2
Mean
SD
Titration / InterScan Agreement
Final
Mean
SD
Titration / InterScan Agreement
Replicate
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
InterScan (ppmv)
2257
2241
2232
2243.3
12.7
10.0%
2225
2218
2203
2215.3
11.2
9.4%
2252
2267
2276
2265
12.1
10.0%
titration (ppmv)
2191
2050
1879
2040.0
156.2
2052
1990
2033
2025.0
31.8
2037
2092
2048
2059
29.1
Criteria
+/- 15%
+/- 15%
+/- 15%
OUTLET
Titration (time)
1 hr
Mean
SD
Titration / InterScan Agreement
CT/2
Mean
SD
Titration / InterScan Agreement
Final
Mean
SD
Titration / InterScan Agreement
Replicate
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
InterScan (ppmv)
2000
1990
1988
1992.7
6.4
7.2%
2073
2078
2064
2071.7
7.1
7.6%
2064
2085
2101
2083.3
18.6
6.5%
titration (ppmv)
1970
1786
1818
1858
98.3
1948
1933
1896
1925.7
26.8
2024
1948
1897
1956.3
63.9
Criteria
2000 - 2500 ppm
+/- 15%
2000-2500 ppm
+/- 15%
2000-2500 ppm
+/- 15%
-------
Appendix E
Results of Chlorine Dioxide
Material Demand Tests
-------
Table El. Results of Chlorine Dioxide Baseline Demand Tests
Replicate Feed CT Effluent CT T. .. . ACTh ACT ACTh
Time (hr) b a b"a
Number (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr)
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
14000.1
13844.1
14219.3
14021.2
188.5
14949.0
14353.4
15403.8
14902.0
526.8
Baseline - 1000 DDtnv
12006.4
12010.8
12012.0
12009.7
3.0
11.5
10.7
10.8
11.0
0.4
1993.7
1833.3
2207.2
2011.4
187.6
Baseline - 2000 ppmv
12005.1
12005.0
12030.2
12013.4
14.5
6.3
6.5
5.9
6.2
0.3
2943.9
2348.4
3373.6
2888.6
514.8
1065.1
1160.7
1119.8
1115.2
48.0
2086.5
1992.4
2293.6
2124.2
154.1
928.6
672.6
1087.4
896.2
209.3
857.4
356.0
1080.0
764.5
370.8
Table E2. Results of Chlorine Dioxide Material Demand Tests
Replicate Feed CT Effluent CT T. .. . ACT h ACT ACT h ACTk
Time (hr) a m
Number (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr)
Carpet - 1000 ppmv
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
15817.5
16195.8
16054.4
16022.6
191.1
16950.4
18278.6
17720.1
17649.7
666.9
12314.8
12426.1
11881.2
12207.4
287.9
14301.5
14157.9
13463.8
13974.4
448.0
18132.2
17483.6
17987.5
17867.8
340.5
12009.4
12009.9
12000.5
12006.6
5.3
12026.1
12022.4
12022.8
12023.8
2.1
12010.1
12001.8
12013.2
12008.4
5.9
12017.2
12004.0
12009.9
12010.4
6.6
12018.6
12001.3
12014.7
12011.5
9.1
10.83
10.70
10.77
10.77
0.07
3808.1
4185.9
4053.8
4015.9
191.7
Carpet - 2000 DDtnv
6.07
5.92
5.83
5.94
0.12
4924.2
6256.2
5697.4
5625.9
668.8
Steel - 1000 DDHIV
10.98
10.60
10.98
10.85
0.22
304.6
424.4
-131.9
199.0
292.8
Steel - 2000 oomv
6.10
5.95
5.86
5.97
0.12
2284.3
2153.9
1453.8
1964.0
446.6
Wallboard - 1000 ppmv
10.68
10.62
10.57
10.62
0.06
6113.6
5482.4
5972.8
5856.3
331.4
1147.7
1162.7
1166.6
1159.0
10.0
2268.7
2220.9
2267.7
2252.4
27.3
1165.6
1192.5
1046.2
1134.8
77.9
2220.9
2233.8
2312.5
2255.7
49.6
1151.7
1164.7
1158.7
1158.4
6.5
2660.4
3023.2
2887.2
2856.9
183.3
2655.5
4035.3
3429.7
3373.5
691.6
-861.0
-768.1
-1178.1
-935.7
215.0
63.4
-79.9
-858.7
-291.7
496.2q
4961.9
4317.7
4814.1
4697.9
337.5
1960.7
278.2
2609.0
784.7
-1832.0
300.0
-1056.2
619.4
3801.7
397.1
-------
Table E2 (Continued). Results of Chlorine Dioxide Material Demand Tests
Replicate Feed CT Effluent CT T. .. . ACT . ACT ACT . ACT,
Time (hr) mb a mb"a k
Number (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr) (ppmv hr)
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
1
2
3
Average Std.
Dev.
20189.2
20538.5
19711.5
20146.4
415.1
22978.4
23910.5
22912.8
23267.2
558.0
25475.6
26600.2
25143.4
25739.7
763.5
18910.9
18090.1
19490.9
18830.0
703.8
17298.5
16678.7
16019.9
16665.7
639.4
14910.0
15504.3
14338.2
14917.5
583.1
15069.3
14045.1
14636.9
14583.8
514.2
12004.7
12010.1
12017.2
12010.7
6.3
12016.6
12018.4
12003.5
12012.8
8.1
12011.5
12036.2
12002.2
12016.6
17.6
12017.4
12014.1
12006.7
12012.7
5.5
12035.6
12015.5
12031.0
12027.3
10.5
12009.6
12015.5
12012.7
12012.6
2.9
12002.0
11999.5
12008.2
12003.2
4.5
Wallboard - 2000 ppmv
6.10
5.92
60.3
6.02
0.09
8184.5
8528.3
7694.4
8135.7
419.1
Ceiling Tile - 1000 DDHIV
10.88
10.90
10.75
10.84
0.08
10961.7
11892.1
10909.4
11254.4
552.9
Ceiling Tile - 2000 DDHIV
7.13
7.23
6.73
7.03
0.26
13464.1
14563.9
13141.3
13723.1
745.9
Wood - 1000 DDtnv
10.80
10.53
10.62
10.65
0.14
6893.5
6076.0
7484.1
6817.9
707.1
Wood - 2000 DDtnv
6.18
6.23
6.30
6.24
0.06
5262.9
4663.2
3988.9
4638.3
637.4
Concrete Block - 1000 oomv
10.75
11.07
10.90
10.91
0.16
2900.4
3488.8
2325.5
2904.9
581.7
Concrete Block - 2000 DDtnv
6.35
6.28
6.03
6.22
0.17
3067.3
2045.6
2628.6
2580.5
512.6
2260.7
2257.7
2182.1
2233.5
44.5
1080.0
1187.5
1166.6
1144.7
57.0
2307.5
2369.2
2362.2
2346.3
33.8
1117.9
1191.5
1130.8
1146.7
39.3
2300.5
2297.5
2275.6
2291.2
13.6
1173.6
1178.6
1173.6
1175.3
2.9
2161.2
2108.4
2312.5
2194.0
105.9
5923.8
6270.6
5512.3
5902.2
379.7
9881.7
10704.6
9742.8
10109.7
519.9
11156.6
12194.7
10779.1
11376.8
733.1
5775.6
4884.5
6353.3
5671.1
740.0
2962.4
2365.7
1713.3
2347.1
624.8
1726.8
2310.2
1151.9
1729.6
579.1
906.1
-62.8
316.1
386.5
488.3
5137.8
530.7
9213.5
560.4
10612.3
821.5
4774.9
769.0
1582.7
726.6
833.4
615.8
-378.0
613.1
-------
$EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |