NRMRL-RTP-460
EPA Contract EP-C-05-060/TO56
July 2011
Environmental and Sustainable Technology
Evaluation: Mold-Resistant Amerrock
Insulation -Amerrock Products, LP, Premium
Plus™ Rockwool Insulation
Prepared by:
RTI International
Center for Microbial Communities Systems and Health Research
3040 Cornwallis Rd
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Telephone: 919-541-8018
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations iii
Acknowledgments iv
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Verification Approach 3
2.1 Test Material 3
2.2 Test Methods and Procedures 4
2.2.1 Test Organisms 4
2.2.2 Static Chambers 4
2.2.3 Test Design 5
2.2.4 Sample Preparation and Inoculation 5
2.2.5 Calculation of Mold Resistance 6
2.3 Sustainability Indicators and Issues 6
3.0 Results 7
3.1 Mold Resistance 7
3.2 Emissions of VOCs and Formaldehyde 9
3.3 Sustainability Issues 9
4.0 Data Quality Assessment 10
5.0 References 11
APPENDICES
Page
Appendix A
VOCs and Formaldehyde Emissions Testing A -1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Diagram illustrating the conditions required for fungal growth on a material 2
Figure 2-1. Premium Plus™ Rockwool Insulation 3
Figure 3-1. Log change mAspergillus versicolor inoculated on the test material over 12 weeks on the
insulation reference material and Amerrock 8
Figure 3-2. Log change in Stachybotrys chartarum inoculated on the test material over 12 weeks on the
insulation reference material and Amerrock 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Logic CFUs for test material (Amerrock) and reference material (insulation) on each test date
(Mean±SD) 7
Table 3-2. Test results for VOCs and formaldehyde emissions from Amerrock 9
Table 4-1. Data quality objectives 10
ii
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACH air changes per hour
ADQ audit of data quality
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AATCC American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
aw water activity
CPU colony forming unit
DNPH 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
DQO data quality obj ective
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESTE environmental and sustainable technology evaluations
ERH equilibrium relative humidity
ETV environmental technology verification
g gram(s)
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
ISO International Organization for Standardization
MC moisture content
ML microbiology laboratories
ML SOP microbiology laboratory standard operating procedure
QA quality assurance
QAM quality assurance manager
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QC quality control
QMP quality management plan
RH relative humidity
RTI Research Triangle Institute (RTI International)
sec second(s)
SOP standard operating procedure
spp species
t temperature in degrees Celsius
TOP technical operating procedure
T/QAP test/quality assurance plan
TSA technical system audit
TVOC total volatile organic compounds
VOCs volatile organic compounds
Og microgram(s)
Om micrometer(s)
UL Underwriters Laboratories
in
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the support of all of those who helped plan and conduct the verification
activities. In particular, we would like to thank Dr. Timothy Dean, EPA's Project Manager, and Robert
Wright, EPA's Quality Assurance Manager, both of EPA's National Risk Management Research
Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, NC. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance and
participation of our stakeholder group for their input.
IV
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (EPA-ORD)
operates the Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation (ESTE) Program to facilitate the
deployment of innovative technologies through performance verification and information dissemination.
The ESTE program is intended to increase the relevance of Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program projects by responding to near-term needs identified by the U.S. EPA program and
regional offices.
The ESTE program involves a three step process. The first step is a technology category selection
process conducted by ORD. The second step involves selection of the project team and gathering of
project collaborators and stakeholders. Collaborators can include technology developers, vendors,
owners, and users. They support the project through funding, cost sharing, and technical support.
Stakeholders can include representatives of regulatory agencies, trade organizations relevant to the
technology, and other associated technical experts. The project team relies on stakeholder input to
improve the relevance, defensibility, and usefulness of project outcomes. Both collaborators and
stakeholders are critical to development of the project test and quality assurance plan (TQAP), the end
result of step two. Step three includes the execution of the verification and quality assurance and review
process for the final reports.
This ESTE project evaluated microbial resistant building materials. EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory contracted with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to establish an ETV/ESTE
Program for microbial-resistant building materials. RTI convened a group of stakeholders representing
government and industry with knowledge and interest in the areas of mold resistant building materials.
The group met in May and July 2006 and recommended technologies to be tested. RTI then developed
(and EPA approved) the "Test/Quality Assurance Plan for Mold-Resistant Building Material Testing V'
The tests described in this report were conducted following this plan.
Fungal growth and the resulting contamination of building materials is a well-documented problem,
especially after the reports from New Orleans and the U.S. Gulf Coast post Hurricane Katrina.
However, contaminated materials have been recognized as important indoor fungal reservoirs for years.
For example, contamination with fungi has been associated with a variety of materials including carpet,
ceiling tile, gypsum board, wallpaper, flooring, insulation, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning
components2"5.
Exposure to fungi may result in respiratory symptoms of both the upper and lower respiratory tract such
as allergy and asthma6. Everyone is potentially susceptible. However, of particular concern are children
1 &
with their immature immune systems and individuals of all ages that are immunocompromised ' .
1
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
One approach to limiting exposure is to reduce the levels of fungi in the indoor space. For some
sensitive individuals, limiting exposure through avoidance is an effective control method; however,
avoidance is not always possible or practical. The investigation, development, and application of
effective source controls and strategies are essential to prevent fungal growth in the indoor environment.
Mold resistant building material is a potentially effective method of source control.
Figure 1-1 illustrates the combination of moisture and nutrients required for microbial growth on a
material. Sufficient nutrients for growth may be provided by the material itself or through the
accumulation of dust on or in the material. When sufficient nutrients are available, the ultimate
determinant for microbial growth is availability of water. The more hygroscopic a material (e.g.
wallboard) is, the more impact on the overall hygroscopicity the surface treatments may have.
A building is not a sterile environment, nor
should it be. In fact, a building is frequently a
reservoir for microorganisms. While many
different types of microorganisms occupy indoor
spaces, it is well-recognized that fungi can
colonize and amplify on a variety of building
materials if sufficient nutrients and moisture are
present. These contaminated materials are known
to be important indoor reservoirs. Fungal growth
on natural and fabricated building materials can
be a major source of respiratory disease in
humans. Commonly, sufficient nutrients are
available and water is usually the growth factor
most limiting the establishment and growth of
microbial populations. Sufficient moisture for
growth may become available through water
incursion from leaks and spills, condensation on
cold surfaces, or absorption or adsorption
directly from the indoor air. The amount of
water required is not large, and materials that
appear dry to cursory inspection may be capable
of supporting microorganism growth.
Figure 1-1. Diagram illustrating the conditions
required for fungal growth on a material.
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
2.0 VERIFICATION APPROACH
The ESTE test program measured the mold resistance of Amerrock Premium Plus™ Rockwool
insulation. Since the EPA program office wanted testing performed on mold-resistant building
materials, and Amerrock markets this insulation material as such, it was a good candidate for testing.
Tests for emissions of VOCs and formaldehyde were also performed. An overview of the emissions
procedures is found in the Appendix. The detailed test methods can be found in RTFs test/QA project
plan1.
2.1 TEST MATERIAL
The following description of the product was provided by the vendor and was not verified.
Amerrock Premium Plus™ Rockwool insulation is a 100% natural spray insulation. It is made from
trap rock and steel slag and contains no chemicals other than annealing oil for dust suppression. When
sprayed in place, the interlocking fibers permanently bond to the sheathing material. Premium Plus™
insulation is used in new and existing construction in both the exterior and interior walls.
Figure 2-1 shows a representative piece of the material.
Figure 2-1. Premium Plus™ Rockwool Insulation
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
2.2 TEST METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Mold resistance testing was performed following the guidelines outlined in ASTM 63299. This method
was developed as part of a more comprehensive project to apply indoor air quality engineering to
biocontamination in buildings. One of the primary goals was to develop a scientific basis for studying
indoor air biocontaminants. Available methods, including those from ASTM, AATCC, and UL, for
evaluating the resistance of a variety of materials to fungal growth were surveyed. Although the basic
principles were similar, a major concern was the way growth on the different materials was evaluated.
Although quantitative methods for inoculation were employed by most of the methods, all assessed
growth qualitatively as the endpoint. ASTM 63299 evaluates growth quantitatively as the endpoint. The
method has been successfully used to evaluate fungal resistance on a variety of materials including
ceiling tiles and HVAC duct materials 10"13.
2.2.1 Test Organisms
Selecting the "correct" test organism is critical to any test, therefore selection criteria were developed.
The selection criteria used to choose the appropriate test organisms for this study were:
(1) the reasonableness or likelihood of the test material being challenged by that particular organism
when in actual use, and
(2) that they cover the range of ERHs (equilibrium relative humidities) needed and bracket the ERHs
where fungal growth can occur.
Two fungi were used as test organisms, Aspergillus versicolor and Stachybotrys chartarum. Each of
them met the criteria. S. chartarum requires high levels of available water to grow and has been
associated with a number of toxigenic symptoms. A. versicolor is a xerophilic fungus and capable of
growing at lower relative humidities. Both are from the RTI culture collection (CC). The CC number
for S. chartarum is 3075 and the organism was received from EPA NERL. A. versicolor is CC #3348,
and it is a field isolate. Prior to initiation of the testing, their identification was confirmed by standard
techniques.
2.2.2 Static Chambers
Clear plastic desiccators served as the static environmental chambers. The desiccators are sealed so there
is no air exchange and the desiccators serve as good static chambers. A saturated-salt solution of
potassium chloride was used to maintain the humidity of the 85% ERH chamber. Sterile water was used
for the 100% ERH chamber. Temperature was externally controlled and maintained at room
temperature. Prior to use, the chambers were decontaminated and characterized. The ERH in each
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
chamber was monitored with a hygrometer (Taylor model number 5565) that was placed inside the
chamber.
2.2.3 Test Design
The Premium Plus™ Rockwool insulation was pulled apart in small clumps for use. Because of the type
and structure of the material, the test piece sizes were made as similar as possible. ASTM D6329 calls
for a reference material similar to the test material, therefore the reference material chosen for
comparison was blown-in insulation purchased from a local home improvement chain store. None of the
materials were autoclaved or sterilized in any way prior to inoculation. Therefore, in addition to the test
organism inocula, any organisms naturally on the surfaces of the material had the opportunity to grow if
conditions were favorable for growth. The test organisms are inoculated by pipette directly onto the
surface of each test piece in sufficiently high numbers to provide an adequate challenge, but at a level
that is realistic to quantify. The tests ran for 12 weeks. During the 12 week test period, data from four
test dates, labeled Day 0, Week 1, Week 6, and Week 12 were evaluated. Day 0 samples provided the
baseline inoculum level. A sufficient number of test pieces were inoculated simultaneously for all four
test dates. All pieces for one material and one test organism were put in the same static chamber. The
chambers were set to 100% equilibrium relative humidity (ERH) for the tests with S. chartarum and at
85% for A. versicolor. On each test date (including Day 0), five replicates of the test material pieces
were removed from the chamber, each was placed separately in a container with sterile buffer, and
extracted by shaking. The resulting suspension of eluted organisms was plated and microbial growth on
materials was quantified by manually enumerating colony-forming units (CPUs).
The numbers of CPUs eluted on week 1, 6, and 12 were compared to the baseline at Day 0. The
numbers of CPUs on each date are expressed as logic. The results are reported as the log change in
CPUs between Day 0 and Week 1, Day 0 and Week 6, and Day 0 and Week 12.
2.2.4 Sample Preparation and Inoculation
Small replicate pieces of test mold resistant insulation material and reference insulation material were
prepared and inoculated. To minimize error and demonstrate reproducibility, five pieces of each sample
type were processed on each sampling date. Because there were four test dates, a minimum of 20 pieces
were prepared simultaneously. Each piece was placed on a separate labeled sterile Petri dish.
The fungi challenge suspensions were prepared by inoculating the test organism onto solid agar media,
incubating the culture at room temperature until mature, wiping organisms from the surface of the pure
culture, and suspending them in sterile 18-Mohm distilled water. The organism preparation was viewed
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
microscopically to verify purity of spores (absence of hyphae). The test pieces were inoculated (usually
with five 10 jiL spots in an X configuration) by pipet onto the surface of the test piece and allowed to
dry in the biosafety cabinet.
On each test date (including Day 0), the appropriate number of test pieces were removed from the static
chamber, each placed in approximately 30 mL sterile buffer, and extracted by shaking using a vortex or
wrist action shaker. The extract was diluted if needed and plated on agar media to determine the
numbers of CPU.
2.2.5 Calculation of Mold Resistance
Changes in the numbers of CPU over time were quantified. The logio number of CPUs from test date x
were compared to the logio number of CPU from Day 0 as follows:
A logio CPU = logio CFUrfate x - logio CFUDay 0
where:
A CPU = the change in logio CPU between a test date (x) and Day 0
logw CFUjjate x = number of CPU logio on test date x
logw CFUDay 0 = number of CPU logw on Day 0
The standard error of the means between the start date and the test date gives the statistical significance
of the differences.
2.3 SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND ISSUES
The verification organization requested information from the vendor that would, along with the test
results for microbial resistance, assist in estimating impacts on solid waste disposal due to replacing
building materials less frequently. Information was also requested on chemical additives that are
claimed to confer microbial resistance. Also, the vendor was asked to provide any additional
information relative to the environmental sustainability of the product such as recyclability/reusability of
the product and disposability of the product and use of renewable resources or other criteria the vendor
deemed relevant to the environmental sustainability of the product.
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 MOLD RESISTANCE
The results for the mold resistance tests are shown in Table 3-1. Growth is measured by culture and is
defined as at least a 1 logic increase in culturable organism over the baseline which was determined on
DayO.
Table 3-1. Log10 CPUs for test material (Amerrock) and reference material (insulation) on each
test date (Mean ± SD)
Amerrock
Week
A. versicolor
85% ERH
S. chartarum
100% ERH
Growth of Naturally
Occurring Fungi
100% ERH
5.0 ±0.1
5.2 ±0.0
NG
4.9 ±0.1
5.3 ±0.1
NG
4.7 ±0.2
5.1 ±0.1
NG
12
4.4 ±0.7
Week
A. versicolor
85% ERH
5.0 ±0.1
Reference Material
S. chartarum
100% ERH
NG
Growth of Naturally
Occurring Fungi
100% ERH
0
5.0 ±0.1
5.2 ±0.0
3.3 ±0.2
4.5 ±0.3
5.2 ±0.1
3.9 ±0.6
3.2 ±0.0
4.8 ±0.4
5.4 ± 1.5
12
3.9±1.1
3.7 ±0.9
5.0 ±0.9
NG = No Growth
The numbers of CPUs on each test and reference piece were Logic transformed and the mean and
standard deviation calculated. The initial concentration is in the row labeled week 0 (day 0 inoculum).
The results for the test organisms, A. versicolor and S. chartarum are in columns two and three. The
fourth column gives the CPUs for the fungi (naturally occurring) that were on the unsterilized surface of
the reference material at the initiation of the test.
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
Figure 3-1 shows the log change
in A. versicolor and Figure 3-2
shows the log change in
Stachybotrys char tar um on both
the test and reference materials as
well as the growth of naturally
occurring fungi on the reference
material.
Neither the test material nor the
reference material inoculated
with A. versicolor and incubated
at 85% ERH showed growth
during the 12 weeks of the test.
Neither the test material nor the
reference material inoculated
with S. chartarum and incubated
at 100% ERH showed growth
during the 12 weeks of the test.
The growth of a variety of fungal
species on some pieces (naturally
occurring on the sample) made it
difficult to accurately assess the S.
chartarum growth on the reference
material.
At Day 0 the numbers of naturally
occurring fungi were below the
detection limit on both the test and
the reference materials. However,
the growth of the naturally
occurring fungi on the reference
material became a notable
quantity by week 6.
A nn -,
Q nn -
o.uu
-^ o nn -
j Z.UU
LJ_
0 100 -
CD ' -UU
0)
| 0.00 -
o
CT 1 nn -
o • i .uu
_i
2r\r\
= i
i T i
Hr^-s-
^
.UU
0 1 Week 6
nAspergillus on Reference Material
• Aspergillus on Amerrock
I
12
Figure 3-1. Log change in Aspergillus versicolor
inoculated on the test material over 12 weeks on the
insulation reference material and Amerrock.
A nn -,
't.UU
o nn -
o.uu
Z>
LJ_ 9 nn -
¥r Z.UU
£P_ -I nn -
O) 1 .UU
<- n nn .
0 U'UU
o 1 nn -
M - I .UU
2nn -
T
1
— LLJ
C*:
T
j
H
.uu
0 1 Week 6 12
• Stachybotrys on Amerrock
n Stachybotrys on Reference Material
• Naturally occuring fungi on Reference Material
Figure 3-2. Log change in Stachybotrys chartarum
inoculated on the test material over 12 weeks on the
insulation reference material and Amerrock.
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
3.2 EMISSIONS OF VOCs AND FORMALDEHYDE
The emissions of VOCs and formaldehyde test results are presented in the Table 3-2. A summary of the
14
method is found in Appendix A .
Table 3-2. Test results for VOCs and formaldehyde emissions from Amerrock
VOCs and Formaldehyde Emissions*
Emission Types
Total VOCs
Formaldehyde
Individual VOCs
Minimum emission results
< 0.5 mg/m3
<0.1 ppm
<0.1 TLV
Individual pollutants must produce an air concentration level no greater than 1/10 the threshold limit
value (TLV) industrial workplace standard (Reference: American Conference of Government Industrial
Hygienists, 6500 Glenway, Building D-7, Cincinnati, OH 45211-4438.
3.3 SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
Sustainability is an important consideration in use of microbial resistant building materials. Amerrock
supplied the following information about the Sustainability of the Premium Plus™ Rockwool insulation
material:
Premium Plus™ Rockwool insulation contains no asbestos, formaldehyde, or chemical additives
other than annealing oil used for dust suppression. It is non-combustible, non-corrosive, odor-
free, and will not absorb moisture.
All finished products manufactured by Amerrock Products facility are typically made from in
excess of 60% recycled materials.
The majority of raw materials used for Amerrock products come from a by-product of the steel
industry called slag. Amerrock does not use raw materials that are considered finite, rare, or
endangered.
Amerrock products can be used as a growing medium for plants. The products can also be safely
amended back into the ground with no negative impact to the soil.
Rockwool insulation helps reduce building energy demands.
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
4.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The quality assurance officer has reviewed the test results and the quality control data and has concluded
that the data quality objectives given in the approved Test/QA plan and shown in Table 4 have been
attained.
The DQO for the critical measurement, quantitation of fungal growth on an individual test date, is found
in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Data quality objectives
aramet
Mold
Resistance
Quantitation of
fungal growth on
an individual test
date
± 5-fold
difference
10% of the plates will
be counted by a
second operator.
± 20% agreement
between the operators
100%
This verification statement discusses two aspects of Mold-Resistant Building Material Testing, mold
resistance and emissions of VOCs and formaldehyde. Users of this technology may wish to consider
other performance parameters such as fire resistance, service life and cost when selecting a building
material.
According to the test/QA plan1, this verification statement is valid for three years following the last
signature added on the verification statement.
10
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
5.0 REFERENCES
1. RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 2008. Test/QA Plan for Mold-Resistant Building Material
Testing. Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/etv/este.html
2. Morey, P.R., 1988, "Microorganisms in Buildings and HVAC Systems: A Summary of 21
Environmental Studies," Proceedings of the ASHRAE Conference on Indoor Air Quality, American
Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, pp 10-24.
3. Reynolds, SJ,, AJ. Steifel, and C.E. McJilton, 1990, Elevated Airborne Concentration of Fungi in
Residential and Office Environments, American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 51,
pp 601-604.
4. Leese, K.E., E.G. Cole, and J.D. Neefus, 1992, Biocide Mitigation of a Mold Contaminated
Building: An Initial Preventive Approach, Proceedings, American Industrial Hygiene Association
Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
5. Kozak, P.P., et al, 1980, Currently Available Methods for Home Mold Surveys. II. Examples of
Problem Homes Surveyed, Annals of Allergy, Vol. 45, pp 167-176.
6. Garrett, M.H., Rayment, P.R., Hooper, M.A., Abramson, M.J., and Hooper, B.M. 1998, Indoor
airborne fungal spores, house dampness and associations with environmental factors and respiratory
health in children, Clinical and Experimental Allergy: 28: 459-467.
7. Rylander, R. and Etzel, R., 1999, Indoor mold and children's health. Environmental Health
Perspectives Supplements: 107: 465-517.
8. Gent, J.F., Ren, P., Belanger, K., Triche, E., Bracken, M.B., Holford, T.R., and Leaderer, B.P.,
2002, Levels of household mold associated with respiratory symptoms in the first year of life in a
cohort at risk for asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives: 110: A781-A786.
9. ASTM D6329-98(2003), Standard Guide for Developing Methodology for Evaluating the Ability of
Indoor Materials to Support Microbial Growth Using Static Environmental Chambers, American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
10. Foarde, K.K. and M.Y. Menetrez. 2002, Evaluating the Potential Efficacy of Three
Antifungal Sealants of Duct Liner and Galvanized Steel as Used in HVAC Systems. Journal
of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology. 29:3 8-43.
11. Foarde, K.K. and J.T. Hanley. 2001, Determine the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Treatments of
Fibrous Air Filters. ASHRAE Transactions. Volume 107, Part 1. 156-170.
12. Chang, J.C.S., K.K. Foarde, and D.W. VanOsdell. 1995, Growth Evaluation of Fungi
(Penicillium andAspergillus spp.) On Ceiling Tile. Atmospheric Environment. 29:2331
2337.
11
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
13. Foarde, K., E. Cole, D. VanOsdell, D. Bush, D. Franke and J. Chang. 1992, Characterization of
Environmental Chambers for Evaluating Microbial Growth on Building Materials. In: IAQ '92
Environments for People, proceedings; 185-190.
14. ASTM. 2006. D5116-06, Standard Guide for Small Scale Environmental Chamber Determinations
of Organic Emissions from Indoor Materials/Products, American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
12
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
Appendix A
VOCs and Formaldehyde Emissions Testing
A- 1
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
EMISSIONS REPORT FOR AMERROCK PREMIUM PLUS™ ROCKWOOL INSULATION
A single 7"x7"xl.5" bed (40 g) of Amerrock® insulation, contained in a 7"x7"x2" cradle of aluminum
foil, was tested in the small (52.7 L capacity) emissions chamber maintained at 25EC and 50% relative
humidity and subjected to an air exchange rate of 1 hr"1. After equilibration of the sample for 6 hr1,
sequential samples for VOCs and carbonyls were collected from the chamber effluent for 20 and 120
minutes, yielding collection volumes of approximately 1.5 and 10 L for VOCs and 10 and 60 L for
carbonyls2. In addition to the test material, a chamber blank and emissions from a positive control
material (vinyl show curtain liner) were also collected. All sample collections and analyses were
conducted in accordance with RTFs AIHA quality manual guidelines.3
VOC samples were collected on Carbopack B cartridges. A total of 100 ng of the internal standard, d8-
toluene, was subsequently added to each cartridge by flash loading4 prior to analysis by thermal
desorption GC/MS on a DB-5 column programmed from 40E-225E at 5E/min5. Calibration standards
were prepared at two levels by flash loading of a nine-component VOC mixture plus internal standard in
methylene chloride onto Carbopack B. In addition to quantitation of the individual analytes, total VOCs
(TVOC) were determined by summing the integrated peak areas in the samples and blanks between the
retention times of hexane and hexadecane. Two specific analytes, 4-phenylcyclohexene and styrene,
were sought in each sample. Neither compound was detected in the samples or blanks. All detected
analytes were quantitated against the toluene peak in the standards. No mathematical correction for the
blanks was performed.
Carbonyl samples were collected on DNPH cartridges2. Each cartridge was extracted by solid phase
extraction (SPE) with 4 mL of acetonitrile and brought to a final volume of 5 mL with acetonitrile6.
Subsequently, each extract was analyzed by HPLC/UV (365 nm) on a Supelcosil™ LC-18 column
(Supelco #358298, 25 cm x 4.6 mm). The mobile phase consisted of (A) 45:55 acetonitrile:water and
(B) 75:25 acetonitrile:water, using a 30 minute gradient from A to B and held at B for 5 minutes at a
flow rate of 1 mL/min. Instrument calibration was accomplished using solutions prepared from a
purchased aldehyde/ketone DNPH mix solution (15 |ig/mL as formaldehyde, Supelco 47285-U) in
acetonitrile. A six-point calibration curve was prepared with analyte amounts ranging from 18.8 to 600
ng/mL. Individual carbonyls were quantitated against the curve and corrected for blanks.
The results of the emission tests for VOCs and carbonyls are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
For all samples, excluding the positive control, levels of VOCs and carbonyls were extremely small,
near the detection limit for the method, and comparable to the levels found in the blanks.
A-2
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
Table 1. VOC emission results for Amerrock Premium Plus™ Rockwool Insulation
Toluene
Chamber
TVOC
Chamber
Cone, (mg/m3) Cone, (mg/m3)
<0.001
0.024
Toluene
Emission
Factor
(mg/m2 hr)
<0.001
TVOC
Emission
Factor
(mg/m2 hr)
0.039
<0.001
0.438
<0.001
0.771
Amerrock insulation
<0.001
0.027(0.019)
<0.001
0.048 (0.035)
Single determination
Mean of 7 determinations (standard deviation)
Table 2. Carbonyl emission results for Amerrock Premium Plus™ Rockwool Insulation
Sample Id.
Formaldehyde
Chamber
Cone, (mg/m3)
Chamber Blank3
O.001
Total
Carbonyls
Chamber
Cone, (mg/m3)
<0.001
Formaldehyde
Emission
Factor
(mg/m2 hr)
<0.001
Total
Carbonyls
Emission
Factor
(mg/m2 hr)
<0.001
Positive Control3
O.001
0.014
<0.001
0.024
Amerrock insulation
O.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
1 Single determination
1 Mean of 7 determinations
1 Standard Guide for Small-Scale Environmental Chamber Determinations of Organic Emissions from
Indoor Materials/Products. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) document D5116-97,
2008.
2 Standard Operating Procedure for the Determination of Carbonyl and VOC Emissions from Building
Materials Using a Small Environmental Chamber. RTI International document: EAR-LAB-001, 2010.
A-3
-------
RTI International/EPA
July 2011
3 Quality Manual for the AIHA Accredited Laboratory No. 100600. RTI International document:
RTI/0290365/08-01, January 2010.
4 Adsorbent Tube Injector System Operation Manual, Sigma-Aldrich/Supelco, Available at:
http://www.youngwha.com/tech/upload/ATIS system T702019.pdf, 2010.
Standard Operating Procedure for the Analysis of Volatile Organic Chemicals By Thermal
Desorption/GC/MS, RTI International document: EAR-GLC-004, 2010.
6 Standard Operating Procedure for the Extraction and Analysis of Formaldehyde-DNPH from Active
and Passive Media by HPLC, RTI International document: EAR-GLC-003, 2010.
A-4
------- |