EPA/600/R-10/169 | December 2010 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Compatibility of Material and
Electronic Equipment
With Hydrogen Peroxide and
Chlorine Dioxide Fumigation
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
REPORT
t
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
-------
Compatibility of Material and
Electronic Equipment
With Hydrogen Peroxide and
Chlorine Dioxide Fumigation
ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION REPORT
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
-------
Disclaimer
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and
Development's National Homeland Security Research Center, funded and managed this investigation
through EP-C-04-023 WA 4-50 with ARCADIS U.S., Inc. This report has been peer and
administratively reviewed and has been approved for publication as an Environmental Protection
Agency document. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the Environmental Protection Agency.
No official endorsement should be inferred. This report includes photographs of commercially
available products. The photographs are included for purposes of illustration only and are not
intended to imply that EPA approves or endorses the product or its manufacturer. The Environmental
Protection Agency does not endorse the purchase or sale of any commercial products or services.
Questions concerning this document or its application should be addressed to:
Shawn P. Ryan, Ph.D.
National Homeland Security Research Center
Office of Research and Development (E-343-06)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
109 T W. Alexander Dr.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-0699
ryan. shawn@epa. gov
If you have difficulty accessing these PDF documents, please contact Nickel.Kathy@epa.gov or
McCall.Amelia@epa.gov for assistance.
-------
-------
Acknowledgements
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, through the Office of Research and
Development's National Homeland Security Research Center, funded and managed this study
through an On-site Laboratory Support Contract (EP-C-04-023) with ARCADIS U.S., Inc. The
efforts of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. in conducting the testing and documentation of the data are
greatly appreciated. Parts of this effort involved work performed by Alcatel-Lucent (Murray Hill,
New Jersey) though LGS Innovations, Inc. as the prime performer for a Chemical, Biological,
Radiological Technology Alliance Independent Assessment and Evaluation. The Independent
Assessment and Evaluation effort was funded by The Environmental Protection Agency and The
Department of Homeland Security through interagency agreements with the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, the executive agency for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology
Alliance efforts. The authors would like to thank Mr. Lance Brooks of The Department of Homeland
Security, Science and Technology Directorate, for their partial funding of this study. Additionally,
Mr. Bob Greenberg (formally with NGA), Mr. Mark Gungoll (Program Director, Chemical,
Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance), Ms. Rosemary Seykowski (Operations Manager,
Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance), Mr. Larry Clarke (Program Support
Manager, Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance) and Mr. William Sellers
(LGS Innovations, Inc., Vienna, Virginia) were essential in establishing Independent Assessment
and Evaluation through the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance that
was used for parts of this effort. Their program management and coordination throughout is
greatly appreciated. The technical expertise and contributions of Alcatel-Lucent are gratefully
acknowledged, specifically Dr. William Reents, Jr., Dr. Mary Mandich, Dr. Gus Derkits, Ms.
Debra Fleming, Mr. John Franey, Dr. Rose Kopf, and Dr. Chen Xu. The authors would also like
to specifically thank Mr. John Franey (Alcatel-Lucent) for his on-site training and assessment of
electrostatic discharge techniques that were used throughout this study.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the support of all those who helped plan and conduct the
investigation, analyze the data, and prepare this report. We also would like to thank Mr. Leroy
Mickelsen (Environmental Protection Agency/National Decontamination Team), Mr. G. Blair Martin
(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development/National Risk Management
Research Laboratory), and Dr. Paul Lemieux (Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research
and Development/National/National Homeland Security Research Center) for reviewing this report.
-------
-------
Contents
Disclaimer iii
Acknowledgements
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xv
List of Units xvii
Executive Summary xix
1.0 Project Description Objectives 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Process 1
1.2.1 Overview of the Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) Vapor Fumigation Process 2
1.2.2 Overview of the C1O2 Fumigation Process 3
1.2.3 Material/Equipment Compatibility (MEC) Chambers 3
1.2.4 Laboratory Facility Description 5
1.2.4.1 Hydrogen Peroxide Facilities 5
1.2.4.2 Clorine Dioxide Facility 6
1.3 Project Objectives 6
1.3.1 Category 2 Materials 6
1.3.2 Category 3 Materials 6
1.3.3 Category 4 Equipment 9
2.0 Experimental Approach 11
2.1DTRL Hydrogen Peroxide Analytical Capabilities 11
2.2 DTRL Chlorine Dioxide Analytical Capabilities 11
2.3 General Approach 12
2.4 Sampling Strategy 12
2.4.1 STERIS VHP® 1000ED 12
2.4.2 BioQuell Claras™ L HPV 13
2.4.3 CIO2Fumigation 13
2.5 Sampling/Monitoring Points 14
-------
2.6 Frequency of Sampling/Monitoring Events 14
2.7 Fumigation Event Sequence 15
2.7.1H2O2 Fumigation 15
2.7.2 C1O2 Fumigation 16
3.0 Testing and Measurement Protocols 17
3.1 Methods 17
3.1.1 Electrochemical Sensor for H2O2 Concentration Measurement 17
3.1.2 Modified OSHA Method VI-6 for H2O2 Concentration Measurement 17
3.1.3 Modified AATCC Method 102-2007 for H2O2 Concentration Measurement 18
3.1.4 Photometric Monitors 18
3.1.5 Modified Standard Method 4500-C1O2E 19
3.1.6 Temperature and RH Measurement 19
3.1.7 Biological Indicators (Bis) 20
3.1.7.1 Bis for HPVFumigations 20
3.1.7.2 Bis for C1O2 Fumigations 20
3.1.7.3 BI Handling and Analysis Procedures 20
3.1.8 Visual Inspection 21
3.1.9 Functionality Testing 21
3.1.10 Detailed Functionality Analysis (Subset of Category 4) 21
3.2 Cross-Contamination 21
3.3 Representative Sample 22
3.4 Sample Preservation Method 22
3.5 Material/Equipment Identification 22
3.6 Sample Shipping Procedures 31
3.7 Chain of Custody 31
3.8 Test Conditions 31
4.0 Visual Inspection 35
4.1 Category 2 Materials 35
4.2 Category 3 Materials 38
4.3 Category 4 Equipment 39
5.0 Data/Analysis/Functionality Tests 47
5.1 Category 2 Materials 47
5.2 Category 3 Materials 47
5.3 Category 4 Equipment 47
-------
6.0 Fumigation Effectiveness and Fumigation Safety 55
6.1 Fumigation Effectiveness 55
6.2 Health and Safety Effects after Fumigation 57
7.0 Quality Assurance 59
7.1 Data Quality 59
7.1.1 Data Quality Indicator Goals for Critical Measurements 59
7.1.2 Data Quality Indicators Results 60
7.1.2.1H2O2 Fumigations 60
7.1.2.2 C1O2 Fumigations 61
7.2 Quantitative Acceptance Criteria 61
7.2.1 Quantitative Acceptance Criteria Results 62
7.2.1.1H2O2 Fumigations 62
7.2.1.2 C1O2 Fumigations 63
7.3 Audits 63
8.0 Conclusion 65
9.0 Recommendations 67
9.1 Corrective Actions 67
9.2 Listing of "At Risk" Material and Electronic Components 67
9.3 Further Research 67
10.0 References 69
Appendix A Computers Specifications for Category 4 Testing 71
Appendix B Parts List of Copper Aluminum Service Panels 73
Appendix C Subsystems of Category 4 Computers (Provided by Alcatel-Lucent) 75
Appendix D PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6 Tests 79
-------
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Schematic diagram of the MEC chambers 4
Figure 1-2. Photograph of the MEC test chamber. 5
Figure 1-3. Open computer in HP V MEC chamber. 5
Figure 1-4. Location of NOMAD®, HOBO®, metal coupons, IPC board, and Bis within the
(a) CPU and (b) panel 10
Figure 2-1. External STERIS control schematic 12
Figure 2-2. Experimental setup of the MEC test chambers 14
Figure 2-3. Material and equipment exposure time sequence 16
Figure 3-1. Metal coupons used in the compatibility testing (photos prior to fumigation):
(a) 3003 aluminum; (b) 101 copper; (c) low carbon steel; (d) painted low carbon steel;
(e) 410 stainless steel; (f) 430 stainless steel; (g) 304 stainless steel; (h) 316 stainless steel;
and (i) 309 stainless steel 24
Figure 3-2. (a) Stranded wire, DSL conditioner, and steel outlet/switch box with sealant (caulk),
(b) gasket and (c) drywall screws and nails used in the compatibility testing 25
Figure 3-3. (a, c) Copper services, (b, d) aluminum services, and (e) circuit breaker used in the
compatibility testing 26
Figure 3-4. (a) Smoke detector and (b, c) lamp switch used in the compatibility testing 27
Figure 3-5. (a) Laser and (b) inkj el-printed color papers, and (c) photograph used in the
compatibility testing 28
Figure 3-6. (a) PDA, (b) cell phone, and (c) fax machine used in the compatibility testing 29
Figure 3-7. (a) Front of DVD (b) back of DVD (c) front of CD, and (d) back of CD used in the
compatibility testing 30
Figure 3-8. (a) Desktop computer and monitor, (b) keyboard, (c) power cord, and
(d) mouse used in the compatibility testing 31
Figure 4-1. InkJet printed paper (a) before and (b) 12 months after HPV fumigation (R01).
Laser printed paper (c) before and (d) 12 months after HPV fumigation at higher initial RH (R02).
Glossy 5"x 6" color photographs (e) before and (f) 12 months after HPV fumigation at higher
initial RH (R02) 36
Figure 4-2. (a) Category 2 metals, (b) Inside of a smoke detector, and
(c) exposed wire of stranded wire 12 months after H2O2 fumigation 37
Figure 4-3. Internal view of fax machine 12 months after HPV exposure 38
Figure 4-4. Cell phones powered on 12 months after exposure 38
Figure 4-5. PDAs powered on 12 months after exposure 39
Figure 4-6. Comparison of the top metal grid on the back of tested computers. The computer in (a)
was fumigated at 3000 ppmv for 3 hours and shows little corrosion. Computer (b) was fumigated
at 750 ppmv for 12 hours. Blue arrows indicate selected areas of significant corrosion 41
-------
Figure 4-7. Central grid on the backs of computers not exposed (a) and exposed (b) to 750 ppmv
C1O2. The corrosion is visible as a white powdery crust along the edges of the holes in the grid 41
Figure 4-8. Corrosion of PCI slot covers exposed to C1O2 in (a) 3000 ppmv and
(b) 750 ppmv fumigations. Also evident in (c) is corrosion of the metal grids covering the
back of the computer 42
Figure 4-9. An unexposed power supply case with no corrosion (a) compared to a corroded
grid seen on computers fumigated with C1O2 at (b) 3000 ppmv and (c) 750 ppmv 42
Figure 4-10. (a) A computer CPU heat sink not exposed to C1O2. Moderate corrosion on 3000 ppmv
computer that was ON and active (b), compared to severe corrosion seen when ON and idle
(c). Widespread, severe corrosion on the 750 ppmv exposed computer (d) 43
Figure 4-11. Computer heat sinks after exposure to C1O2. Arrow 1 points to the CPU heat sink,
which displays significant corrosion, while the GPU heat sink, indicated by Arrow 2,
shows none 44
Figure 4-12. Inside bottom of computer case exposed to C1O2 showing two distinct powders
produced by corrosion. White powder can be seen throughout the bottom, while rust-colored
powder is seen primarily at the rear of the case (along right edge in this figure) 45
Table 5-1. PC-Doctor® Tests That Failed Twice for all Computer Fumigation Scenarios
(Yellow highlights = DVD-related components) 49
Figure 6-1. Location of two of the five Bis inside the computer side cover. 55
Figure 6-2. Location of the remaining three Bis in both high and low air flow locations inside
the computer. 56
-------
List of Tables
Table 1 -1. Category 2 Material Information and Functionality Testing Description 7
Table 1-2. Category 3 Materials 8
Table 1-3. Category 2&3 Materials Part Numbers and Vendors 8
Table 1-4. Post-Fumigation Testing Procedures for Category 3 Materials 9
Table 1-5. Category 4 Tested Materials 9
Table 2-1. DTRL Hydrogen Peroxide Detection Methods 11
Table 2-2. Chlorine Dioxide Analyses 11
Table 2-3. Fumigation Cycle Used for the STERIS VHP® 1000ED 13
Table 2-4. Monitoring Methods 15
Table 3-1. ClorDiSys EMS/GMPs Photometric Monitor Characteristics 19
Table 3-2. RH and Temperature Sensor Specifications 20
Table 3-3. Sample Coding 23
Table 3-4. Test Conditions for Category 2 and 3 Materials 32
Table 3-5. Test Conditions for Category 4 Equipment 33
Table 4-1. Documented Visual Changes in Category 4 Equipment 39
Table 4-2. Summary of Visual Changes Noted in Category 4 Equipment 40
Table 5-1. PC-Doctor® Tests That Failed Twice for all Computer Fumigation Scenarios
(Yellow highlights = DVD-related components) 49
Table 5-2. PC-Doctor® Failed Test Correlation to PC Subsystem Components 53
Table 5-3. Total "Fail" Results over Year-Long Observation and Testing Period 54
Table 6-1. BI Deactivation in the Chamber and Computers for each Fumigation Scenario 56
Table 6-2. Average Conditions during STERIS Fumigation 57
Table 7-1. DQIs for Critical Measurements 59
Table 7-2. DQIs for Critical Measurements for BioQuell Fumigations 60
Table 7-3. DQIs for Critical Measurements for Steris Fumigations 61
Table 7-4. DQIs for Critical Measurements for C1O2 Fumigations 61
Table 7-5. Acceptance Criteria for Critical Measurements 62
Table 7-6. Precision (RSD %) Criteria for BioQuell Fumigations 62
Table 7-7. Precision (RSD %) Criteria for STERIS Fumigations 62
Table 7-8. Precision (RSD %) Criteria for CIO Fumigations 63
-------
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Ag
Al
APPCD
AVI
AWWA
BI(s)
BIOS
BIT
CBRTA
CD
CD-ROM
CD/DVD
C12
C102
CMOS
coc
CODEC
CPU
CT
Cu
DAS
DCMD
DHS
DIMM
DNA
DoD
DOS
DQO(s)
DSL
DTRL
DVD
EMS
EPA
BSD
FIFRA
GMP
GPU
H2°2
HC1
silver
aluminum
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
audio visual interleave
American Water Works Association
biological indicator(s)
basic input/output system
burn-in test
Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance
compact disc
Compact Disk - Read Only Memory
compact disk/digital video disk
chlorine
chlorine dioxide
complementary metal-oxide semiconductor
chain of custody
compression decompression (module)
central processing unit
The product of multiplying the factors Concentration and Time. Has
the units of mass*time/volume
copper
data acquisition system
Decontamination and Consequence Management Division
Department of Homeland Security
Dual In-Line Memory Module
deoxyribonucleic acid
Department of Defense
disk operating system
Data Quality Objective(s)
digital subscriber line
Decontamination Technologies Research Laboratory
digital video disc
ClorDiSys Solutions, Inc. Environmental Monitoring System
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
electrostatic discharge
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
ClorDiSys Solutions, Inc. "Good Manufacturing Practices" C1O2 gas
generator system
graphics processing unit
hydrogen peroxide
hydrochloric acid
-------
HSPD
NOMAD8
HPV
HSPD
IA&E
IPC
KI
KIPB
LCD
MEC
MFGB
N
NA
N/A
NB
NGA
NHSRC
NIST
OSHA
PC
PDA
PDAQ
PEL
PLC
PVC
QA
QAPP
RAM
RH
S&T
SD
Sn
SPI
SVGA
T/RH
TSA
TWA
USPS
UV-VIS
VHP
Homeland Security Presidential Directive
Omega Engineering, Inc. RH and T data logger
hydrogen peroxide vapor
Homeland Security Presidential Directive
Independent Assessment and Evaluation
industrial printed circuit (boards)
potassium iodide
phosphate buffered potassium iodide solution
liquid crystal display
material/equipment compatibility
Midget Fritted Glass Bubbler
Normality
not applicable
not available
nutrient broth
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
National Homeland Security Research Center
National Institute for Standards and Technology
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
personal computer
Personal Digital Assistant
personal data acquisition (system)
permissible exposure limit
Programmable Logic Control
polyvinyl chloride
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
random-access memory
relative humidity
Department of Homeland Security, Directorate for Science &
Technology
Standard Deviation
tin
Serial Peripheral Interface
Super Video Graphics Array
temperature/relative humidity (sensor)
tryptic soy agar
time-weighted average
United States Postal Service
ultraviolet-visible
vaporized hydrogen peroxide
-------
List of Units
°F degree Fahrenheit
°C degree Celsius
ft3 cubic feet
g/min grams per minute
hr hour
L/min liters per minute
mVh cubic meter per hour
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
mL milliliter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
w/w weight/weight
-------
-------
Executive Summary
In response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive
10 (HSPD-10), the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), through its National Homeland Security
Research Center (NHSRC), coordinated to develop
a comprehensive program to provide scientific
expertise and evaluation of actual and future potential
decontamination technologies that could be used to
recover and restore buildings and sensitive equipment
contaminated by biological warfare agents.
STERIS VHP® hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) fumigation
technology was shown to be effective against
Bacillus anthracis (B. anthracis) spores when used to
decontaminate two U.S. Government mail facilities in
2001.1 The BioQuell HPV H2O2 fumigation technology
has also been shown to be effective against B. anthracis
spores in laboratory testing conducted by the National
Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC).2 As part
of an ongoing evaluation of the H2O2 decontamination
method, this study was initiated by NHSRC and DHS
and conducted at EPA's Decontamination Technologies
Research Laboratory (DTRL) in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. The goal was to provide information on
the effects of potentially corrosive H2O2gas on sensitive
electronic components and materials, which substituted
for the types of components also found in high-end
military and commercial equipment such as medical
devices and airport scanners.
Chlorine dioxide (C1O2) fumigation has been used
successfully for the remediation of several federal
buildings contaminated by B. anthracis spores contained
in letters.1 To tie in the results of this study with previous
research5 on this alternative fumigation technique, C1O2
decontamination was used on Category 4 materials
(desktop computers and monitors).
Four categories of materials were defined by the
principal investigator. Not included in this study were
Category 1 materials, which are structural materials
with a large surface area inside a typical building. While
the field experience and subsequent NHSRC laboratory
testing have clearly demonstrated that these materials in
the building can have a significant effect on the ability
to achieve and maintain the required concentration
of fumigant, fumigation by H2O2 or C1O2 has not
been shown to affect their functionality.3'4'18 The three
categories examined in this study were:
• Category 2 Materials included low surface area
structural materials that were expected to have
minimal impact on the maintenance of fumigation
conditions during a decontamination event.
However, their functionality and use may be
affected by the fumigation.
• Category 3 Materials included small, personal
electronic equipment.
• Category 4 Materials included desktop computers
and monitors.
By using visual inspection and tests on equipment
function, this study documented the effects of different
fumigation conditions on the H2O2 fumigation of all
three categories of materials and equipment, and of
C1O2 fumigation on Category 4 Materials, commonly
found inside large buildings and offices. Equipment
and materials were subjected to a variety of fumigation
conditions depending on the technology being used and
the category of materials. The following H2O2 scenarios
were conducted on all three categories of materials:
• BioQuell HPV with 35% starting RH with a 1 hour
dwell time.
• STERIS 1000ED at 250 ppm H2O2 concentration
for 4 hours with initial RH of 35% (total CT of 1000
ppm-hr).
Additional tests were conducted on Category 2 and 3
materials to document the impact of varying initial RH
conditions and fumigation duration:
• BioQuell HPV with 65% and 10% starting RH, to
determine the effect of higher and lower initial RH,
respectively. The H2O2 equilibration concentration is
inversely proportional to starting RH.
• BioQuell HPV with 35% starting RH and a 1.5x
fumigation duration.
• STERIS 1000ED at 250 ppm H2O2 concentration
for 1 hour with initial RH of 35% (total CT of 250
ppm-hr).
To allow for comparison of the effects of using H2O2
and C1O2 fumigants on Category 4 materials (high-end
equipment substitutes), the following C1O2 fumigations
were conducted:
• 3000 ppmv C1O2 at standard conditions (75% RH,
75 °F) with a total CT of 9000 ppmv-hr (the basis
for remediating sites contaminated with B. anthracis
spores).
-------
• 750 ppmv C1O2 at standard conditions (75% RH,
75 °F) with a total CT of 9000 ppmv-hr (to analyze
compatibility with FIFRA exemption requirements).
The results of this study indicate that there were no
physical or functional effects on any of the Category 2
or 3 materials tested following H2O2 exposure, with one
exception, which appeared to be an unrelated failure that
could have occurred under normal use. These conditions
included varying the initial RH, as well as the H2O2
concentrations and exposure duration. Category 2 and 3
materials appear to be compatible with both the BioQuell
HPV and STERIS VHP® fumigations performed in this
study.
None of the BioQuell HPV and STERIS VHP®
fumigations showed any adverse effects for the Category
4 computers and equipment. BioQuell HPV was
effective for inactivation of the biological indicators
(Bis) used to provide an indication of the effectiveness
of the fumigation in the bulk chamber and within each
computer. STERIS VHP® was less effective in two of
the three computers that were OFF and particularly
ineffective in one of the computers that had been
powered ON. One explanation for this observation might
be that the higher temperature experienced in the ON
computer decreased the RH and decreased the efficacy of
the fumigant.
The corrosion and formation of powders seen in the C1O2
fumigations agree with previous research conducted on
this fumigant.5 The lower concentration/ longer duration
scenario resulted in more significant impacts than the
higher concentration/shorter duration. These impacts
included more severe and extensive corrosion, as well
as monitor failure or discoloration. Being in the ON and
active power state appears to promote the dislodging
of corrosion off the central processing unit (CPU) heat
sink by the fan. Because of this phenomenon, the CPU
heat sink may be the primary, if not sole source of the
corrosion.
Effects of fumigation for each category of material/
equipment are summarized below.
Category 2
No visual or functional changes were noted for Category
2 materials throughout the 12-month observation period
following both BioQuell HPV and STERIS VHP®
fumigations.
The printed paper and photographs for each fumigation
condition remained visibly unchanged, and the color
pigments were not adversely affected.
Each set of metals remained tarnish free, with no signs
of rust or corrosion.
Each exposed smoke detector remained fully operational
throughout the year after exposure; the battery terminals,
resistors, and other components showed no signs of
physical damage.
Exposed stranded wires remained tarnish-free 12 months
after exposure.
None of the breakers or services from any test fell
outside of the acceptable testing range.
Category 3
No visual or functional changes were noted for Category
3 materials throughout the 12-month observation period
following both BioQuell HPV and STERIS VHP®
fumigations, with the one exception of a PDA that failed
to power on.
The CDs and DVDs were all unaffected by H2O2
exposure.
There were no signs of damage to any of the mechanical
parts of the fax machine, and the same level of operation
was maintained throughout the year.
No visual or functional changes were noted for the cell
phones. Screen quality and operational parameters were
unaffected.
One Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) would not power
on, but the PDA that would not power on was from the
low concentration (CT 250 ppm-hr) STERIS VHP® run.
The high concentration run PDAs operated and appeared
normal, indicating that this failure may not be related to
the HPV exposure, but that this was a flawed PDA that
could have failed under normal use.
Category 4
No visual or functional changes were noted for any
Category 4 equipment that had been exposed to H2O2,
regardless of concentration and run conditions.
Fumigation with C1O2 resulted in internal and external
corrosion of metal parts and the formation of acidic
powders of chlorine-containing salts inside the computer
casing. Parts affected by the C1O2 fumigations included
external and internal stamped metal grids, external metal
slot covers, and the internal CPU heat sink.
The CPU was highly impacted in the lower
concentration/longer duration fumigation; the higher
concentration/shorter exposures were also impacted, but
less so, particularly for the computers that have been ON
and active versus ON and idle.
The CPU (aluminum alloy with a nickel-phosphorus
coating) may be the primary, if not sole, source of the
corrosion-generated powder. The graphics processing
-------
unit (GPU) heat sink remained unaffected (single
aluminum alloy), making the composition of the alloy
very important to the impacts observed.
Greater amounts of dust were formed at lower but longer
exposure C1O2 concentrations. This dust may cause
human health effects and the dust must be removed.
The vast majority of the failed components (83.3%)
were related to the DVD drive, regardless of fumigation
scenario. Most of the remaining failures (14%) were
related to the floppy drive. However, comparison of the
results with the control computers does not suggest that
fumigation significantly affected the performance of the
computers.
Profound effects under conditions of lower
concentration/longer duration fumigation were seen
when two of the three computers lost all functionality
on days 109 and 212 following fumigation. Under
conditions of lower concentration/longer duration
fumigation, one of the computer monitors experienced
discoloration (turned green). The other two monitors in
this exposure set stopped functioning several months
into the study.
Materials with the potential for damage include, but are
not limited to, the following:
• Certain alloys of aluminum.
• Any device with optical plastic components, such
as consumer-grade cameras, CD/DVD drives, laser
pointers.
• Equipment containing extensive color-coded wire
insulation.
-------
-------
1.0
Project Description Objectives
STERIS VHP® hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) fumigation
technology used as part of the successful remediation
of two U.S. Government mail facilities in 2001 that had
been contaminated with Bacillus anthracis spores.1 The
BioQuell HPV H2O2 fumigation technology has also
been shown to be effective against B. anthracis spores in
laboratory testing conducted by the National Homeland
Security Research Center (NHSRC).2 Both technologies
have been reported to be highly effective for spores
on nonporous surfaces when sufficient sporicidal
concentrations can be achieved (i.e., the generation
capacity is sufficient to overcome the material demand
for hydrogen peroxide). STERIS Corporation claims
that the efficacy of their VHP® (vaporized hydrogen
peroxide) technology is based upon maintaining a high
concentration (>250 ppmv) of vaporous hydrogen
peroxide in a volume without reaching condensation;
their technology dehumidifies the space to less than 35
percent relative humidity (RH) before the introduction of
vaporized hydrogen peroxide. BioQuell claims to rely on
achieving micro-condensation on surfaces for efficacy,
hence their technology rarely requires dehumidification
before fumigation.
While many efforts are ongoing or have been completed
with respect to investigation of material and sensitive
equipment compatibility with STERIS VHP®, limited
data to no independent data are available for sporicidal
conditions for porous and nonporous surfaces relevant
to public facilities. Most available data are related to
Department of Defense (DoD) materials and equipment.
No information has been made available related to the
impact of BioQuell HPV (hydrogen peroxide vapor)
fumigation on sensitive equipment. Due to the reported
differences in the operation of the technologies, there
is reason to suspect that impacts on materials and
equipment might not be identical for both technologies.
While no significant impacts on structural materials
of buildings have been determined in recent NHSRC
work3-4 no specific data related to the impact of
decontamination on electronic equipment have
been published for homeland security-related
decontamination. Data on the effect of decontamination
on electronic equipment are needed to further define
guidelines for the selection and use of H2O2 for building
and equipment decontamination, especially related to
restoration of critical infrastructure. This project was
performed to provide such information. In addition, to tie
in the results of this study with previous research on an
alternative fumigation technique, chlorine dioxide (C1O2)
decontamination was used on Category 4 materials
(desktop computers and monitors).
1.1 Purpose
The main purpose of this work was to provide
information to decision makers about the potential
impact, if any, of the H2O2 decontamination process on
materials and electronic equipment. This effort examined
the impact on the physical appearance, properties, and
functionality of certain types of materials and equipment.
While the impact on specific items was addressed, the
purpose was also to consider some items, particularly
the computer systems and electronic components, as
substitutes for high-end equipment such as medical
devices and airport scanners. The optical disc drives in
digital video disc (DVD) and compact disc (CD) drives,
for instance, are similar to the laser diodes found in
equipment such as fiber optic systems, deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) sequencers, range finders, directed energy
weaponry, and industrial sorting machines.
To provide comparative information and to tie this
research into a previous study using C1O2 as the potential
decontamination technique,5 desktop computers and
monitors (Category 4 materials) were also fumigated
with C1O2 to would allow for comparison of the
effects of these two fumigants on these high-end
equipment substitutes. In the original research with
C1O2, inexpensive plastic CD and DVD components
were found to experience the most frequent and serious
failures.
1.2 Process
In order to investigate the impact of H2O2 and C1O2 gases
on materials and equipment under specific fumigation
conditions, material was divided into four categories.
Categories 2, 3 and 4 are described in Section 1.3;
Category 1 materials (structural materials with a large
surface area inside a typical building) were not addressed
in this study. Materials in Categories 2 and 3 (low
surface area structural materials and small, personal
electronic equipment, respectively) were evaluated
in-house before and periodically for one year after
the date of exposure. Category 4 materials (desktop
computers and monitors) were evaluated in-house
before and immediately after fumigation. The sample
-------
sets were then divided, with one of the samples for each
condition (Control, STERIS, BioQuell, and C1O2) sent to
Alcatel-Lucent for in-depth analysis. The other samples
remained in-house for evaluation over the course of a
year.
1.2.1 Overview of the Hydrogen Peroxide (H2OJ
Vapor Fumigation Process
Hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) has frequently been
used to treat pharmaceutical manufacturing clean
rooms and laboratory toxicology rooms. HPV was
demonstrated to be effective against Bacillus spores,
including the anthracis strain.1'2 Hydrogen peroxide
vapor generation systems have been adapted for potential
use for the fumigation of larger volumes, including
application to buildings.6 In all cases, the H2O2 vapor
is generated from a concentrated aqueous solution
of hydrogen peroxide. The concentration is based on
starting with 30-35 percent w/w H2O2 (shown effective
in previous studies)2-8. However, this concentration is
adjusted for the size of chamber being employed. For
this study, the chamber was small in comparison to the
previous studies, so the H2O2 vapor was generated from a
17.5 percent solution. At the end of the decontamination
event, the H2O2 generator was turned off, and the
fumigant was withdrawn from the space and generally
passed over a catalyst (complementing the natural decay)
to convert the VHP into water and oxygen, thus leaving
no toxic residue.
Field use of the STERIS VHP® for fumigation of the
Department of State Annex (SA-32) required H2O2
vapor concentrations (e.g., 216 ppm or about 0.3 mg/L)
to be maintained for 4 hours at a minimum temperature
of 70°F and maximum RH of 80 percent. NHSRC
laboratory testing has shown effective inactivation (>6
log reduction) of B. anthracis spores on many building
materials (with the exception of concrete and wood)
at an H2O2 concentration of 300 ppmv for 3-7 hours
(depending on material).7 Testing with the BioQuell HPV
showed effective inactivation on all nonporous materials
with a dwell time of 20 minutes after equilibrium was
achieved. However, the process under the specified test
conditions was less effective (<6 log reduction) on most
porous materials tested.8
The HPV in this study was generated using systems
from two manufacturers: the STERIS Corporation
VHP® 1000ED (Mentor, Ohio), and a Claras™ L Small
Chamber HPV Generator (BioQuell, Pic, Andover,
England). The main difference between the two
processes is that the BioQuell process permits higher
RH values, attempting to achieve "micro-condensation"
of a thin film of peroxide over the surface to be
decontaminated. Inactivation of microbial agents is
then achieved via a dwell time under H2O2 saturation
conditions in the defined fumigation volume. Conversely,
the STERIS process typically requires a low humidity
in the space (e.g., less than 40% RH at the start of the
fumigation), in an effort to keep the H2O2 in the vapor
phase for improved penetration of substrate surfaces.
Inactivation of microbial agents using the STERIS
process relies on maintaining a vapor concentration for
a specified contact time (e.g., achieving a minimum
multiplication product of concentration and time (CT)
value).9 The STERIS label lists several concentrations
and CT values, depending on the size of the chamber and
the validation methods in place. The baseline CT for this
work was 1000 ppm*hours, though 250 ppm*hours was
also tested.
The STERIS VHP® 1000, their larger unit, has been used
for decontamination of chambers and enclosed areas for
10 years and is applicable for rooms up to 6,000 ft3 in
size. The STERIS H2O2 products have been registered by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). In more recent operations, multiple units were
combined in a single operation to remediate significantly
larger rooms. Scaled-up versions of the VHP® 1000 have
been tested by STERIS, with multiple serf-contained
units being combined in a constructed flow system to
treat volumes up to 200,000 ft3 in actual applications.1
The ability to treat such large volumes represents a
significant enhancement in capability.
The STERIS VHP® 1000ED is a mobile bio-
decontamination unit sized for small-scale
decontamination of equipment such as glove boxes and
biological safety cabinets. Sterilant injection and air flow
rates are controlled by an Allen-Bradley Programmable
Logic Control (PLC) system. The air in the chamber
to be fumigated is first brought to a relative humidity
less than 35 percent. Hydrogen peroxide (typically
35% w/w, but diluted to 17.5% in water for this study)
is then flash vaporized in an air stream and injected at
a rate between 1 and 12 g/min. The air flow rate can
be controlled between 8 and 20 scfm. The system can
be operated in either a closed or open loop system.
Condensing conditions are avoided by keeping the
H2O saturation level at less than 80 percent. The H2O2
concentration is typically between 0.2 and 2 mg/L. The
desired concentration is maintained for a set amount of
time before aeration.
The BioQuell HPV is a mobile bio-decontamination
unit that is sized for small-scale decontamination of
equipment such as glove boxes and biological safety
cabinets. Sterilant and airflow rates are controlled
using a Siemens S7 PLC system. The Claras™ L HPV
-------
generator normally operates in a closed loop mode in
which HPV is injected into the chamber at a fixed rate of
3 g/min of 30 percent w/w H2O2. The HPV is generated
by releasing a metered stream of H2O2 solution onto a hot
metal plate. The H2O2 solution is flash evaporated and
diluted into air re-circulated from the decontamination
chamber flowing at 20 m3/h. Under normal conditions,
a sufficient amount of HPV is injected to achieve
"micro-condensation" based on prior experience and/or
trial and error validation with chemical and biological
indicators. Following the injection phase is a dwell time
during which the sterilization is allowed to proceed
to completion. The last step of the process is aeration,
providing clean air to remove H2O2.
Previous studies of hydrogen peroxide vapor fumigation
have shown that almost any material has the potential
to reduce vapor concentration through sorption,
catalytic decomposition, and reactive decomposition.
Homogeneous hydrogen peroxide vapor decomposition
in the gas phase has been found negligible at room
temperature. However, hydrogen peroxide vapor
is catalyzed by exposure to light. In addition to
decomposition, hydrogen peroxide may be reversibly
and irreversibly adsorbed onto exposed surfaces.10
7.2.2 Overview of the CIO2 Fumigation Process
Fumigation with C1O2 was added to the test matrix to
relate results of the HPV compatibility tests to previous
research.5 Fumigation with C1O2 has been shown in
other efforts to be effective for the decontamination of
biological threats on building material surfaces.7'11 In
past fumigation events for B. anthracis decontamination,
the conditions set by FIFRA crisis exemptions required
that a minimum concentration of 750 ppmv be
maintained in the fumigation space for 12 hours until a
minimum multiplication product of concentration and
time (CT) of 9,000 ppmv-hours was achieved. Other
important process parameters included a minimum
temperature of 24 °C (75 °F) as a target and a minimum
RH of 75 percent.
While the minimum effective CT has been maintained
in subsequent events, substantial improvement in the
C1O2 fumigation process technology allowed for higher
concentrations to be achieved in large buildings. The
baseline fumigation with C1O2 for Bacillus spores for the
previous research was 3,000 ppmv within the volume for
three hours to achieve the CT of 9,000 ppmv-hr. During
this study, this condition was repeated for Category 4
materials. In addition, a 750 ppmv condition for 12 hours
was also included for Category 4 materials to analyze
compatibility with FIFRA exemption requirements.
C1O2 is commercially generated by two methods; wet
and dry. The wet method, such as the one used by Sabre
Technical Services, LLC (Slingerlands, N.Y.; http://
www.sabretechservices.comX generates the gas by
stripping C1O2 from an aqueous solution using emitters.
The liquid C1O2 is generated by reacting hydrochloric
acid (HC1), sodium hypochlorite and sodium chlorite
between pH 4.5 to 7.0. Sabre was the contractor for
all C1O2 fumigations related to the B. anthracis spore
decontaminations following the 2001 anthrax mail
incident1 and are currently continuing to improve
their process through mold remediation of facilities in
New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. Sabre has
fumigated structures as large as 14,500,000 ft3 (United
States Postal Service (USPS) facility, former Brentwood
Processing and Distribution Center)12 at CTs in excess of
9,000 ppmv-hr.1
The dry method, such as that used by ClorDiSys
Solutions, Inc. (Lebanon, N.J.; http://www.clordisys.
corn), was used for this study. The dry method
passes a dilute chlorine gas (i.e., 2% in nitrogen) over
solid hydrated sodium chlorite to generate C1O2 gas.
ClorDiSys has performed several low level fumigations
(-100 ppmv for a total of-1200 ppmv-hours) of
facilities for non-spore-forming organisms, and their
technology is used widely in sterilization chambers.13
No difference in the effectiveness of either of the two
generation techniques to inactivate B. anthracis spores
on building materials has been observed in laboratory-
scale investigations.11 Note that the wet technology is
potentially "self humidifying", while the dry technique
requires a secondary system to maintain RH. There are
significant differences in experience in the scale of field
operations of these two methods, as well as in generation
capacity and state of advancement of technology
application to large structures.
7.2.3 Material/Equipment Compatibility (MEC)
Chambers
This task required that materials (computers and other
potentially sensitive equipment) be exposed to H2O2
and C1O2, at conditions shown to be effective for
decontamination of biological and chemical agents
on building materials and/or in facilities, to assess the
impact (hence, compatibility) of the fumigation process
on the material/equipment. Two identical isolation
chambers (material/equipment compatibility chambers or
MEC chambers) were used for these compatibility tests.
The HPV MEC control chamber served as the isolation
chamber for the H2O2-exposed material/equipment for
both HO fumigation techniques. The CIO MEC test
-------
chamber served as the isolation chamber for the C1O2-
exposed material/equipment. Figure 1-1 shows the
dimensions of the MEC chamber; a photograph of the
MEC test chamber is shown in Figure 1-2. The three
computer installation setup used for C1O2 fumigations
can be seen in Figure 1-1. For the H2O2 fumigations,
only two computers were inside the chamber at a time,
one open (OFF power; see Figure 1-3) and one closed
(ON power).
Power is supplied within the chambers by the inclusion
of two seven-outlet surge protectors (BELKIN seven-
outlet home/office surge protector with six-foot cord,
Part # BE107200-06; Belkin International, Inc.;
Compton, CA) inside each chamber (not shown in
Figure 1-1). The power cord from each surge protector
penetrated the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) chamber
material on the bottom back wall of the chamber and
was sealed to the chamber to prevent the fumigant from
leaking out.
Figure 1-1. Schematic diagram of the MEC chambers.
-------
Figure 1-3. Open computer in HPV MEC chamber.
Figure 1-2. Photograph of the MEC test chamber.
7.2.4 Laboratory Facility Description
The material compatibility testing was performed
in the EPA's National Homeland Security Research
Center (NHSRC), Decontamination and Consequence
Management Division's (DCMD) Decontamination
Technologies Research Laboratory (DTRL) located in
Research Triangle Park, NC. This facility is equipped
with multiple fumigation generation systems; the H2O2
and C1O2 facilities are described below.
The chambers are made of opaque PVC with a clear
acrylic door, which is fastened with a bolted flange. The
door is covered with an opaque material during tests
to prevent light-catalyzed reactions from taking place
during exposure. The three removable shelves within the
chamber are made of perforated PVC. Grounded woven
wire mesh (Type 304 Stainless steel, 0.011" gauge wire)
was placed on each shelf to dissipate any potential static
electricity. The ground wire penetrated the chamber wall
and was attached to the electrical service ground. Three
fans were placed in each chamber to facilitate mixing.
1.2.4.1 Hydrogen Peroxide Facilities
The H2O2 facility is equipped with a BioQuell Claras™ L
small chamber HPV generator and ancillary sampling/
monitoring equipment. The HPV concentration within
the chamber was monitored using an Analytical
Technology Corp. H2O2 electrochemical sensor (model
B12-34-6-1000-1) coupled with a data acquisition unit
to provide real-time concentration readings as well as
data logging capability. The sensors are factory-preset
to measure from 0 to 2000 ppm H2O2. Proper sensor
operation was verified during the "dwell" phase of
operation by iodometric titration on the HPV stream
exiting the test chamber. To start the H2O2 delivery,
the desired amount of 30 percent H2O2 was dispensed
into the bottle inside the Claras™ L. The mass of the
hydrogen peroxide solution was recorded. The Claras™ L
unit withdraws the aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution
from the bottle until it is empty.
This facility also contains the STERIS 1000ED VHP®
generator. The built-in controllers store information
such as the desired time for the cycle phases, operating
pressure, H2O2 injection rate, airflow rates, and target
RH. The controller also monitors the amount of H2O2
available in the reservoir and the dryer capacity. A
prompt notifies the operator when the Vaprox cartridge
needs to be changed and when the dryer needs to be
refreshed through regeneration. The STERIS was
connected to an external control system designed to
maintain a constant concentration inside the chamber.
Both hydrogen peroxide generator systems were
connected to a test chamber dedicated for hydrogen
peroxide decontamination, and shared other support
equipment. A C16 PortaSens II Portable Gas Detector
equipped with a 00-1042, 0-10 ppm H2O2 detection cell
(Analytical Technology, Inc., Collegeville, PA) was used
as a room monitor and as a safety device before opening
the chamber following aeration.
-------
1.2.4.2 Clorine Dioxide Facility
This facility is equipped with a ClorDiSys Solutions,
Inc., C1O2 gas generation system (Good Manufacturing
Practices (GMP) system) and ancillary sampling/
monitoring equipment, test chambers, and support
equipment. This system automatically maintains a
constant target C1O2 concentration in an isolation
chamber (MEC Chamber) and injects C1O2 (20 L/min
of ideally 40,000 ppmv C1O2 in nitrogen) when the
concentration inside the chamber falls below a pre-
set value. The MEC chamber is maintained at a set
C1O2 concentration, temperature, and RH. The C1O2
concentration inside the chamber is measured by a
ClorDiSys Solutions, Inc., photometric monitor located
in the GMP unit, providing feedback to the generation
system. A similar ClorDiSys Solutions, Inc. Emission
Monitoring System (EMS) photometric detector is used
to confirm C1O2 concentrations.
1.3 Project Objectives
The primary objective of this study is to assess the
impact of fumigation on materials, electrical circuits,
and electronic equipment. Specifically, the fumigation
conditions of interest are those using H2O2 or C1O2 under
conditions known to be effective for decontamination
of materials and/or facilities contaminated with specific
biological or chemical threats. Visual appearance of
all items was documented before and after fumigation
exposure. Most materials were not tested for complete
functionality due to the multiplicity of potential uses.
Specifically, this study focused on:
• the use of H2O2 or C1O2 fumigation technologies,
• varying fumigation conditions, and
• the state of operation of the equipment (OFF, ON
and idle, and ON and active).
Three categories of material and equipment were tested
at the different fumigation conditions discussed in
detail in Section 3.8. The categories of materials are
separated according to the conditions of testing and
analysis performed to assess the impacts. Category 1
materials are structural materials with a large surface
area inside a typical building. While the field experience
and subsequent NHSRC laboratory testing have clearly
demonstrated that these materials in a building can have
a significant effect on the ability to achieve and maintain
the required concentration, fumigation has not been
shown to affect their functionality.14 Category 1 material
was not included in this study. The three categories of
materials that were investigated are described below.
1.3.1 Category 2 Materials
Category 2 materials include low surface area structural
materials which are expected to have minimal impact
on the maintenance of fumigation conditions within the
volume. However, the functionality and use of Category
2 materials may be impacted by the fumigation event.
The objective for this category of materials was to assess
the visual and/or functional (as appropriate) impact of
the fumigation process on the materials. The impact was
evaluated in two ways. First, visual inspections at each
fumigant condition (concentration, temperature, RH,
and time) were made. These inspections were directed
toward the locations considered most susceptible to
corrosion and possible material defects due to the
fumigation process. Second, functionality was assessed,
as appropriate, for the material. Resistance was measured
for metal coupons and stranded wires; circuit breakers
and copper and aluminum services were overloaded to
determine the time prior to tripping the breaker; sealants
were checked for leaks; gasket elasticity was tested with
a simple stress test; lamps were tested to see if the bulb
would light; the digital subscriber line (DSL) conditioner
was tested for transmission on a telephone or fax; and
the smoke detector batteries and lights were checked and
put through a smoke test. Printed documents and pictures
were inspected for possible alteration of their content.
The visual inspections were documented in writing and
by digital photography for each material prior to and
after exposure in each fumigation event. Functional
testing of materials was assessed before and after H2O2
treatment, then periodically after exposure, and again at
year's end. Table 1-1 lists specifics of these materials and
details the post-test procedures, where applicable. Items
not tested for functionality after exposures are shown
as "not tested" in the "Post-Fumigation Functionality
Testing Description" column.
7.3.2 Category 3 Materials
Category 3 Materials include small personal electronic
equipment. The objectives for this category were to
determine aesthetic (visual) and functionality impacts
on the equipment as a function of time post-fumigation.
The assessment of the impact was visual inspection
for aesthetic effects and evaluation of functionality
post-fumigation. Inspection occurred monthly for
five months, and then again at the one-year period,
with the equipment stored at monitored (logged)
ambient conditions throughout that time period. Visual
inspections of the equipment were documented in
writing and by digital photographs. Any indications
of odor emissions were also documented. Further, the
functionality of each piece of equipment was assessed
comparatively with similar equipment that was not
subjected to the fumigant exposure. Category 3 materials
are listed in Table 1-2, with Table 1-3 detailing the post-
test procedures.
-------
Table 1-1. Category 2 Material Information and Functionality Testing Description
Material Name
Type 3003 Aluminum
Alloy 101 Copper
Low Carbon Steel
Type 304 Stainless Steel
Type 309 Stainless Steel
Type 316 Stainless Steel
Type 410 Stainless Steel
Type 430 Stainless Steel
Yellow SJTO 300 VAC
Service Cord1
Steel Outlet/Switch Box
Silicone Caulk
Gasket
Incandescent Light
DSL Conditioner
Drywall Screw
Drywall Nail
Copper Services
Aluminum Services
Circuit Breaker
Smoke Detector
Laser Printed Paper2
Ink Jet Colored Paper2
Color Photograph
Sample Dimension / Quantity
2" x 2" x 0.0625" / 3 pieces
2" x 2" x 0.64" / 3 pieces
1. 5" x 2" x 0.0625" / 3 pieces
2" x 2" x 0.0625" / 3 pieces
1.5" x 2"/ 3 pieces
2" x 2" x 0.0625" / 3 pieces
2" x 2" x 0.0625" / 3 pieces
I"x2"x0.012"/3pieces
12" long, 16 gauge, 3
conductor/ 3 pieces
2"x3"x 1.5"/ 1 piece
Approximately 1" long bead
on the inside of a rectangular
steel outlet/switch box
0.125" thick flange foam
rubber / 3 pieces
60 Watt bulb / 3 pieces
NA/ 1 piece
1" fine thread, coated / 3 pieces
1.375" coated / 3 pieces
NA/ 3 pieces
NA/ 3 pieces
NA/ 10 pieces
NA/ 1 piece
8.5" x 11" (15 pages)
8.5" x 11" (15 pages)
4" x 6" / 3 pieces
Description
Metal Coupon
Stranded Wire
-
Sealant
Gasket
Switch
-
-
-
Copper and Aluminum
Services
-
9 Volt Smoke Detector
-
-
-
Functionality Testing Description
Triplicate coupons were stacked and the resistance
was measured between the top and bottom coupon
using an ohm meter.
The resistance of each wire was measured and
recorded.
Not tested.
Water was run into the corner of the outlet box with
the sealant and the box was observed for leaks.
Gasket was folded in half and examined for cracks.
A halogen light bulb was placed into the socket and
the lamp was turned on. If the lamp failed to light
the bulb, a new bulb was tested to verify that the
switch was inoperable.
Simple connectivity was tested using a laboratory
telephone through the conditioner.
Not tested.
Not tested.
Services were tested at 15 amps (150% capacity)
and timed to failure.
Breakers were tested at 20 amps (200% capacity)
and timed to failure.
Battery was tested by pressing the button on the
detector. In the hood, the alarm was tested by
spraying the "Smoke Check-Smoke Alarm Tester"
directly at the alarm. The light was checked to see
if it was functioning.
Visually assessed for legibility.
Visually assessed for legibility.
Visually assessed for content.
Notes: "-" indicates "Material Name" and "General Description" are the same.
NA = not applicable.
1. The outside of the cord served as Housing Wire Insulation, and the three-stranded interior wires served as the Stranded Wires.
2. Test page can be found in Appendix E of the EPA Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) entitled, "Compatibility of Material and Electronic
Equipment with Chlorine Dioxide Fumigation," dated July 2007.
-------
Table 1-2. Category 3 Materials
Materials
Personal Digital Assistant
(PDA)
Cell Phone
Fax/Phone/ Copier
Machine
Data DVD
Data CD
Description
Handheld
Pay-as-you-go Super thin flip
superphonic ringtones full color screen
Plain-paper fax and copier with 10-page
auto document feeder and up to 50-sheet
paper capacity. 512KB memory stores
up to 25 pages for out-of-paper fax
reception
Standard 21331 DVD Video
Standard Audio CD
Manufacturer
Palm
Virgin (Kyocera)
Brother
Warner Brothers
CURB Records
Model Number
Z22
Marbl
Fax 575
DVDL-582270B1
DIDP-101042
Sample Size
1 piece
1 piece
1 piece
1 piece
1 piece
Table 1-3. Category 2&3 Materials Part Numbers and Vendors
Material
PALM Z22 Handheld Organizer
Virgin Mobile Prepaid Marble Cell Phone - Black
First Alert 9- Volt Smoke Detector
Brother Fax-575 Fax/Copier
CD: Today's #1 Hits (DIGI-PAK)
DVD: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Spring-Clamp Incandescent Light
DSL Line Conditioner
Smoke Alarm Tester
Textured Alloy Aluminum Sheet, 0.063" thick, 12"xl2"
Alloy 101 Oxygen-Free Copper Sheet, 0.064" Thick, 6"X6"
Type 316 Stainless Steel Strip W/2B Finish, 12"X12"
Type 309 Stainless Steel Rectangular Bar, 2"X12"
Miniature Stainless Steel Shape Type 430 Strip, 1"X12"
Type 410 SS Flat Stock Precision Ground, 12"X24"
Low Carbon Steel Round Edge Rectangular Bar, 1.5"X6'
Type E 304 Stainless Steel Strip W/#3 Finish, 2"X12"
Yellow SJTO 300 VAC Service Cord, 15 ft
Steel Outlet/Switch Box
4X6 Standard Color Print Glossy Finish
Gasket, round
Drywall nail, coated, 1-3/8"
Drywall screw, coarse thread, 1-5/8"
Part Number
010921401
1627K48
1522T23
6638T21
88685K12
3350K19
9090kll
9205K151
8457K49
9524K62
6511k29
9085K11
8169K32
71695K81
14002
138CTDDW1
158CDWS1
Vendor
WalMart
WalMart
WalMart
WalMart
WalMart
WalMart
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
McMaster Carr
Walgreens
Sigma Electric
Grip Rite Fas'ners
Grip Rite Fas'ners
-------
Table 1-4. Post-Fumigation Testing Procedures for Category 3 Materials
Material
PDAs
Cell Phones
Fax Machines
DVD
CD
Description of Testing Procedure
The import and export capabilities were tested, and the screen condition was noted. Keypad and
screen conditions were noted.
Incoming and outgoing call capabilities were tested by ring and audio functions. Keypad and
screen conditions were noted.
Incoming and outgoing fax capabilities were tested, as were incoming and outgoing call functions.
The audio and visual functions were tested. A byte-level comparison was not performed on the
media.
The audio functions were tested by playing the first 10 seconds of each song. A byte-level
comparison was not performed on the media.
1.3.3 Category 4 Equipment
Category 4 equipment includes desktop computers
and monitors. The objective of testing this category of
equipment (and materials) was to assess the impact of
the fumigation conditions using a two-tiered approach:
(1) visual inspection and functionality testing using a
personal computer (PC) software diagnostic tool, and
(2) detailed analysis for a subset of the tested equipment
in conjunction with Alcatel-Lucent. This detailed
analysis was performed through LGS Innovations, Inc.
as the prime performer of a Chemical, Biological, and
Radiological Technology Alliance (CBRTA) Independent
Assessment and Evaluation (IA&E). The IA&E through
CBRTA was funded by EPA and the Department
of Homeland Security's Directorate of Science &
Technology (S&T) via interagency agreements with the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA, the
executive agency for CBRTA at the time of the study).
One computer system of each test set (chosen by Alcatel-
Lucent as potentially the worst performing) was sent
to LGS for the IA&E. The other systems remained at
the EPA facility and were put through a burn-in test
Table 1-5. Category 4 Tested Materials
(BIT) sequence five days a week, for eight hours a day.
to simulate normal working conditions. All computer
systems were evaluated using PC-Doctor® Service
Center™ 6 (PC-Doctor, Inc.; Reno, NV) as the PC
software diagnostic tool. The BIT sequence and PC-
Doctor® Service Center™ 6 protocols were developed
by Alcatel-Lucent specifically for this testing. While
the impact on computer systems was being assessed
directly in this effort, the purpose of the testing was
to consider the systems as surrogates for many of the
components common to high-end equipment (e.g..
medical devices, airport scanners). The objective was to
identify components and specific parts of components
that may be susceptible to corrosion because of the
fumigation process. This information can then be used
to make informed decisions about the compatibility of
other equipment that may have similar components or
materials and can reduce further testing or uncertainty
in the field application. The Category 4 equipment and
materials listed in Table 1-4 were selected by Alcatel-
Lucent as appropriate test vehicle sets to meet the
objectives of this study.
Computer Component
Dell™ OptiPlex™ 745
Dell™ 1 5 inch flat panel monitor
USB keyboard and mouse
Super Video Graphics Array [SVGA]
Metal coupons for H2O2 fumigations
Metal coupons for C1O2
fumigations*
Cables
Industrial printed circuit board (IPC)
Description
Desktop computer
Desktop monitor
Desktop keyboard and mouse
Computer display standard.
Copper (Cu)
Aluminum (Al)
Tin (Sn)
Copper (Cu)
Aluminum (Al)
Tin (Sn)
Silver (Ag)
Computer power cord
Monitor power cord
Analog video cable
Circuit board (powered for H2O2 and
C1O2 fumigations)
Additional Details
See Appendix A for specifications.
See Appendix A for specifications.
See Appendix A for specifications.
See Appendix A for specifications.
These metals are used extensively in fabricating desktop
computers. Silver (used for C1O2 fumigations) was not used due
to its high catalytic activity for H2O2. Provided by Alcatel-Lucent
These metals are used extensively in fabricating desktop
computers. Provided by Alcatel- Lucent
Standard cables
Provided by Alcatel-Lucent
* All four metal coupons were included in the 3000-ppmv fumigations. The 750-ppmv fumigation was added later, and included only the Cu.
Al and Sn coupons.
-------
Further objectives in this study for Category 4
equipment and materials were to (1) provide an
indication if localized conditions in an operating
computer may be different from the bulk of the chamber
and (2) obtain an indication of the potential impact
the local conditions may have on the effectiveness of
the H2O2 and C1O2 fumigation processes to inactivate
B. anihracis spores potentially located within the
computer. For the first part of this objective, process
parameter measurements in the bulk chamber and
within the computers were compared. For the second
part, biological indicators (Bis) were used to provide an
indication of the effectiveness of the fumigation in the
bulk chamber and within each computer.
Bis have been shown not to correlate directly with
achieving target fumigation conditions for B. anthracis
spores or inactivating B. anthracis spores on common
building surfaces.7 While Bis do not necessarily indicate
achievement, they will sufficiently indicate a failure to
achieve successful conditions. The locations of process
measurement monitors (NOMAD® and HOBO®), metal
coupons (on the FR4 Board provided by Alcatel-Lucent),
IPC board and Bis within each computer are shown in
Figure 1-4 (a) and (b). The NOMAD® (OM-NOMAD-
RH, Omega Engineering, Inc., Stamford, CN) is an RH
and temperature monitor with a built-in data logger. The
HOBO® is an RH and Temperature monitor with data
logger from Onset Computer Corp. (Pocasset, MA).
The placement of these items within the computers was
decided based upon the air flow within the chamber and
the desire not to affect the operation of the computer.
The items were affixed to the inside of the side panel of
the computer case using self-adhesive hook-and-loop
dots (P/Ns 9736K44 and 9736K45, McMaster-Carr,
Atlanta, GA).
(a)
(b)
Figure 1-4. Location of NOMAD®, HOBO®, metal coupons, IPC board, and Bis within the (a) CPU and (b)
panel.
-------
2.0
Experimental Approach
2.1 DTRL Hydrogen Peroxide Analytical
Capabilities
Table 2-1 lists the analytical techniques used to quantify
H2O2 concentrations. The B12-34-6-1000-1 sensor was
Table 2-1. DTRL Hydrogen Peroxide Detection Methods
used to provide real-time concentration measurements.
and control for STERIS fumigations. Microcondensation
was verified visually for the BioQuell fumigations. An
ATI Portasens was used as a room safety monitor.
Manufacturer/
Organization
Analytical Technology
Corp.
Analytical Technology
Corp.
American Association
of Textile Chemists and
Colorists (AATCC)
OSHA
Method
Electrochemical detection
Electrochemical detection
Modified AATCC Method
102-2007
VI-6
Title
NA
NA
Determination of Hydrogen Peroxide by
Potassium Permanganate Titration
Colorimetric Determination of Hydrogen
Peroxide
Equipment
B12-34-6-1000-1
C16 PortaSens II
Midget Fritted Glass Bubbler
(MFGB) containing 15 mL 5%
H2S04
MFGB containing 15 mLTiOSO4
2.2 DTRL Chlorine Dioxide Analytical
Capabilities
C1O2 measurement capabilities within DTRL include
Drager Polytron 7000 remote electrochemical sensors
(C1O2/C12), a HACH AutoCAT 9000 Amperometric
Titrator (to facilitate wet chemical analysis for C1O2
concentration measurements via a modification of
American Water Works Association (AWWA) SM-
Table 2-2. Chlorine Dioxide Analyses
4500-C1O2-E), an InterScan Corporation LD223 dual
range C1O2 monitor (0-200 ppb; 0-20 ppm), and an Ion
Chromatograph for use with the OSHA ID-202 method.
The C1O2 measurement capabilities used in this study
include the four analytical techniques that were assessed
separately or on a one-to-one basis depending on
the type of measurement needed (continuous versus
extractive). The techniques are listed in Table 2-2.
Manufacturer/
Organization
ClorDiSys Solutions, Inc.
ClorDiSys Solutions, Inc.
AWWA
Drager
Method
UV-VIS adsorption
UV-VIS adsorption
Standard Method 4500-C1O2 E
Modified
Electrochemical Detection
Title
NA
NA
Amperometric II
NA
Equipment
Model GMP photometric monitor
Model EMS photometric monitor
Collection in midget impingers filled with buffered
potassium iodide (KI) solution
Model 6809665 chlorine electrochemical sensor with
Polytron 7000 transmitter
The ClorDiSys photometric monitors were used for
real-time analysis and control. The modified Standard
Method 4500-C1O2 E was used to confirm the real-time
analyses. The Drager Polytron 7000 sensors were used
only for safety (i.e., room monitor). Additional details on
the photometric monitors and modified Standard Method
4500 CKX E can be found in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3.
-------
2.3 General Approach
The impact of the fumigant on the material and
electronic equipment was investigated under different
fumigation conditions (concentration, temperature, RH.
and exposure time). The sampling strategies for each
fumigation approach (STERIS, BioQuell, and C1O2) are
detailed in Sections 2.4.
The effect of the fumigation process on materials and
electronic equipment was investigated using visual
inspection and an assessment of functionality. All visual
inspections were documented in writing and with digital
photographs. Functionality testing was documented in
writing (and by digital photography, where appropriate).
Additionally, a subset of Category 4 test sets was
subjected to a detailed IA&E by Alcatel-Lucent and
was detailed in their final report, "Assessment and
Evaluation of the Impact of Fumigation with Hydrogen
Peroxide Technologies on Electronic Equipment," dated
July 2009.15 The results of the detailed IA&E on the
original Category 4 test sets fumigated by C1O2 were
detailed in their final report, "Assessment and Evaluation
of the Impact of Chlorine Dioxide Gas on Electronic
Equipment," an EPA report with publication pending.16
2.4 Sampling Strategy
Two H2O2 vapor fumigation systems were independently
included in this study. These systems are (1) the STERIS
VHP® 1000ED and (2) BioQuell Claras™ L HPV The
difference between these two technologies has been
discussed in Section 1.2.1. The conditions under which
each system was tested are discussed in Section 3.8.
2.4.7 STERIS VHP8 1000ED
The STERIS VHP® 1000ED generator, loaded with a
17.5 percent H2O2 cartridge, was connected to the MEC
through the control system shown in Figure 2-1. The
monitoring methods (H2O2 detection methods) employed
were listed in Table 2-1. The computerized control
system had a user-defined concentration setpoint of 250
ppm.
The STERIS VHP® 1000ED was programmed with the
fumigation cycle shown in Table 2-3. When the control
system received data from the Analytical Technology
sensor that the H2O2 concentration was below the
setpoint, valve VI would be opened and valve V2
would be closed. As the concentration climbed above
the setpoint, valve VI would close and V2 would open.
returning the H2O2 vapor back to the STERIS unit.
l»
dEC Chamber
ATI H202
sensor
Computerized
Control System
STERIS VHP 1000ED
Pressure Equalization Line
Digital/Control Signal
H202 Flow
V1,V2 Valves
Figure 2-1. External STERIS control schematic
-------
Table 2-3.
Fumigation Cycle Used for the STERIS VHP® 1000ED
Phase
1. Dehumidify
2. Condition
3. Decontamination
4. Aeration
Time (minutes)
0
4
240
45
H2O2 Injection (g/minute)
0
2
1
0
Air Flow Rate
(ftVminute)
17
8
17
Not measured
Absolute Humidity (mg/L)
2.30
NA
NA
NA
2.4.2 BioQuell Clams™ L HPV
Method development trials were performed with the
BioQuell Claras™ L HPV generator prior to using this
technology on the study materials and equipment.
These trials were done using the MEC test chamber
and a single set of surrogate Category 4 equipment for
each trial. At the end of each trial test, the chamber
was aerated for at least 2 hours and a minimum of 10
air exchanges. These tests suggested that saturation
conditions could be achieved in the chamber at a starting
RH of 30 ± 5 percent and an injection of 45 g of 31
percent H2O2. A dwell time of 60 minutes was chosen in
collaboration with the manufacturer. These conditions
became the target fumigation conditions for all BioQuell
runs. Condensation conditions were confirmed visually.
as the RH and H2O2 vapor concentrations within the
chamber were monitored by an Analytical Technology
H2O2 electrochemical sensor (Model B12-34-6-1000-1).
For the test fumigations, after the required H2O2 vapor
was injected during the charge phase (within the 20
scfm closed-loop air flow), the blower was turned
off to prevent recirculation during the dwell period.
Recirculation through the heated sample lines injects
more heat than the cooling system can handle. The
H2O2 vapor concentration within the chamber was
monitored using a second Analytical Technology Corp.
H2O2 electrochemical sensor (Model B12-34-6-1000-
1) to provide real-time concentration readings. Proper
sensor operation was verified during the "dwell" phase
of operation by iodometric titration on the HPV stream
exiting the test chamber. RH and temperature in the
chamber were measured using a Vaisala HUMICAP
temperature and humidity sensor (Model HMD40Y.
Vaisala, Helsinki, Finland). Three Bis were included in
the test chamber and five within each computer; the Bis
in the test chamber (outside the computer) also provided
a quality assurance indication that successful fumigation
conditions had been achieved.
2.4.3 CIO2Fumigation
The C1O2 fumigations were performed at both 3000
ppmv and 750 ppmv. Figure 2-2 shows the generic
schematic for the fumigation experimental set-up. The
C1O2 concentration in the test chamber was directly
controlled with the GMP. The secondary fumigant
monitor was the EMS. The wet chemistry samples.
analyzed by modified Standard Method SM 4500-E,
were taken every 30 minutes during the decontamination
phase to confirm the concentration of C1O2 in the
MEC test chamber. The RH of the MEC chamber was
controlled by a feedback loop with Lab VIEW and
a Vaisala temperature/RH (T/RH) sensor. When the
RH reading fell below the desired setpoint, the data
acquisition system (DAS) injected hot humid air into the
MEC chamber.
Cooling was done by circulating cooling water just
above the dew point (to prevent condensation) through
small radiators equipped with fans. The temperature of
the cooling water was raised or lowered to achieve the
desired heat transfer. If necessary, the air exchange rate
was also increased to aid in cooling: a blower removed
the warm air from the chamber and replaced it with
cooler air. The blower was also operated to prevent over-
pressurization of the isolation chamber.
-------
Wet
Chemistry
train
Digital Acquisition System
Air Exchange
Blower
Thermocouple
Digital/Control Signal
2-way Heated Sample Lines
Figure 2-2. Experimental setup of the MEC test chambers
2.5 Sampling/Monitoring Points
Local variations in temperature were expected.
especially due to the heat output of electronic devices
while operating. This variation in temperature also
affected RH. Because RH was a critical parameter in
the effectiveness of the fumigant, the RH was checked
by placing multiple NOMAD® and HOBO® T/RH
sensors in and near fumigated equipment. The location
of the sensor within the computers was shown in Figure
1-4. Alcatel-Lucent provided programmed NOMAD®
sensors. Alcatel-Lucent downloaded the data once the
sensors were returned to them at the completion of
the fumigations. ARCADIS programmed the HOBO®
sensors. Each of the HOBO sensors was checked
against both a standard RH meter and the RH meter
used to measure the bulk RH in the chamber for direct
comparisons between the bulk and the localized RH after
correcting for individual sensor bias. The purpose of the
monitor points within the computers is for determination
of temperature and RH gradients that might exist; the
target temperature, RH, and C1O2 concentration is that
of the bulk chamber (e.g., not within equipment). The
HOBO® sensors logged RH and temperature in real time.
and the data were downloaded after the fumigation event
was complete.
2.6 Frequency of Sampling/Monitoring
Events
Table 2-4 provides information on the monitoring
method, test locations, sampling flow rates.
concentration ranges, and frequency/duration for the
measurement techniques used.
-------
Table 2-4. Monitoring Methods
Monitoring Method
GMP C1O2 Monitor
EMS Monitor
Modified Standard
Method 4500-C102 E
Vaisala T/RH Sensor
NOMAD* T/RH
Monitor
HOBO® U10 T/RH
Meter
Analytical
Technology Corp.
H2O2 Electrochemical
Sensor
Modified AATCC
Method 102-2007
OSHAVI-6
Monitoring Method
Test Location
MEC test chamber
MEC test chamber
MEC test chamber
MEC test chamber; GMP Box
MEC test chamber, Inside Category 4 chassis
MEC test chamber, Inside Category 4 chassis
MEC test chamber during fumigation with
BioQuell Claras™ L or STERIS 1000ED system
MEC test chamber
MEC test chamber
Sampling Flow
Rate
5 L/min nominal
5 L/min nominal
0.5 L/min
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5 L/min
0.5 L/min
Range
50-10,000 ppmvC!O2
50-1 0,000 ppmvC!O2
36- 10,000 ppmvC!O2
0-100%RH
-40 to 60 °C
5-95% RH
-20 to 70 °C
5-95% RH, -20 to 70 °C
0-2000 ppm H2O2
1.5 -10,000 ppmH2O2
1.5 -10,000 ppm H2O2
Frequency and
Duration
Real-time; 4 per
minute
Real-time; 6 per
minute
Every 60 minutes;
4 minutes each
Real-time; 6 per
minute
Real-time; 4 per
minute
Real-time; 6 per
minute
Real-time; 6 per
minute
Once per exposure,
4 minutes
Once per exposure,
10 minutes
NA - not applicable
2.7 Fumigation Event Sequence
2.7.7 H2O2 Fumigation
The STERIS 1000ED VHP® has two controllers that
store information such as the desired time for the cycle
phases, operating pressure, H2O2 injection rate, airflow
rates, and target RH. The controllers also monitor the
amount of H2O2 available in the reservoir and the dryer
capacity.
After the H2O2 solution reservoir was filled, the
decontamination cycle proceeded through four phases:
Dehumidification, Condition, Decontamination, and
Aeration. Hydrogen peroxide was first pumped from the
cartridge to a reservoir. If the amount of H2O2 required
for the cycle was greater than the capacity of the
reservoir (1950 grams), the cycle was disabled.
• Dehumidification Phase: Dry, HEPA- filtered air
was circulated to reduce humidity to the STERIS-
recommended 30 ± 5 percent RH range to permit
the necessary H2O2 vapor concentration to be
maintained below saturation levels during the
Condition and Decontamination Phases. The time
to reach the targeted humidity increased with the
volume of the enclosure.
• Condition Phase: The flow of dry, HEPA-filtered air
continued while the H2O2 vapor was injected into
the air stream just before the air stream left the bio-
decontamination system with a controllable (1-12 g/
min) injection rate. The condition phase facilitated
reaching the desired decontamination concentration
more quickly in larger sealed enclosures. The
condition time was affected by sterilant injection
rate and enclosure volume. This Condition Phase
was optional and could be selected to reduce the
total cycle time, especially for larger applications.
Use of the Condition Phase does not reduce the time
of exposure during the Decontamination Phase. The
RH was expected to increase during this Phase, but
the saturation level should not be expected to exceed
80 percent.
• Decontamination Phase. A constant flow of
the H2O2 vapor/HEPA-filtered air mixture was
maintained at the selected H2O2 injection rate, within
the controllable range. RH had to remain below 80
percent to be considered a valid test.
• Aeration Phase. H2O2 vapor injection was stopped
and the recirculation flow of dry HEPA-filtered air
continued to reduce the vapor concentration within
the enclosure. Following the Decontamination
Phase, the drying system may have been needed to
be refreshed. The time required to refresh the drying
system depended upon cycle parameter selection,
initial RH, humidity set points, and enclosure size.
The BioQuell Clarus™ L HPV generator normally
operated in a closed loop mode and accomplished
sterilization in four phases. In the first phase, called
conditioning, the chamber air was dehumidified as
-------
needed to less than 75 percent RH. Next, in the gassing
phase, HPV was injected at a fixed rate of 3 g/min of
30 percent w/w H2O2 into the chamber. Under normal
conditions, a sufficient amount of HPV was injected to
achieve "micro-condensation" based on prior experience
and/or trial and error validation with chemical and
biological indicators. Once micro-condensation was
achieved, sterilization is completed during the dwell
time. Finally, the chamber was aerated with dry.
HPV-free air to return the HPV concentration in the
chamber to below the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit
(PEL) for H2O2 of 1 ppm (1.4 milligrams per cubic meter
[mg/m3]) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA)
concentration.
The BioQuell Claras™ L HPV generator is a "dual loop"
generator. During the Conditioning and Aeration Phases.
gas was withdrawn from the chamber and passed over an
H2O2-decomposing catalyst and through a dehumidifier
before returning to the chamber. During the gassing
phase, the withdrawn gas was passed through a separate
loop where it bypasses the catalyst and dehumidifier and
is enriched with HPV before returning to the chamber.
There was no air exchange during the dwell phase to
reduce heat build-up. The Claras™ L unit allowed the
user to customize sterilization cycles in terms of quantity
of H2O2 injected as well as the length of the different
parts of the sterilization cycle. Test fumigations used
a conditioning stage at 35 percent RH with an H2O2
injection quantity of 45 g and a dwell phase of 60
minutes.
Target Concentration
Chamber Concentration
2.7.2 CIO2 Fumigation
For the C1O2 fumigations, the decontamination cycle
proceeded through several phases as described below:
Pre-conditioning Phase, Exposure Phase, and Aeration
Phase.
• Pre-conditioning Phase. During this phase, the
C1O2 MEC chamber was conditioned to maintain a
constant pre-determined temperature and RH.
• Exposure Phase. The exposure phase in the test
chamber was divided into two sequences:
1. Fumigant Charging Phase. The fumigant
charging phase corresponded to the time
required to reach the target concentration
of fumigant. The GMP directly fed the test
chamber to reach the desired target C1O2
concentration within the shortest time. The CT
(ppmv-hours) of the charging phase was around
one percent of the total CT accumulated in the
overall exposure phase.
2. Exposure Phase: The exposure phase
corresponded to the set concentration time
exposure (CT). Time zero was set as the time
when the MEC test chamber reached the desired
concentration (+10 percent standard deviation).
The required CT was set to 9,000 ppmv-hour
for the C1O2 concentration (750 and 3,000
ppmv).
• Aeration phase. The aeration phase started when the
exposure phase was completed (i.e., when the target
CT had been achieved), proceeded overnight, and
stopped when the concentration inside the chamber
was below the OSHA PEL for C1O2 of 0.1 ppmv
(0.3 mg/m3) as an eight-hour TWA concentration.
The phases of a fumigation event are
graphically depicted in Figure 2-3. The
times and demand rates for each phase
shown are presented for illustration
purposes only.
Time (arb. scale)
Figure 2-3. Material and equipment exposure time sequence
-------
3.0
Testing and Measurement Protocols
Two separate isolation test chambers were used: the
H2O2 MEC chamber for the HPV exposure and the C1O2
MEC test chamber for the C1O2 test conditions. No test
chamber was used for the control tests (no fumigant).
Tested materials and equipment were photographed
before and after exposure and any visual changes noted,
including color, legibility, and contrast. Off-gassing (i.e.,
noticeable odor) was also documented.
3.1 Methods
The HPV concentration within the HPV MEC chamber
was measured using an Analytical Technology Corp.
H2O2 electrochemical sensor and modified OSHA
VI-6 (see Table 2-4). The photometric monitors (GMP
monitor and EMS) and the extractive modified Standard
Method 4500-C1O2 E were used for monitoring C1O2
concentrations in the C1O2 MEC chamber. Table 2-2
specifies where these methods were used within the
experimental setups.
In addition to H2O2 and C1O2 measurements, other critical
parameters measured were temperature and RH. Before
each test, the Vaisala T/RH sensor used for control
during testing was compared against a Vaisala T/RH
sensor used as a reference (never exposed to fumigant).
Secondary measurements in different locations within
the chamber were measured by NOMAD® and HOBO®
data loggers.
Bis were also included in the testing of Category 4
equipment. The use of Bis provided an indication of
whether or not acceptable decontamination conditions
were achieved due to variations in local conditions
within the computers. The measurement equipment used
in this project is described below.
3.1.1 Electrochemical Sensor for H2O2
Concentration Measurement
Hydrogen peroxide vapor concentration within the
chamber was monitored using an Analytical Technology
Inc. electrochemical sensor (Model B12-34-6-1000-1).
The sensors are factory-preset to measure from 0 to 1000
ppm H2O2 with an accuracy of < ±5% of the measured
value.
3.7.2 Modified OSHA Method VI-6 forH2O2
Concentration Measurement
OSHA Method VI-6 is a partially validated method for
determining H2O2 concentrations in air. The method
is intended for use at concentrations anticipated in
the workplace, ranging from 1.5 ppm to 70 ppm.
The method was easily scaled to the concentrations
expected for this study by reducing the total volume of
air collected from 100 liters to 2 liters, or alternatively,
by reducing the fraction of the sample analyzed. While
the method is intended for use with a colorimeter, the
method describes the titration of the H2O2 standard
using sodium thiosulfate. This titration method was
used directly to determine the concentration in the
recovered solution instead of using the colorimeter as
an intermediary device. The modified method, based on
OSHA VI-6 Sections 8.2 and 9.3, was initially performed
for the BioQuell fumigations as described below. Due
to difficulties encountered in obtaining valid results, this
method was replaced with the Modified AATCC Method
102-2007described in Section 3.1.3.
1. A stock solution of titanium (IV) was prepared
as follows: The hydrated TiOSO4 xH2SO4 xH2O
(MW > 402) was dried overnight in a desiccator.
5.5 g of the dried TiOSO4 xH2SO4 xH2O, 20 g of
(NH4)2SO4 and 100 mL of concentrated H2SO4
was placed in a beaker. The beaker was heated
and heat gradually for several minutes until the
chemicals were dissolved. Cool the mixture was to
room temperature, pour carefully into 350 mL H2O,
filtered through an HA filter to remove any trace of
turbidity, and then dilute to 500 mL. A 1:50 dilution
of this stock solution was the titanium reagent or
collecting solution.
2. 20 mL of the stock solution was added to two
impingers.
3. H2O2 gas from the chamber was routed impinged
into the stock solution in the impingers in series at a
flow rate of 1 L/min for 2 minutes.
4. The 20 mL of stock solution from each impinger
was combined into a 200 mL volumetric flask and
impingers were rinsed thoroughly with deionized
water. The flask was filled to the 200 mL mark.
5. The following solutions were transferred to a 125
mL Erlenmeyer flask.
a. 4 mL recovered impinger solution
b. 21mLwater
c. 10 mL 4N H2SO4
d. 6 mL IN KI
e. 3 drops IN (NH4)6Mo7O2
6. The solution was titrated to a very faint yellow with
-------
0. IN Na2S2O3 and then 1 mL starch solution was
added to produce a blue color. The titration was
continued until the solution is colorless.
7. The total amount of Na2S2O3 required to reach the
colorless end point was determined
8. The volume of sodium thiosulfate used in the
titration was recorded.
The normality of the H2O2 solution was calculated
by multiplying one eighth of the volume of sodium
thiosulfate used by the normality of the titrating solution.
The H2O2 concentration in ppm was calculated by
multiplying N(H2O2) by 17,000.
3.1.3 Modified AATCC Method 102-2007 for H2O2
Concentration Measurement
Modified AATCC Method 102-2007 - Determination
of Hydrogen Peroxide by Potassium Permanganate
Titration - was used for determining most of the
H2O2 concentrations in air. This titration procedure is
described below.
1. Two impingers were filled with 20 mL of 5%
sulfuric acid (H2SO4)
2. The desired volume of gas was drawn through the
sampling train and the volume was recorded.
3. 40 mL of solution from the impingers was added to
ISOmLofDIwater
4. A titration was done to the first permanent pink
color with 0.3 N potassium permanganate (KMnO4).
5. The mL KMnO4 required was recorded.
The reaction is:
5 H2O2 + 2 KMnO4 + 4 H2SO4 -> 2 KHSO4 +
2 MnSO4 + 8 H2O + 5 O2
The calculation of the H2O2 concentrations in air was
performed by Equation 3-1:
mol H2O2 = (mL KMnO4) x (N) x 0.0025 (3-1)
where
N = normality of KMnO4 solution
The conversion to ppmv is shown in Equation 3-2:
H2O2 concentration in ppmv = (mol H2O2) x
(24.5 L/mol at 298 K)/(liters of gas sampled) (3-2)
Equation 3-2 shows the combined, simplified equation
that was used to calculate the H O concentrations in air:
3.7.4 Photometric Monitors
The ClorDiSys EMS monitor is identical to the
photometric monitor built into the ClorDiSys generator
(GMP), which was used to generate the C1O2 in this
study. Comparisons of the two instruments performed
in a separate study indicated the two instruments read
within 3 percent of one another with an R2 value of
0.99.17
The monitors were photometric systems operating in
absorbance mode with a fixed path cell. An internal
pump in the EMS and GMP provided flow of the test
gas from the sample point to the analytical cell. The
maxima and minima of an unspecified and proprietary
ClO2-specific absorbance band were monitored. These
numbers were then used to calculate the absorbance
at this analytical band. Before delivery, calibration
was performed with National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST)-traceable transmission band
pass optical filters (385/0.9CU; Optek-Danulat, Inc.,
Essen, Germany). The photometric systems included a
photometer zero function to correct for detector aging
and accumulated dirt on the lenses. Daily operation of
the photometers included moments when clean, C1O2-
free air was being cycled through the photometers.
If the photometer read above 0.1 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) during these zero air purges, then the photometer
was re-zeroed. Problems arising from condensation
when sampling under high temperature or high RH
conditions were addressed by heating the sample lines
and the photometer cell. Table 3-1 provides instrument
specifications.18'19
H2O2 concentration in ppmv =
[mL KMnO4 x N x 0.06125] /
[liters of gas sampled]
(3-3)
-------
Table 3-1. ClorDiSys EMS/GMPs Photometric Monitor Characteristics
Parameter
Precision (SD)
Range
Accuracy (SD)
Resolution
Value
mg/L
±0.1
0.1-30
±0.2 from 0.5-50
0.1
ppm
±36
50-10,900
±72 from 181-18,100
36
SD = Standard Deviation
3.1.5 Modified Standard Method 4500-CIO2 E
Standard Method 4500-C1O2 E is an amperometric
titration suitable for aqueous C1O2 concentrations
between 0.1 to 100 mg/L. This method does not address
gas-phase sampling. The full method is quite complex
because a multi-titration scheme is used to differentiate
several chlorine-containing analytes. A modification of
this method to incorporate gas-phase sampling uses a
buffered potassium iodide bubbler for sample collection
and restricts the official method to a single titration based
upon Procedure Step 4b.20 The single titration analyzes
the combined chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and chlorite as
a single value. The single titration can only be applied
where chlorine and chlorite are not present. Since the
modified method (modified Standard Method 4500-C1O2
E) described below is applied to gas-phase samples, the
presumption of the absence of chlorite and chlorate is quite
valid. When the results from this method agree with the
EMS and GMP values, no chlorine is present. However.
chlorine is considered to be present when the titration
results are higher than the EMS and GMP values.17
A discussion of the modified Standard Method 4500-C1O2
E used in this test plan can be found in the approved QAPP
entitled, "Fumigant Permeability and Breakthrough Curves.
Revision 1, April 2006."21 Modified Standard Method 4500-
C1O2 E is performed as described below.
1. 20 mL of phosphate buffer solution, pH 7.2 with
KI (25 g KI/ 500 mL of buffer phosphate) (KIPB
solution) was added to two impingers.
2. C1O2 gas from the chamber was routed into the
KIPB solution in the impingers in series at a flow
rate of 0.5 L/min for four minutes.
3. 20 mL of KIPB solution from each impinger was
combined into a 200 mL volumetric flask and the
impingers were rinsed thoroughly with deionized
water. The flask was filled to the 200 mL mark.
4. 5 mL of the resulting solution was diluted to 200
mL with deionized water and 1 mL of 6 N HC1 was
added to the solution.
5. The solution was placed in the dark for five minutes.
6. The solution was titrated with 0.1 N sodium
thiosulfate (N = 0.1) from yellow to clear.
7. The volume of sodium thiosulfate used in the
titration was recorded. Conversion calculations from
titrant volume to C1O2 concentration were based on
Standard Method 4500-C1O2 E.
C1O2 (mg/L) = Volume of sodium thiosulfate
(mL) x N x 13490 /0.025 (fraction of gas
titrated) (3-4)
where N = Normality.
This method removed many of the possible interferences
listed in Standard Method 4500-C1O2 E.20 The initial
presence of KI in excess prevented iodate formation:
iodate formation can occur in the absence of KI and
leads to a negative bias. The presence of the pH 7
buffer during impinging prevented oxidation of iodide
by oxygen which occurs in strongly acidic solutions.
Other interferences were unlikely to be a problem in this
application, as the presence of manganese, copper, and
nitrate was unlikely in a gaseous sample.
The second impinger filled with buffered KI solution was
added in series to reduce the likelihood of breakthrough.
The second impinger was not analyzed independently
but was combined with the first impinger for analysis.
System blanks were analyzed, on a daily basis, by
titration of the KIPB sample. When titration yielded a
volume of titrant greater than 0.5 percent of the expected
value of the impinged sample, a new KIPB solution was
mixed to provide a lower blank value.
3.7.6 Temperature and RH Measurement
Temperature and RH measurements were performed with
three types of sensors: the Vaisala HMP50 transmitter.
the NOMAD® logger, and the HOBO® U10 logger. The
Vaisala transmitter was used for the real-time control
of humidity and was placed at a point distant from the
steam injector. The NOMAD® and HOBO® loggers were
put in various places within the MEC test and control
chambers and within computers (Category 4) to provide
a map of humidity and temperature conditions. The
specifications of these instruments are shown in Table
-------
-2. RH and Temperature Sensor Specifications
Instrument
RH Range
RH Accuracy - 0 to 90%
RH Accuracy - 90 to 98%
RH Resolution
Temperature Range
Temperature Accuracy
Temperature Resolution
Vaisala
0 to 98%
±3%
±5%
0.00 1%'
-10 to 60 °C
± 0.6 °C @ 20 °C
0.001 "C1
NOMAD8
20 to 90%
±5% at 60% RH and 25 °C
Unknown
Unknown
0 to 50 °C
±1.8°C
<1°C
HOBO8
25 to 95%
± 3.5%
Unknown
0.07%
-20 to 70 °C
±0.4°C@25°C
0.1 °C
1 Vaisala resolution estimated from 22-bit resolution of personal data acquisition system (PDAQ).
Repeated exposure to fumigation conditions degrades
both instruments. In the case of the Vaisala, the RH sensor
becomes corroded and the higher resistance results in
inaccurate RH readings. Corroded sensors were detected
and replaced during the RH sensor comparisons before
each test (see below). In the case of the NOMAD® and
HOBO®, the fumigant likely corrodes the circuit board so
that download of the logged data is sometimes impossible.
To help prevent this reaction, the NOMAD® T/RH sensors
were used only once before being replaced.
A separate, calibrated Vaisala HMP50, never exposed
to fumigation, was used as an independent reference.
Before each test, each Vaisala sensor was compared to
the reference sensor at ambient (-40% RH) and at 75
percent RH. If the Vaisala differed from the reference
by more than 4 percent, then the removable RH
sensors were replaced (independent of the rest of the
transmitter). The RH measurements from the NOMAD®
and HOBO® sensors were used only for qualitative
comparisons with the Vaisala sensor.
3.7.7 Biological Indicators (Bis)
Biological indicators (Bis) are intended to mimic the
response of difficult-to-kill spores such as B. anthracis.
Therefore, each fumigation method has a recommended or
preferred BI. The following sections describe the Bis for
HPV fumigations using the Clarus™ BioQuell system or the
STERIS technology, and for the C1O2 fumigations.
3.1.7.1 Bis for HPV Fumigations
Both the BioQuell Clarus™ L Small Chamber HPV
Generator and the STERIS VHP® 1000ED bio-
decontamination systems were tested with a highly
resistant nonpathogenic microorganism, Geobacillus
stearothermophilus, inoculated onto stainless steel
coupons (population 106 spores) and contained within a
Dupont™ Tyvek® pouch.
3.1.7.2 Bis for CIO2 Fumigations
The Bis for C1O2 fumigations were acquired from Apex
Labs (Sanford, NC). The Bis were received as Bacillus
atrophaeus (B. atrophaeus) spores, nominally IxlO6, on
stainless steel disks in Dupont™ Tyvek® envelopes. These
Bis have been used extensively in NHSRC-related C1O2
fumigation efficacy testing for B. anthracis spores deposited
onto building materials. While it is easier to inactivate the
spores on the Bis than on most materials, Bis can provide
a suitable indication of failure of the inactivation of B.
anthracis on surfaces. Thus, failure to inactivate the Bis
suggests that conditions required to inactivate spores on
environmental surfaces were not achieved.11 Further, the
inactivation of B. anthracis spores on building materials
and B. atrophaeus spores on the stainless steel Bis is highly
sensitive to RH. For inactivation with C1O2, spores typically
require a minimum of 75 percent RH for effective kill
conditions.12
3.1.7.3 BI Handling and Analysis Procedures
Within operational computers, the higher local temperatures
expected would cause a localized area with lower RH
than the bulk of the chamber. Therefore, Bis were placed
in the bulk chamber and within each computer in order to
assess a difference in the failure to achieve the appropriate
decontamination conditions. Five Bis were collocated in
each computer (see Figure 1-4) and in the MEC test and
control chambers. After removal from the chambers and
computers following testing, the Bis were transferred to the
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division's (APPCD's)
Microbiology Laboratory. The transfer was accompanied by
a chain of custody (COC) form for each group of five Bis.
In the Microbiology Laboratory, the Bis were transferred
aseptically from their envelopes to a sterile conical tube
(Fisherbrand, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham.
MA) containing at least 25 mL of nutrient broth (NB) (BBL
Dehydrated Nutrient Broth, BD Diagnostics Systems.
East Rutherford, NJ). Each BI was placed in an individual
sample tube; both positive and negative controls were
analyzed in conjunction with each test group for quality
assurance. The tubes were incubated for seven to nine days
(at 35 °C ± 2 °C for Bacillus atrophaeus and at 55 °C ±
2 °C for Geobacillus stearothermophilus), then recorded
as either "growth" or "no growth" based upon visual
confirmation of the presence of turbidity in the liquid media
in the tubes. Tubes with growth turned the NB very cloudy
and the consistency of the NB was changed. Contents of all
-------
tubes were plated on tryptic soy agar (TSA) (Remel Inc.,
Lenexa, KS) to confirm that any growth in the tube was
indeed B. atrophaeus/Geobacillus stearothermophilus and
not another organism that had contaminated the samples.
Using aseptic techniques, the TSA plates were incubated
overnight at 32 °C or 55-60 °C, depending on organism.
During analysis, the target organisms are identified using
colony morphology. Gram stains are used as secondary
QC to confirm that experimental growth consists of
gram positive spore-forming bacteria. Both positive and
negative controls were used to confirm that B. atrophaeus
and Geobacillus stearothermophilus growth on TSA was
consistent.
3.1.8 Visual Inspection
Visual inspection focused mainly on the expected effects
of fumigation: any changes in color and any occurrence
of corrosion. Color change could also affect legibility
of printed paper materials. Digital photographs of each
coupon or material were taken prior to fumigation. After
fumigation, digital photographs were taken to document
the condition of the materials/equipment. Category 4
equipment (computers) was photographed monthly to
document changes overtime. Some Category 2 and
3 equipment was partially dismantled (e.g., faxes and
smoke detectors) in order to take digital photographs
of the equipment inside the casing. This dismantling
was done at an approved electrostatic discharge (BSD)
station. Changes in color or observed corrosion or
corrosion products (i.e., powder inside a casing) were
noted. Any changes in legibility or contrast of materials
after fumigation were recorded as well.
3.1.9 Functionality Testing
All electronic equipment in Categories 3 and 4 underwent
functionality testing prior to and after fumigation, as did
selected materials from Category 2, as appropriate. These
tests were detailed in Tables 1-1 and 13 for the Category 2
and 3 materials, respectively. For the Category 4 equipment,
the protocols for the computer setup and analysis were
developed by Alcatel-Lucent for the specific equipment
being tested (see Appendix D of the EPA QAPP entitled,
"Compatibility of Material and Electronic Equipment
during Fumigation," dated September 2008).22
All Category 2 and 3 materials were analyzed before
and immediately after fumigation, then periodically after
exposure, and again at year's end. Based on observations
of effects, the post-fumigation testing schedule was
modified to reduce the number of evaluations in a way
that did not compromise achieving the overall objectives
of this project. During the one-year period, all equipment
was stored in an indoor office/laboratory environment
with logged temperature and RH.
Category 4 equipment was tested in triplicate. After the
post-fumigation functionality test, one of each set of
Category 4 computers was sent to Alcatel-Lucent for in-
depth failure analysis; the remaining computers remained
at DTRL for continued functionality testing for one year.
During the one-year period, the computers and monitors
were stored in an indoor office/laboratory environment
with logged temperature and RH. The post-fumigation
analysis continued monthly for these pieces of Category 4
equipment, with one exception. Computers fumigated with
the BioQuell method were not analyzed the first month after
fumigation, but were then analyzed monthly afterwards.
The computer systems were maintained in the operational
(ON) state and were put through a BIT sequence five days
a week, for eight hours a day, to simulate normal working
conditions. Functionality testing was done by running a
predefined routine specific to each of the items. These
routines were documented for each item and maintained
in the item's log book or on test report sheets. For the
computer systems, PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6 was
run to complete a hardware and software diagnostic
investigation. The BIT sequence and PC-Doctor® Service
Center™ protocols were developed by Alcatel-Lucent
specifically for this testing. The results of the diagnostic
protocol were maintained in the appropriate log book.
3.1.10 Detailed Functionality Analysis (Subset
of Category 4)
The assessment of the impact of fumigation on Category
4 equipment was performed in conjunction with Alcatel-
Lucent through LGS Innovations, Inc. as the prime
performer of a CBRTA IA&E. Four computers - one
computer and monitor from each of the test conditions
(control, STERIS and BioQuell H2O2 fumigations, and
C1O2 fumigations) - was sent to Alcatel-Lucent for detailed
functionality testing. The worst-performing computer from
each of the triplicate test sets was chosen for this in-depth
testing. These computers and monitors, after undergoing
the initial pre-/post-fumigation visual inspection and
functionality screening, were preserved and shipped as
detailed in Section 3.6. The order of increasing level of
analysis was (1) aesthetic and functionality evaluation
(energize, run diagnostic protocol), (2) visual inspection and
more advanced diagnostics to identify affected components,
(3) modular investigation, and (4) cross-section and failure
mode analysis. The metal coupons and IPC boards were
also analyzed by Alcatel-Lucent.
3.2 Cross-Contamination
The two isolation chambers, HPV MEC and C1O2 MEC,
were set up in two different laboratories. There was no
contact between the two chambers in order to eliminate
any potential exposure of either MEC chamber to the
-------
other fumigant. Protocols provided by Alcatel-Lucent
prohibited cross-contamination of corrosion particles by
limiting the use of each test device to a single computer.
Bis and wet chemistry samples are not expected to be
affected by cross-contamination.
3.3 Representative Sample
Category 4 materials are as identical as possible to materials
tested under a previous study using C1O2 as the fumigant.5
Materials and equipment were chosen as representative of,
or as surrogates for, typical indoor construction materials
or modern electronic devices. Each material or piece of
equipment was tested in triplicate for representativeness.
After initial inspection to confirm the representativeness of the
Category 4 equipment post-treatment under the test conditions,
the set that fared the worst from each test condition was sent
for the detailed analysis performed by Alcatel-Lucent. The
initial inspection was an assessment for visual changes and PC
diagnostic using PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6.23
3.4 Sample Preservation Method
Test samples (i.e., materials and equipment) were stored
in temperature- and RH-controlled, indoor ambient
laboratory conditions until testing was performed. All
samples, both test and control, were stored under the
same conditions prior to and after the fumigation event.
The Category 4 items, specifically the computers
and monitors, were treated differently from the items
included in the other categories. The computers and
monitors were removed from their original packaging,
labeled with a designated sample number (see Section
3.5), and set up according to the protocol provided by
Alcatel-Lucent. After the pre-test analysis, the computers
were dismantled, placed in individual anti-static and anti-
corrosion bags (Corrosion Intercept Technology; http://
www.staticintercept.com/index.htm) sealed and stored
until reassembly and preparation for the fumigation
event. The computers were also dismantled and bagged
during transport to and from the MEC chambers.
After exposure to the test conditions, the Category
4 equipment was transferred back to the individual
anti-static and anti-corrosion bag for transportation
to an appropriate area (BSD work station, E-288, see
below) in which the computers and monitors could
remain energized and operated over the course of a
year to continually assess delayed effects due to the test
conditions under which they were treated. Category 2
and 3 materials and equipment were also transferred
to E-288. The temperature and RH in the area were
monitored and logged. Each computer and monitor
underwent visual inspection and initial diagnostics
with PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6. The protocols for
running PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6 were developed
and provided by Alcatel-Lucent, specifically for the
equipment included in this testing.
After at least one month of testing, Alcatel-Lucent
identified the computer from each test condition
(Control, BioQuell, STEMS, and C1O2) that they wanted
shipped to them for the detailed analysis. The computers
selected for shipment were usually the worst-performing
computer within each test condition set.
Before fumigation of the computers, the systems were
opened to insert a T/RH monitor (NOMAD®) and Bis in
each desktop case. The Category 4 metal coupons and
IPC board were also placed in each computer case. The
location and method of fastening the equipment inside
the case were specified by Alcatel-Lucent. The insides of
the desktop computers were digitally photographed. To
maintain the integrity of the computer by avoiding static
electricity, an BSD Station was established for work on
the computers. An BSD station was set up in E-288 (EPA
Facility, Research Triangle Park, NC) and a second sub-
station (smaller) next to the MEC test chambers in H-224
and H-222 (EPA Facility, Research Triangle Park, NC).
Training on this work station in E-288 was provided by
Alcatel-Lucent on July 18, 2007, prior to the start of the
original C1O2 fumigation testing. In general, the station
consisted of an electrostatic discharge work mat, an
electrostatic monitor, and electrostatic discharge wrist
bands. All computers were inspected and operated (i.e.,
diagnostic testing, long-term operation of computers for
analysis of residual effects) on the BSD workstations.
During operation of the computers, all computers were
energized using surge protectors (BELKIN seven-outlet
home/office surge protector with six-foot cord, Part #
BE107200-06; Belkin International, Inc.; Compton, CA).
All Bis were maintained in their sterile Dupont™ Tyvek®
envelopes, refrigerated, until ready for use. The Bis
were allowed to come to the test temperature before
being placed in the MEC test chamber. The Bis were
maintained in their protective Dupont™ Tyvek® envelopes
until transferred to the on-site Microbiology Laboratory
for analysis.
Modified Standard Method 4500-C1O2 E samples were
kept in a dark refrigerator for one week after initial
analysis for potential re-titration.
3.5 Material/Equipment Identification
Each material and piece of equipment was given an
identifying code number unique to that test sample
material/equipment. The codes and code sequence
were explained to the laboratory personnel to prevent
sample mislabeling. Proper application of the code
-------
simplified sample tracking throughout the collection.
handling, analysis, and reporting processes. All COC
documentation for the test sample material/equipment
was labeled with the identifying code number. Table 3-3
shows the sample coding used in this study, with Figures
3-1 through 3-8 showing pictures of all of the materials
Table 3-3. Sample Coding
that were tested. The Category 4 equipment was labeled
as DECON###, where ### refers to a three-digit
sequential number. A total of 24 computers and liquid
crystal display (LCD) monitors were purchased for this
project. The numbers therefore ranged from 100 to 123.
AAA-NN-TXX-RXX
AAA
NN
TXX
RXX
Sample Code
2AL
2CU
2CS
2PC
2S1
2S3
2S4
2S6
2S9
2SW
2LC
2EB
2SE
2GA
2DS
2DN
2EBC*
2EBA*
2CB
2SD
2SW**
2LP
2IP
2PH
3PD
3CE
3FA
3DV
3CD
XXX
02,
T01 orT02
R01-R08
Figure
3-la
3-lb
3-lc
3-ld
3-le
3-lf
3-lg
3-lh
3-li
3-2a
3-2b
3-2c
3-2d
3-2e
3-2f
3-2g
3-3a,b,c
3-3d,e,f
3-3g
3-4a
3-4b,c
3-5a
3-5b
3-5c
3-6a
3-6b
3-6c
3-7a
3-7b
3-9
Sample Type
3003 Aluminum coupons
101 Copper coupons
Low carbon steel coupons
Painted low carbon steel coupons
410 Stainless steel coupons
430 Stainless steel coupons
304 Stainless steel coupons
316 Stainless steel coupons
309 Stainless steel coupons
Stranded wires
DSL conditioner
Steel outlet/Switch box
Sealants (caulk)
Gaskets
Drywall screw
Drywall nail
Copper services
Aluminum services
Circuit breaker
Smoke detector
Switches (lamps)
Laser printed colored papers (stack of 1 5 pages)
InkJet printed colored papers (stack of 15 pages)
Photographs
PDAs
Cell phones
Fax machines (with telephones)
DVDs
CDs
Biological Indicator (XXX=computer ID (if inside computer) or, XXX="MEC" for inside bulk chamber)
Replicate number (01, 02, 03, 04,05)
Test Matrix (Category 2 and 3 = TO 1; Category 4 = T02)
Run Number (R01-R08) for Category 2 and 3 materials
* 2CS was used for low carbon steel coupons and the copper services. See Appendix B for parts list of Cu and Al service panels.
** 2SW was used for stranded wire and the switches; also 2HW was deleted as a separate category (housing wiring insulation) because 2HW was on
the outside of the three-piece stranded wire (2SW).
-------
Figure 3-1. Metal coupons used in the compatibility testing (photos prior to fumigation): (a) 3003 aluminum; (b)
101 copper; (c) low carbon steel; (d) painted low carbon steel; (e) 410 stainless steel; (f) 430 stainless steel; (g)
304 stainless steel; (h) 316 stainless steel; and (i) 309 stainless steel.
-------
(b)
(c)
Figure 3-2. (a) Stranded wire, DSL conditioner, and steel outlet/switch box with sealant (caulk), (b) gasket and
(c) drywall screws and nails used in the compatibility testing.
-------
(c)
(d)
Figure 3-3. (a, c) Copper services, (b, d) aluminum services, and (e) circuit breaker used in the compatibility
testing.
-------
(c)
Figure 3-4. (a) Smoke detector and (b, c) lamp switch used in the compatibility testing.
-------
Figure 3-5. (a) Laser and (b) inkjet-printed color papers, and (c) photograph used in the compatibility testing.
-------
Figure 3-6. (a) PDA, (b) cell phone, and (c) fax machine used in the compatibility testing.
-------
(c)
(d)
Figure 3-7. (a) Front of DVD (b) back of DVD (c) front of CD, and (d) back of CD used in the compatibility
testing.
-------
(a)
(c)
(d)
Figure 3-8. (a) Desktop computer and monitor, (b) keyboard, (c) power cord, and (d) mouse used in the
compatibility testing.
3.6 Sample Shipping Procedures
The computer, monitor, and ancillary equipment shipped
to Alcatel-Lucent were packaged inside Corrosion
Intercept Technology bags (http ://www. staticintercept.
com/index.htm). The bagged equipment was shipped to
Alcatel-Lucent using the original packaging (i.e., boxes
and foam) after post-fumigation tests. The shipping and
handling protocols were provided by Alcatel-Lucent.
3.7 Chain of Custody
• Each material/piece of equipment sent to
Alcatel-Lucent had a COC record describing the
material/equipment and analysis to be performed.
Similarly, all the BI samples sent for analysis by
the On-site Microbiology Laboratory had a COC.
Examples of the COC forms for the transfer of
the BI samples to the Microbiology Laboratory
and the Category 4 equipment to Alcatel-Lucent
are provided in Appendix B of the EPA QAPP
entitled, "Compatibility of Material and Electronic
Equipment during Fumigation," dated September
2008.22
3.8 Test Conditions
Two test matrices were used for the testing. Test Matrix
T01 (Table 3-4) was used for Category 2 and 3 materials
(combined), and Test Matrix T02 (Table 3-5) was used
for Category 4 materials. The test matrices were built
around the main objective of this project: to assess the
damages, if any, to materials and electronic equipment
functionality after remediation of a contaminated
space using the H2O2 or C1O2 technology under various
fumigation environment scenarios and equipment
states of operation. The list of parameters that were
investigated is:
• Effect of fumigation with BioQuell HPV with 35%
starting RH under conditions determined during the
method development trial performed prior to this
test matrix.
-------
• Effect of fumigation with BioQuell HPV with 65%
starting RH under conditions determined during the
method development trial performed prior to this
test matrix (Category 2 and 3 only).
• Effect of fumigation with BioQuell HPV with 10%
starting RH under conditions determined during the
method development trial performed prior to this
test matrix (Category 2 and 3 only).
• Effect of fumigation with BioQuell HPV with 35%
starting RH under conditions determined during the
method development trial performed prior to this
test matrix with 1.5x duration (Category 2 and 3
only).
• Effect of fumigation with STERIS 1000ED at 250
ppm H2O2 concentration with initial RH of 35%
with a total CT of 1000 ppm-hr.
Table 3-4. Test Conditions for Category 2 and 3 Materials
Effect of fumigation with STERIS 1000ED at 250
ppm H2O2 concentration with initial RH of 35%
with a total CT of 250 ppm-hr (Category 2 and 3
only).
Effect of fumigation at high C1O2 concentration
(3000 ppmv) at standard conditions (75% RH, 75
°F) with a total CT of 9000 ppmv-hr (Category 4
only).
Effect of fumigation at field demonstration C1O2
concentration (750 ppmv) at standard conditions
(75% RH, 75 °F) with a total CT of 9000 ppmv-hr
(Category 4 only).
Power state of Category 4 materials during BioQuell
HPV and STERIS 1000ED fumigations.
Run Name
Treatment Conditions
and Equipment Power State"
Purpose of Test
R01
BioQuell HPV fumigation with starting RH of 35%:
326 ppmv H2O2
76% RH
31 °C
1 hours
ON
Determine the effect of initial RH on HPV
fumigation conditions.
R02
BioQuell HPV fumigation with starting RH of65%:
203 ppmv H2O2
89% RH
29 °C
1 hours
ON
Determine the effect of higher initial RH on HPV
fumigation conditions
R03
BioQuell HPV fumigation with starting RH of 10%:
482 ppmv H2O2
95% RH
33 °C
1 hours
ON
Determine the effect of low initial RH on HPV
fumigation conditions.
R04
BioQuell HPV fumigation with starting RH of 35% with l.Sx
duration:
335 ppmv H2O2
87% RH
31 °C
1 '/2 hours
ON
Determine the effect of initial RH on HPV
fumigation conditions for longer dwell time
R05
STERIS VHP fumigation at 250 ppm, 1 hours (CT = 250 ppm-hr):
246 ppmv H2O2
27% RH
28 °C
1 hour
ON
Determine the effect of low H2O2 CT.
R06
STERIS VHP fumigation at 250 ppm, 4 hours (CT = 1000 ppm-hr):
257 ppmv H2O2
40% RH
28 °C
4 hours
ON
Determine the effect of high H2O2 CT.
1 Dwell phase parameters are listed for each run's Test Condition.
-------
Table 3-5. Test Conditions for Category 4 Equipment
Test
Condition or
Run Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Subset Run Name or
Computer Label
Decon 106-108
Decon 118,119,123
Decon 120-122
Decon 115-117
Decon 103-105
Decon 100-102
Decon 112-114
Decon 109-111
Treatment Conditions
and Equipment Power State
Control (no fumigation)
ON and Active
Standard fumigation conditions
(3000 ppmv C102, 75% RH, 75 °F, 3 hrs)
ON and Active
Standard fumigation conditions
(3000 ppmv C102, 75% RH, 75 °F, 3 hrs)
ON and Idle
Field demonstration fumigation conditions (750
ppmv C102, 75% RH,
75 °F, 12 hrs)
ON and Idle
BioQuell HPV fumigation with starting RH of 35%
OFF
BioQuell HPV fumigation with starting RH of 35%
ON and Active
STERIS VHP fumigation at 250 ppm,
4 hours (CT = 1000 ppm-hr),
OFF
STERIS VHP fumigation at 250 ppm,
4 hours (CT = 1000 ppm-hr)
ON and Active
Purpose of Test
Control test set.
Effect of standard fumigation conditions on
equipment when computers are operational.
Tie in to past matrix with C1O2
Effect of fumigation conditions used during field
demonstrations for B. anthracis remediation
Effect of power state
Effect of power state
Effect of power state
Effect of power state
Note: 75 °F = 23.9 °C
-------
-------
4.0
Visual Inspection
Photographs were taken as part of the scheduled
functionality testing. The purpose of this physical
documentation was to make comparisons over time,
looking for changes such as discoloration of wire
insulation, corrosion, residue, and decrease in the
quality or readability of documents and photographs.
Where changes were noted, all visual files and written
documentation were reviewed to provide a detailed
understanding of the effects of fumigation over time on
that material/component. Functional effects are presented
and discussed in Section 5.
4.1 Category 2 Materials
Category 2 materials maintained their pre-exposure
physical and functional characteristics throughout the 12
month observation period following both BioQuell HPV
and STEPJS VHP fumigations.
• Four runs were conducted using BioQuell HPV
(Runs R01 through R04 in Table 3-4) to determine
the effects of varying the initial RH (10%, 35%
and 65%) as well as extending the duration of the
fumigation (1.5x). Regardless of the initial RH
or fumigation duration, the Category 2 materials
showed no signs of physical deterioration during the
12 month post-test observation period.
• Two runs were conducted using STERIS VHP (Runs
R05 and R06 in Table 3-4) to determine the effects
of both low (250 ppm-hr) and high (1000 ppm-hr)
H2O2 concentration exposures. During the 12 month
post-exposure observation period, no physical
changes to any of the Category 2 materials were
noted.
Figure 4-1 shows the original InkJet printed paper (a)
before and (b) one year after being exposed to BioQuell
HPV fumigation with a starting RH of 35% (test run
R01). Similar photos are shown for laser printed paper
(c) before and (d) one year after, and color printed
photographs (e) before and (f) one year after BioQuell
HPV fumigation with a higher starting RH of 65% (test
runR02).
These results are typical for all six fumigation conditions
studied with both BioQuell HPV and STERIS VHP
fumigation technologies. The printed paper and
photographs for each fumigation condition remained
visibly unchanged throughout the 12-month post
fumigation observation period. Color pigments do not
appear to be adversely affected by exposure to vaporized
H2O2 at either high or low concentrations or RH levels.
In addition, extending the duration of the H2O2 exposure
by 1.5x (test run R04) had no impact on these Category
2 materials.
-------
(c)
(e)
Figure 4-1. InkJet printed paper (a) before and (b) 12 months after HPV fumigation (R01). Laser printed paper
(c) before and (d) 12 months after HPV fumigation at higher initial RH (R02). Glossy 5"x 6" color photographs
(e) before and (f) 12 months after HPV fumigation at higher initial RH (R02).
-------
Vaporized H2O2 exposure showed no caustic effects
on the other Category 2 materials tested under any of
the test conditions. Figure 4-2(a) shows that each set
of metals remained tarnish free, with no signs of rust
or corrosion. Each exposed smoke detector remained
fully operational throughout the year after exposure;
the battery terminals, resistors, and other components
showed no signs of physical damage as seen in Figure
4-2 (b). Figure 4-2 (c) shows that the exposed stranded
wires remained tarnish free for 12 months after exposure.
These results were typical for each of the six fumigation
conditions.
(b)
Figure 4-2. (a) Category 2 metals, (b) Inside of a smoke detector, and (c) exposed wire of stranded wire 12
months after H2O2 fumigation.
-------
The results of this study indicate that there were no
physical or functional effects on any of the Category
2 materials tested following H2O2 exposure. These
conditions included varying the initial RH, as well as
the H2O2 concentrations and exposure duration. The
Category 2 materials were shown to be compatible from
a visual standpoint with both the BioQuell HPV and
STEMS VHP fumigations performed in this study.
4.2 Category 3 Materials
Category 3 Materials included small, personal electronic
equipment: fax machines, cell phones, PDAs, CDs, and
DVDs. The physical appearance of these materials was
observed and photo-documented before fumigation and
during the one year observation period following HPV
fumigation.
The CDs and DVDs were all apparently unaffected by
H2O2 exposure. The disks maintained their pre-exposure
appearance and showed no signs of damage during the
12 month observation period. Figure 4-3 shows the
internal features of a representative fax machine. There
were no signs of damage to any of the mechanical parts
and all exposed metal maintained pretest appearances
and showed no signs of deterioration.
Figure 4-4 shows the cell phones, powered on, one
year following HPV fumigation. During the 12-month
observation period, no visual changes were noted. None
of the cell phone screens indicated any signs of dimming
of the back light or detectable color alterations.
With the exception of the PDA from test run R05, Figure
4-5 shows that the screens from the remaining PDAs
maintained their pre-exposure physical appearance. The
R05 PDA failed to power on, and an examination of the
screen appearance could not be performed. The outer
casing of all PDAs appeared unchanged. An internal
physical evaluation of the PDAs was not possible
without damaging the device.
Figure 4-3. Internal view of fax machine 12 months
after HPV exposure.
Figure 4-4. Cell phones powered on 12 months after
exposure.
-------
Figure 4-5. PDAs powered on 12 months after exposure.
The PDA that would not power on (R05) was the
low concentration STERIS VHP run (250 ppm-hr
CT). The high concentration STERIS VHP run
(test run R06 at 1000 ppm-hr CT, shown in the
bottom right of Figure 4-5) powered on normally
and had no indication of change in the screen's
physical appearance. This observation indicates that
the failure of R05 may not be related to the HPV
exposure, but that R05 was a flawed PDA that would
have failed under normal use. Because this failure
to power on was the only effect seen in any of these
items, these results indicate that Category 3 materials
are compatible from a visual impact standpoint
with both the BioQuell HPV and STERIS VHP
fumigations performed in this study.
4.3 Category 4 Equipment
Category 4 equipment included desktop computers
and monitors. Unlike the Category 2 and 3 materials
that were fumigated only with H2O2, the Category
4 materials were also exposed to C1O2. Table 4-1
summarizes the visual changes noted for both
fumigants.
Table 4-1. Documented Visual Changes in Category 4 Equipment
Equipment
Desktop computer
Computer monitor
Computer keyboard
Computer power cord
Computer mouse
Visual Changes Due to
C1O2 Exposure
Corrosion (inside and outside) and powdery residue
One monitor turned green (at 750 ppmv, 12-hour exposure)
None
None
None
Visual Changes Due to
H2O2 Exposure
None
None
None
None
None
The C1O2 fumigation conditions exhibited showed
some visually observed effects on the desktop
computers (corrosion inside and outside and powdery
residue). The only other visual change noted for any
of the other computer components was that one of the
computer monitors from the 750 ppmv C1O2 fumigation
experienced discoloration (turned green). The other two
monitors from this test could not be visually checked, as
they stopped functioning several months into the year-
long observation period. These changes resulting from
C1O2 exposure agree with previous research conducted
onthisfumigant5.
No visual changes were noted for any Category 4
equipment that had been exposed to H2O2, regardless
of concentration and run conditions. A summary of
the noted visual changes related to run conditions is
shown in Table 4-2. Any changes observed were present
immediately after fumigation and did not appear to
strengthen over the 12-month period of equipment
observation and testing.
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Visual Changes Noted in Category 4 Equipment
Fumigant
Temp, °C
RH, %
ppmv
ppmv-
hours
Computer
Status
Desktop
Computer
Computer
monitor
C1O2
26.1
75
3000
N/A
118, 119, 123
On and Active
Internal and
external corrosion
Internal powdery
residue
No
changes
C1O2
26.1
75
3000
N/A
120-122
On and Idle
Internal and
external corrosion
Internal powdery
residue
No
changes
C1O2
26.3
79
750
N/A
115-117
On and Idle
Internal and
external corrosion
Internal powdery
residue
One monitor turned
green
BioQuell
HPV
30.7
90
278
308.4
103-105
OFF
No
changes
No
changes
BioQuell HPV
30.6
95
357
444.9
100-102
On and Active
No
changes
No
changes
STERIS
VHP
30.2
31
252
1067
112-114
OFF
No
changes
No
changes
STERIS
VHP8
28.7
33
246
1049
109-111
On and
Active
No
changes
No
changes
N/A - data not available
Corrosion of external metal parts was evident on the
backs of most of the computers exposed to C1O2. In
addition, although the CT was 9000 ppmv-hr for all
three C1O2 fumigation scenarios, the longer duration
(12 hours) of the 750 ppmv fumigation resulted in more
serious corrosion.
Figure 4-6(a) shows very little corrosion on the top
metal grid of the 3000 ppmv ClO2-fumigated computers.
Whether the computers were active or idle appeared to
make no difference, and this picture is representative of
what was seen. However, Figure 4-6(b) shows noticeable
corrosion on the same grid at 750 ppmv C1O2.
Corrosion was also observed on the central grid on
the backs of computers. This corrosion took the form
of a white powder as can be seen in Figure 4-7(b).
This white powder was seen in all computers which
underwent fumigation with C1O2. The grid from one of
the 750 ppmv fumigations is shown here; the powder
was less visible in the 3000 ppmv fumigations (whether
active or idle).
Rust-like powder was frequently seen on the PCI slot
covers on the lower rear of the C1O2 exposed computers.
as shown in Figure 4-8. The corrosion was similar for
all C1O2 fumigations, but was of less severity in the
3000-ppmv exposed computers (a) than in the 750 ppmv.
12-hour exposures (b and c).
Figure 4-9 shows an unexposed power supply case
grid (a) and similar corrosion found on computer grids
exposed to (b) 3000 ppmv and (c) 750 ppmv C1O2.
Again, more extensive corrosion is evident in the longer
750 ppmv exposed computer. For the 3000 ppmv
exposed computers, the grids appeared similar, whether
they were active or idle during the fumigation.
-------
(b)
Figure 4-6. Comparison of the top metal grid on the back of tested computers. The computer in (a) was
fumigated at 3000 ppmv for 3 hours and shows little corrosion. Computer (b) was fumigated at 750 ppmv for 12
hours. Blue arrows indicate selected areas of significant corrosion.
If-slsrSR-S
Figure 4-7. Central grid on the backs of computers not exposed (a) and exposed (b) to 750 ppmv CIO2 The
corrosion is visible as a white powdery crust along the edges of the holes in the grid.
-------
Figure 4-8. Corrosion of PCI slot covers exposed to C1O2 in (a) 3000 ppmv and (b) 750 ppmv fumigations. Also
evident in (c) is corrosion of the metal grids covering the back of the computer.
Figure 4-9. An unexposed power supply case with no corrosion (a) compared to a corroded grid seen on
computers fumigated with C1O2 at (b) 3000 ppmv and (c) 750 ppmv.
-------
Other corrosion was evident, in the form of a white
powder, on the central processing unit (CPU) heat sink
in C1O2 exposed computers. Figure 4-10 shows the range
of corrosion seen on the CPU heat sink as compared to
an unaffected heat sink (a). Figure 4-10(b) shows much
less corrosion in a 3000 ppmv computer that was ON
and active, as opposed to the 3000 ppmv computer that
was powered ON and idle (c). The most widespread and
serious corrosion was seen on the 750 ppmv computer
(d) that was On and idle, and exposed to C1O2 for 12
hours.
Most, if not all, of the corrosion in the C1O2 exposed
computers appears to be originating on the CPU heat
sink. When computers were ON and active, the fan
helped blow the dust off the CPU itself. Figures 4-10(b)
and (c) clearly show the difference between computers
that were active (b) versus idle (c).
Figure 4-10. (a) A computer CPU heat sink not exposed to C1O2. Moderate corrosion on 3000 ppmv computer
that was ON and active (b), compared to severe corrosion seen when ON and idle (c). Widespread, severe
corrosion on the 750 ppmv exposed computer (d).
-------
Figure 4-11 shows one significant internal item of note:
the graphics processing unit (GPU) heat sink remained
unaffected in the same computers that demonstrated
corrosion of the CPU heat sink. This observation
matches previous research results of exposure to chlorine
dioxide17 and was discussed by Alcatel-Lucent15 in their
CBRTA report as being due to the different metallic
compositions of the two heat sinks. The CPU heat sink
consists of an aluminum alloy with a nickel-phosphorus
coating which can experience galvanic corrosion, while
the GPU heat sink is simply a single aluminum alloy.
Figure 4-11. Computer heat sinks after exposure to C1O2. Arrow 1 points to the CPU heat sink, which displays
significant corrosion, while the GPU heat sink, indicated by Arrow 2, shows none.
The powder covering the CPU heat sink was one of
several types observed within the computer casing of all
computers after C1O2 fumigation. Figure 4-12 clearly
shows at least two of the distinct powder types found
(one white and one brown). Prior analysis by Alcatel-
Lucent identified four prevalent types of corrosion
particles present following C1O2 fumigation. These
particles contained aluminum and chlorine, aluminum
and nickel, iron, or nickel, each combined with oxygen,
carbon, and other elements. These particles are discussed
in further detail in the Alcatel-Lucent CBRTA report.16
Because the PC-Doctor® testing protocol required
opening the computer chassis, the dust inside the
computer chassis presented a safety hazard to operators.
The computers were placed on an anti-static mat within
a hood and vacuumed during monthly PC-Doctor® tests.
The cleaning operation may have improved the operation
of the computers by removing hygroscopic particles
that could have conducted or shorted any electrical
components within the chassis.
-------
Figure 4-12. Inside bottom of computer case exposed to C1O2 showing two distinct powders produced by
corrosion. White powder can be seen throughout the bottom, while rust-colored powder is seen primarily at the
rear of the case (along right edge in this figure).
In summary, no visible changes were recorded for
any Category 4 equipment that was exposed to either
BioQuell HPV or STERIS VHP fumigation technologies,
regardless of power state of the computers. However,
significant visible changes occurred to these same
computers that were exposed to C1O2 fumigation. These
changes included external and internal corrosion of metal
parts and the formation of powders inside the computer
casing. Also, one of the computer monitors experienced
discoloration (turned green).
Parts affected by the C1O2 fumigations included external
and internal stamped metal grids, external metal
slot covers, and the internal CPU heat sink. Internal
corrosion was more severe for the 3000 ppmv computers
that were powered ON but were idle, versus those that
were powered ON and were active. However, the most
severe and widespread corrosion was seen on the 12-
hour, 750 ppmv C1O2 fumigated computers (also ON and
idle). Although all computers had a CT of 9000 ppmv-hr,
the longer duration of the 750 ppmv exposure appears to
have contributed to the more significant corrosion seen.
Most, if not all, of the corrosion-generated powder may
be coming from the CPU. When the computers were
powered ON and were active, corrosion-generated
powder was blown off the CPU.
-------
-------
5.0
Data/Analysis/Functionality Tests
The results of functionality tests were reviewed for
each material pre-exposure, immediately post-exposure,
and then up to monthly thereafter for a period of one
year looking for instances of intermittent or repeated
failures. These tests ranged from simple stress tests
performed on gaskets to the highly detailed PC-Doctor®
Service Center™ 6 testing conducted on the Category 4
computers. Where changes were noted, all visual files
and written documentation were reviewed to provide a
detailed understanding of the effects of fumigation and
the different run conditions on that material/component.
For the Category 4 computers, failures are identified by
the component parts themselves (such as CD and DVD
drives) as well as the sub-component parts that are most
likely to lead to failure of that component.
5.1 Category 2 Materials
Functionality tests were performed on Category
2 materials before and after H2O2 treatment, then
periodically after exposure, and again at year's end. The
breakers used in the Cu and Al services were the same
10 amp breakers that were tested alone. Because of the
large number of breakers requiring testing, the breakers
(10 per run condition) and services were tested at 20
amps (or 200 percent). The minimum to maximum time
range to failure under these conditions is from 10 to 100
seconds. None of the beakers or services from any test
fell outside the acceptable testing range. The resistance
measurements over 1 year have an average standard
deviation of 36 percent and range between 0 and 4.1
ohms. No functionality changes were reported for any
Category 2 materials exposed to either the BioQuell or
STERIS H2O2 technologies.
5.2 Category 3 Materials
Functionality tests were performed on Category 3
materials before and after H2O2 treatment, monthly
for five months and then again at the one-year period.
Category 3 materials consisted of PDAs, cell phones,
fax machines, CDs, and DVDs. The results from these
functionality tests show that no changes occurred during
the one year observation period, with the exception of
one of the PDAs.
All six PDAs remained in their original working
condition with the exception of the PDA from test run
R05 (the low concentration STERIS VHP®, 250 ppm-hr
CT). All functioning PDAs were able to synchronize
with software installed on a desktop computer. The touch
screen capability was not compromised for any of the
working PDAs.
The malfunctioning R05 PDA failed to power on at
month 12 following the H2O2 fumigation. An internal
physical evaluation of the PDAs was not possible
without damaging the device, but the R05 PDA battery
was unable to take a charge. The PDA may not have
been functional due to a bad battery or as the result of
damaging effects of the Test Condition 6 fumigation.
However, since all electronic equipment other than R05
showed no signs of physical or functional damage, nor
did any of the electronic equipment from R06 (high
concentration STERIS VHP®, 1000 ppm-hr CT) show
physical or functional damage, the failure of R05 was
probably not related to the HPV exposure, but due to a
flawed PDA that would have failed under normal use.
There was no evidence that vaporized H2O2 had any
harmful effects on the operation of the cell phones. The
cell phones from each condition were able to send and
receive calls, provide clear audio on both ends of the
call, and maintain the same clear ringtone for incoming
calls as they had done prior to exposure. The keypads
for each phone remained fully operational. The batteries
maintained their capability to charge fully and showed
no physical signs of damage.
The fax machines from each test condition maintained
the same level of operation throughout the year.
The quality of the facsimiles was comparable at year
end to the quality of the facsimiles before exposure. The
telephone component of the fax machines also remained
in good working condition.
The same computer was used to test the CDs and DVDs
before and during the 12-month observation period
following exposure. No problems were encountered
reading the disks at any time. The sound quality of the
CDs after exposure was comparable to the sound quality
before exposure. Similarly, the sound and picture quality
of the DVDs showed no signs of degradation, however
a byte level comparison of the media before and after
exposure was not performed..
5.3 Category 4 Equipment
PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6 is commercially available
software designed to diagnose and detect computer
component failures. While the exact number and type of
-------
tests depend on the system being tested (see Appendix
C), for the case of the Category 4 equipment, a total of
172 tests were run. Some tests were not compatible with
Dell™ basic input/output system (BIOS) under Windows
and needed to be tested in the disk operating system
(DOS) environment. A complete list of the PC-Doctor®
Service Center™ 6 tests is shown in Appendix D.
The PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6 protocol was
developed and provided by Alcatel-Lucent for this effort.
Alcatel-Lucent chose PC-Doctor® in order to have an
industry-accepted standard method of determining pass
versus failure of the computer subsystems. PC-Doctor®
Service Center™ 6 functionality testing was conducted
pre-fumigation, one day post-fumigation, then monthly
for the next year, except for computers fumigated with
the BioQuell method, which were not tested the first
month after fumigation but were then tested monthly
afterwards. This testing provided valuable information
about the extent and time dependence of the degradation
of these computers following the various fumigation
scenarios. All computers were kept under ambient
laboratory conditions.
Standard protocol called for each test to be performed
once. If any particular test failed the first time, the
computer was tested a second time to correct for
possible human error. A test that failed the second time
was labeled "Fail". If the test failed the first time but
passed the second time, it was labeled "Pass2". There
were certain instances when the computer did not allow
certain tests to be run. These instances were listed as
"False-Fail", because though the test was not run, it was
considered a failure since the test should have been able
to run. For tabulation, a score of 1,000 was assigned to
each "Fail" and "False-Fail", while a "Pass2" received a
score of 1. During each pre- and post-fumigation testing
period, a total PC-Doctor® score was assigned to each
computer based upon the number of tests that failed on
the first or second attempt.
Table 5-1 shows this score for each month for each
computer. For months and computers where tests
received a "Fail", the specific tests that failed are listed
by test number for the month in adjacent columns.
-------
Table 5-1. PC-Doctor® Tests That Failed Twice for all Computer Fumigation Scenarios
(Yellow highlights = DVD-related components)
Control Conditions (No Fumigation, 40% Rh
Control Conditions (No Fumigation, 40% RH)
decon 106
Day Score
-82
1
41
75
103
133
156
190
225
271
302
330
366
0
0
0
0
5000
5000
6000
12000
14000
13000
12001
6000
1002
Failed Tests
54 ,55 ,56 ,57 ,58 |
54,55,56,57,58|
47,54,55,56,57,58
46 ,48 ,49 ,50 ,51 ,52 ,53 ,54 ,55 ,56 ,57 ,58
47,48,49,50,51 ,52,53,54,55,56,57,58 60,61
46 , 47 ,48 ,49 ,50 ,5 1 ,52 ,53 ,54 ,55 ,56 ,57 ,58
47 ,48 ,49 ,50 ,51 ,52 ,53 ,54 ,55 ,56 ,57 ,58
53,54,55,56,57,58
53
decon 107
Day Score
-82
1
41
75
103
133
156
190
226
273
330
366
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Failed Tests
3000ppmvCIO2,75%
decon 118
Day Score
-39
1
35
63
95
162
227
282
312
346
368
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Failed Tests
3000 ppm v CIO2, 75% RH, 3 hours, ComputerOn
decon 123
Day
-7
1
35
63
95
128
148
177
206
232
275
310
345
367
Score
0
0
0
1
0
5000
0
0
0
1
5000
5000
17
1
Failed Tests
13,23,26,36,37
59,60,61,62,63
59,60,61,62,63
3000 ppmv CI02,75% RH, 3 hours, Computers On
3000 ppmv CI02,75% RH, 3 hours, Computers On
3000 ppm* CI02,75% RH, 3 hours, Computers On
decon 120
Day Score
-31
1
23
58
86
121
154
184
213
239
283
317
352
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Failed Tests
decon 121
Day Score
-31
1
29
58
86
121
154
184
213
239
282
317
357
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Failed Tests
decon 122
Day Score
-32
1
29
58
86
121
154
184
213
239
282
317
354
0
0
2
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5000
1
Failed Tests
59,60,61,62,63
-------
750 ppmv CIO?. 75% RH. 12 hours, Computers On
I ppmv CI02. 75% RH. 12 hours, Computers (
decon 115
Day Score
-95
1
29
57
81
109
141
172
212
0
8000
7000
7000
7000
7000
7000
7000
Failed Tests
47,53,54,55,56,57,58,100
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
Computer fails to boot - hard drive
failure
decon 116
Day Score
-95
1
29
57
81
109
141
172
212
263
291
317
365
0
10004
10001
8000
7000
7000
7000
7000
7000
8000
7001
7001
8001
Failed Tests
47,53,54,55,56,57,58,75,76,77
47,53,54,55,56,57,58,75,76,77
47,53,54,55,56,57,58,100
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58,62
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,52,53,54,55,56,57,58
750 ppmv CI02, 75% RH, 12 hours, Computers On
decon 117
Day Score
-95
1
29
57
85
0
5000
0
0
Failed Tests
5875,76,77,100
Computer fails to boot - hard
drive failure
EiioQuell 45g HjO; injection, Computer Off
BioQuell 45g HjOj injection, Computer Off
decon 104
Day Score
-1
1
70
97
125
156
183
218
245
325
363
0
0
1
0
0
5000
5000
5000
5000
3000
4000
Failed Tests
59,60,61,62,63
59,60,61,62,63
59,60,61,62,63
59,60,61,62,63
59,61,62
59,60,61,62
decon 105
Day Score
-1
1
69
106
126
159
195
232
272
317
366
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Failed Tests
-------
BioQjell 45g HjOj injection, Computer On
BioQuell 45g HjOj injection, Computer C
decon 100
Day Score
1
74
102
161
195
224
252
286
330
368
0
[I
[I
0
0
1
0
0
3000
0
Failed Tests
48,49,50
decon 101
Day Score
-6
1
69
97
125
156
190
219
247
281
325
363
0
0
11000
1000
3
0
3002
7000
13000
7000
3000
7000
Failed Tests
47,48,49,50,51,53,54,55,56,57,58
76
55,56,57
52,53,54,55,56,57,58
46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
48,49,50
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
BioQuell 45g htOj injection, Computer (
decon 102
Day Score
-8
1
68
96
124
155
189
218
246
280
324
362
0
0
15000
o
0
0
4
0
2
3000
8001
4000
Failed Tests
47,48,49,50,51 ,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,70,71 ,72
48,49,92
47,53,54,55,56,57,58,92
48,49,50,92
Steris 250 ppmv HjOj, 4 hours, Computer Off
Steris 250 ppmv HjOj, 4 hours, Computer (
decon 112
Day Score
-54
1
28
93
179
213
248
294
332
354
371
0
0
0
0
0
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
Failed Tests
62
62
decon 113
Day Score
-55
1
27
56
92
122
177
212
293
324
353
370
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3000
3000
2000
Failed Tests
48,49,50
48,49,50
48,49
-------
Steris 250 ppmv h^O;, 4 hours, Computers On
Steris 250 ppmv H^Oj, 4 hours, Computers On
decon 109
Day Score
-59
1
28
56
92
122
154
178
210
242
298
331
359
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2000
1000
4001
3001
Failed Tests
48,49
48
47,48,49,50
48,49,50
decon 110
Day Score
-56
1
27
55
91
121
153
177
209
241
297
330
358
0
0
12000
3
2
4000
4000
5000
5000
4000
5000
5000
4001
Failed Tests
47 ,48 ,49 ,50 ,51 ,52 ,53 ,54 ,55 ,56 ,57 ,58
54,55,56,57
54,55,56,57
54,55,56,57,58
54,55,56,57,58
53,54,55,56
54,55,56,57,58
54,55,56,57,58
54,55,56,57
decon 111
Day Score
-58
1
25
53
89
119
151
175
239
295
329
351
369
0
0
1
1
1
3000
5000
6000
6000
7000
7000
7000
7002
Failed Tests
54,55,56
54,55,56,57,58
47,54,55,56,57,58
47,54,55,56,57,58
47,54,55,56,57,58,62
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
47,53,54,55,56,57,58
-------
The test numbers are described in Table 5-2. All yellow-
highlighted test numbers are related to DVD drive
components. Table 5-3 provides a total of all incidents
of PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6 tests that received a
"Fail." For each test condition, the results are shown for
each of the computers that underwent year-long testing.
The four computers missing from the list in Table 5-3
that were listed in Table 3-5 are the ones that were sent
to Alcatel-Lucent for the detailed IA&E testing. These
computers were Decon 108 (Control), Deconll9 (3000
ppmv C1O2), Decon 103 (BioQuell HPV, OFF), and
Decon 114 (STERIS VHP, OFF).
Table 5-2. PC-Doctor® Failed Test Correlation to PC Subsystem Components
Failed PC-Doctor8
Test
1
13
23
26
36
37
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
70
71
72
75
76
77
92
100
Subsystems
SYSTEMS DETECTION
Intel(R) Core™2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz CPU:0
Intel(R) Core™2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz CPU:1
512 MB DDR2-SDRAM (666 MHz)
HL-DT-ST DVD+-RW GSA-H31N
Floppy disk drive
Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx Gigabit Controller
SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio Driver
Intel(R) Q965/Q963 Express Chipset Family
PCDoctor® USB Test Key 2.0 USB Device
SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio Driver
Test Description
Does Computer correctly detect its systems?
Multicore Test
Multicore Test
Pattern Test
Modulo20 Test
Moving Inversion Test
(DVD-RW Drive) Read Write Test
(CD-R Drive) Read Write Test
(DVD Drive) Linear Seek Test
(DVD Drive) Random Seek Test
(DVD Drive) Funnel Seek Test
(DVD Drive) Linear Read Compare Test
(DVD+R Drive) Read Write Test
(CD-RW Drive) Read Write Test
(CD-ROM Drive) Linear Seek Test
(CD-ROM Drive) Random Seek Test
(CD-ROM Drive) Funnel Seek Test
(CD-ROM Drive) Linear Read Compare Test
(CD-ROM Drive) CD Audio Test
Linear Seek Test
Random Seek Test
Funnel Seek Test
Surface Scan Test
Pattern Test
Network Link Test
TCP/IP Internal Loopback Test
Network External Loopback Test
Sound Interactive Test
AVI Interactive Test
Scan Test Port 6
Rough Audio Test
-------
Table 5-3. Total "Fail" Results over Year-Long Observation and Testing Period
Fumigation
Technology
Test
Condition
Computer A
Computer B
Computer C
None
Computer
Off
74
0
NA
3000 ppmv
C1O2, 3 hr.
Computer
Off
0
15
NA
3000 ppmv
C1O2, 3 hr.
Computer
On
0
0
5
750 ppmv
C1O2, 12 hr.
Computer
On
5QHD
93
5 HD
BioQuell, 45 g
H2O2 injection,
1 hr dwell
Computer Off
27
0
NA
BioQuell, 45 g
H2O2 injection,
1 hr dwell
Computer On
3
52
30
Steris, 250 ppmv
H2O2, 4 hr dwell
Computer Off
2
8
NA
Steris, 250
ppmv H2O2, 4
hr dwell
Computer On
10
48
48
NA = Not Applicable. These computers were sent to Alcatel-Lucent for detailed IA&E testing.
HD = Hard drive failure.
As an example, Table 5-1 shows DECON106 with a score
of 5,000 for Day 103 (after fumigation) and 12001 for Day
302. These numbers mean that during Day 103 testing, 5
specific tests received a "Fail" or "False-Fail" during testing
(5 x 1,000), while during Day 302, 1 test received a "Pass2"
(1 x 1) and 12 tests received a "Fail" or "False-Fail" (12 x
1,000). The column to the right shows the ID of the test(s)
that failed. By cross-referencing these Failed Test numbers
(54 through 58) with Table 5-2, one can determine that on
Day 103, all failures were related to the CD drive. Because
the DVD/CD drive is a frequent cause of failure, these
have been highlighted in yellow. During Day 225 testing.
two tests IDs (60 and 61) received a "Fail" but were not
highlighted; Table 5-2 identifies these tests as testing the
floppy disk drive.
As the failed tests in Table 5-1 were examined.
regardless of fumigation scenario, the vast majority
(83.3%) were found to be related to the DVD drive
(yellow highlight). No information was available to
ascertain which drive component failed. A significant
amount of the remaining failures (14%) were related to
the floppy drive. Other failures, each one accounting for
no more than 3.7 percent of the total failures during the
year-long testing period, included a broken USB port
(physically broken, perhaps due to repeated use), "False-
Fail" detections of processor and memory capability, and
intermittent sound card and network controller failures.
The intermittent "Pass 2" results (each shown in Table
5-1 as a score of 1) also point to vulnerabilities in the
same subsystems (DVD and floppy drives).
In most cases, comparison of the results from fumigated
computers to the control computer set does not suggest
that fumigation significantly affected the performance
of the computer. The CD/DVD drive in one control
computer performed very poorly, seemingly related to a
SCSI interface. Many of the CD/DVD failures in other
computers also indicated a failure in the SCSI interface.
However, profound effects of 750 ppmv C1O2 fumigation
were seen when two of the three computers lost all
functionality. Decon 115 experienced intermittent "Blue
Screens of Death" and PC-Doctor® Tests Batch 4 failures
before losing the ability to run the Windows® operating
system on day 212 after fumigation. On day 82 after
fumigation, Decon 117 was unable to run Windows®.
Decon 117 ran in DOS, until it experienced a complete
failure to power on day 109 after fumigation.
When Decon 115 failed to power on, the monitor was
switched with the one from Decon 117. The possibility
of system damage to Decon 117 resulting from the use
of faulty equipment from Decon 115 is unlikely but
cannot be discounted. Even though PC-Doctor® was run
monthly, PC-Doctor® gave no indication of upcoming
computer failures. For example, DECON 117 ran
flawlessly for two months prior to its system failure.
Corrosion or corrosion by-products following C1O2
fumigation probably caused failures in one of the
subsystems involved in writing to disk, such as
Random Access Memory (RAM), the cache, or the disk
controller. We have seen notable failures in the dual
in-line memory module (DIMM) RAM in previous
research. The failure, wherever it was, prevented proper
writing of the registry, probably on shutdown. This error
caused unrecoverable failure of the machine.
The harsh nature of the 750 ppmv C1O2 fumigation
conditions was noted when severe corrosion was seen
on the CPU heat sink fins and rust was observed on the
power supply interior and exterior screens on all three
computers on the day following fumigation. All three
computers experienced high levels of physical and
functional deterioration over the 12 month observation
period. The 750 ppmv C1O2 fumigation condition proved
to be unsuitable for the Category 4 materials.
Not listed here are other intermittent problems associated
with a computer but not detected during PC-Doctor®
Service Center™ 6 testing. In particular, Decon 118
(3000 ppmv C1O2), which had zero PC-Doctor® Service
Center™ 6 failures, suffered 3 "Blue Screens of Death"
over the year-long study. This observation suggests that
significant damage may have occurred due to fumigation
that was not detected by PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6.
-------
6.0
Fumigation Effectiveness
and Fumigation Safety
6.1 Fumigation Effectiveness
Bis were used to obtain an indication of the potential
impact of local conditions on the effectiveness of the
fumigation process to inactivate spores potentially
located within the computer. Specifically, the B.
atrophaeus Bis were used to investigate C1O2 sporicidal
effectiveness and Geobacillus stearothermophilus Bis
were used to investigate H2O2 sporicidal effectiveness,
both in the bulk chamber and for localized hot spots
inside the computers where the RH may be lower
because of the heat generated by the computer
electronics during operation. The Bis provided a
qualitative result of growth or no growth after an
incubation period of seven days. Bis have been shown
not to correlate directly with achieving target fumigation
conditions for B A spores or inactivation of spores on
common building surfaces.7 While Bis do not necessary
indicate achievement, they provide a sufficient indication
of a failure to achieve successful fumigation conditions.7
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show the locations of the Bis within
each computer. These locations were chosen based on
the available mounting surfaces that afforded relatively
unrestricted air flow. Two Bis were placed on the side
cover (Figure 6-1) in areas of high air flow. Three
more Bis (Figure 6-2) were placed inside the computer
to capture both high and low air flow locations. Bis
were also present in the MEC chamber, one on top of
each Category 4 computer case and two between the
keyboards and monitors on the top shelf of the MEC
chamber.
Figure 6-1. Location of two of the five Bis inside the computer side cover.
-------
Figure 6-2. Location of the remaining three Bis in both high and low air flow locations inside the computer.
Table 6-1 details the effect of each fumigation scenario
on BI viability in both the fumigation chamber and
inside the computers. Bis were not placed in the control
runs that were conducted without fumigant since control
Bis accompanied each set of fumigated Bis. Note that
different Bis were used with the two different fumigants,
and that for H2O2 fumigations, three separate fumigations
were used to test conditions simultaneously, so the
chamber Bis are grouped across test conditions.
Table 6-1. BI Deactivation in the Chamber and Computers for each Fumigation Scenario
Fumigation
Technology
Test
Condition
Chamber
Computer A
Computer B
Computer C
None
Computer
Off
BioQuell, 45 g
H2O2 injection,
1 hr dwell
Computer Off
BioQuell, 45 g
H2O2 injection,
1 hr dwell
Computer On
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
STERIS, 250
ppmv H2O2,
4 hr dwell
Computer
Off
STERIS, 250
ppmv H2O2, 4 hr
dwell
Computer On
93
80
80
100
100
20
100
3000 ppmv
C1O2, 3 hr.
Computer
On, Idle
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3000 ppmv
C1O2, 3 hr.
Computer
On, Active
100
100
100
80
750 ppmv
C1O2, 12
hr.
Computer
On, Idle
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Data not available
-------
All Bis used during the BioQuell fumigations were
deactivated, in contrast to the efficacy of the STERIS
fumigation conditions. The second fumigation
("Computer B") seemed particularly ineffective, though
the test conditions (as shown in Table 6-2) were in the
same range as the first and third fumigation. Fumigation
B accounted for the only chamber BI that was not
deactivated.
Fumigation B showed a significant difference in the
deactivation of STERIS Bis in the OFF computer versus
the ON computer. One explanation for this observation
might be that the higher temperature experienced in
the ON computer decreased the RH and decreased the
efficacy of the fumigant.
BI placement did not seem to be a factor in deactivation.
In STERIS Fumigation A, BIS, the location with
the highest air flow, was the only BI that was not
deactivated. For Fumigation B, BI4 was the only BI
deactivated in the OFF computers, and the only BI not
deactivated in the ON computers. Variation in the Bis
themselves may be more responsible for these results
than the small local variations in the RH and temperature
within a single computer.
6.2 Health and Safety Effects after
Fumigation
As discussed in Section 4.3 and in previous reports,5
fumigation with C1O2 produced large amounts of dust
inside the computers. When the computers were opened
the dust could be seen and an acrid smell (attributed to
hydrogen chloride) could be sensed. Vacuuming of the
visible dust not only served to remove the majority of
this probable health hazard and prevent the dust from
being spread outside the computers by the cooling fan
or during maintenance and cleaning procedures, but also
may have assisted in keeping all computers almost fully
operational after an entire calendar year.
No dust was produced following fumigation with H2O2,
nor were any other by-products of fumigation detected.
Table 6-2. Average Conditions during STERIS Fumigation
Fumigation
A
B
C
HA
(ppmv)
245.6
252.2
235.5
Temperature (°C)
28.7
30.2
29.2
RH
(%)
33.4
31.0
32.2
Dwell CT (ppmVhours)
1049.4
1067.9
1100.2
Dwell length (minutes)
252.4
263.3
274.7
-------
-------
7.0
Quality Assurance
The objective of this study was to assess the impact
of H2O2 on material and electronic equipment due
to fumigation at conditions known to be effective
against biological threats. The Data Quality Objectives
(DQOs) address this impact using visual inspection
(both externally and internally) to assess the loss in
value or use of the tested material/equipment, as well
as functionality of the material/electronic equipment.
The following measurements were considered critical to
accomplishing part or all of the project objectives:
• Real-time fumigant concentrations
• Temperature
• RH
• Fumigation time sequence
• Material inspection and electronic equipment
functionality time sequence
• Growth/no growth of the Bis.
7.1 Data Quality
The QAPP22 in place for this testing was followed with
few deviations; many of the deviations were documented
in the text above. Deviations included needing a stand-
alone control system for the STERIS and reducing
frequency of visual inspections. These deviations did not
substantially affect data quality. The HOBO® data did
not result in a reliable data set.
7.7.7 Data Quality Indicator Goals for Critical
Measurements
The Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) listed in Table
7-1 are specific criteria used to quantify how well the
collected data meet the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs).
Table 7-1. DQIs for Critical Measurements
Measurement Parameter
Real-time C1O2 concentration
at the exit of the MEC test
Chamber
Real-time C1O2 concentration
inside the MEC test Chamber
Extracted C1O2, high
concentration
Real-time H2O2 concentration
inside the MEC test Chamber
Extracted H2O2 concentration
inside the MEC test Chamber
Relative humidity
Differential time
Temperature inside the isolation
chamber
Analysis Method
ClorDiSys EMS monitor
(0. 1 - 30 mg/L)
ClorDiSys GMP monitor
(0. 1 - 30 mg/L)
Modified SM 4500-C1O2 E
Analytical Technology Corp.
electrochemical sensor
OSHAVI-6 Method
RH probes (0-100%)
Computer clock
Thermocouple
Accuracy
15%ofSM-4500-E
15%ofSM-4500-E
5% of Standard
± 10% full scale
from factory
3% of prepared
standard solution
±5.0% full scale2
from factory
1 % of reading
+ 2°F
Detection Limit
0.1 mg/L
36 ppm
0.1 mg/L
36 ppm
0.1 mg/L
(solution)
1 ppm
0.1 ppm for
1 00 L sample
NA
0.5 sec
NA
Completeness1
%
95
95
100
95
100
95
95
95
'Completeness goals of 100 % are used for those parameters that are performed manually and infrequently; 95 % is used for those data streams that
will be logged automatically.
2 Stated as 3.5% in QAPP however, at the time we were using the criteria of ± 5% to determine if we should switch sensors.
-------
The accuracy goal for the ClorDiSys EMS monitor
was modified to 15% of the SM-4500E from ± 0.3
mg/L of the GMP. This change was necessary because
the SM-4500-E samples were the basis on which
the concentration inside the MEC test chamber was
determined, not the GMP monitor. Also, the accuracy
of the GMP monitor is determined by the SM-4500-E
titration. The same should therefore be the case for the
EMS monitor.
The accuracy goal for the Analytical Technology Corp.
electrochemical sensor, or ATI, was modified from
factory from 5% of reading (stated in the QAPP) to ±
10% full scale to reflect the actual factory specification
for this instrument
The QAPP originally stated that the target accuracy for
the RH probes would be 3.5% full scale from factory.
However; the factory specification is 5% full scale
from factory. The accuracy goal for the RH probe was
subsequently modified to reflect the factory specification.
7.7.2 Data Quality Indicators Results
The accuracy of the real-time C1O2 monitors was
assessed with respect to the Modified SM 4500-C1O2
E Method. lodometric titration was the intended
method for assessing the accuracy of the real time or
H2O2 monitor, but this method proved to be unreliable.
Corrections to the real time concentration set-point
were made so that the target concentration was attained
according to the titration measurement. Accuracy of the
real-time C1O2 and H2O2 monitors was not evaluated due
to unavailability of a constant-concentration source and
the feedback nature of their operation in this specific
testing setup. The accuracy of the extractive titration
was assessed with respect to a standard solution.
7.7.2.7 H2O2 Fumigations
Tables 7-2 and 7-3 show the actual DQIs for the H2O2
fumigations using BioQuell and STERIS.
Table 7-2. DQIs for Critical Measurements for BioQuell Fumigations
Measurement Parameter
Real-time H2O2
concentration inside the
MEC test Chamber
Extracted H2O2
concentration inside the
MEC test Chamber
RH probes (0-100 %)
Differential Time
Thermocouple
Fumigation A
Accuracy
(%)
±10%'
NA2
15
1.0
0
Completeness (%)
100
NA2
NA
100
100
Fumigation B
Accuracy
(%)
±10%'
NA2
1
1.0
1
Completeness (%)
100
NA2
100
100
100
Fumigation C
Accuracy (%)
±10%'
NA2
0
1.0
0
Completeness (%)
100
NA2
67%
100
1
'The ATIs were zeroed and spanned with a standard H2O2(V) prior to each test and were within the factory specifications during each BioQuell
fumigation.
2The accuracy for the extracted H2O2 concentration inside the MEC test chamber could not be determined due to the unavailability of a H2O2(V)
standard for the OSHA VI-6 Method as a basis for comparison.
During BioQuell Fumigation A, the RH probe did
not meet the accuracy goal of ± 5%. RH probe data
for Fumigations B and C satisfied all accuracy and
completeness requirements.
The 60 minute BioQuell fumigations required that data
be logged every 10 seconds in order to meet the accuracy
requirement for differential time. The actual logging
interval was 10 seconds, so all fumigations met the
requirement.
The thermocouple met the accuracy and completeness
requirements for all BioQuell fumigations.
-------
Table 7-3. DQIs for Critical Measurements for Steris Fumigations
Measurement
Parameter
Real-time H2O2
concentration inside the
MEC test Chamber
Extracted H2O2
concentration inside the
MEC test Chamber
RH probes (0-100 %)
Differential Time
Thermocouple
Fumigation A
Accuracy
(%)
±10%'
NA2
3.6
0.25
2
Completeness (%)
100
NA2
100
100
100
Fumigation B
Accuracy (%)
+/-10%1
NA2
6.6
0.25
1
Completeness (%)
100
NA2
NA
100
100
Fumigation C
Accuracy (%)
±10%'
NA2
1.3
0.63
1
Completeness (%)
100
NA2
67%
100
100
'The ATIs were zeroed and spanned with a standard H2O2(V) prior to each test and were within the factory specifications during each BioQuell
fumigation.
2The accuracy for the extracted H2O2 concentration inside the MEC test chamber could not be determined due to the unavailability of a H2O2(V)
standard for the OSHA VI-6 Method as a basis for comparison.
The RH probe met the accuracy goals for all STERIS
fumigations except Fumigation B. For this test, the probe
slightly exceeded the target of ± 5%.
Differential time and thermocouple requirements were
satisfied for all STERIS fumigations.
7.7.2.2 CIO2 Fumigations
Table 7-4 shows how the DQI parameters met the goals
for the CIO fumigation during exposure.
Table 7-4. DQIs for Critical Measurements for C1O2 Fumigations
Measurement Parameter
ClorDiSys EMS monitor
(0.1-30mg/L)
ClorDiSys GMP monitor
(0.1-30mg/L)
Modified SM 4500-C1O2 E
RH probes (0-100 %)
Differential Time
Thermocouple
Fumigation A
Accuracy (%)
39
18
2
2.9
0.08
± 1.5°F
Completeness
(%)
0
16.6
100
100.0
100
100
Fumigation B
Accuracy
(%)
8.5
11.2
2
NA
0.33
±2.0°F
Completeness (%)
84.6
90.9
100
NA
100
99.7
Neither the accuracy nor the completeness criteria for
the EMS monitor were met for C1O2 Fumigation A. The
EMS monitor consistently read lower than the SM-
4500-E throughout the duration of the test. Fumigation B
met the accuracy goals for the EMS monitor.
Both STERIS fumigations met the accuracy and
completeness goals for all other parameters with the
exception of the RH probe for Fumigation B. The same
probe was used for Fumigation B; unfortunately, there
was no relative humidity comparison performed between
a standard and the probe to determine the probe's
accuracy.
7.2 Quantitative Acceptance Criteria
The quantitative acceptance criteria were associated with
targeted setting conditions in the MEC test chambers
during the entire exposure time. These acceptance
criteria are listed in Table 7-5.
-------
Table 7-5. Acceptance Criteria for Critical Measurements
Measurement Parameter
Real-time C1O2 concentration inside the MEC
test chamber
Extracted C1O2 inside the MEC test chamber
Real-time H2O2 concentration inside the MEC
test chamber
Extracted H2O2 inside the MEC test chamber
Relative humidity inside both the MEC test and
control chambers
Temperature inside both the MEC test and
control chambers
Analysis Method
ClorDiSys GMP monitor
(0.1 - 30 mg/L), InterScan LD223 (0-200 ppm-
with dilution)
Modified SM 4500-C1O2 E
Analytical Technology Corp. electrochemical
sensor
OSHAVI-6 Method
RH probes (0-1 00%)
Thermistor
Precision
RSD (%)
± 10%
±15%
+_5%
+_ 10%
±5%
±5%
7.2.7 Quantitative Acceptance Criteria Results
7.2.1.1 Hf>2 Fumigations
Table 7-6 shows the precision expressed in RSD (%) for
the BioQuell fumigations during injection.
Table 7-6. Precision (RSD %) Criteria for BioQuell Fumigations
Measurement Parameter
Analytical Technology Corp. electrochemical sensor
OSHAVI-6 Method
RH probes (0-100 %)
Thermistor
Fumigation
A
NA
NA3
3.5
1.2
B
NA
NA3
3.1
0.6
C
NA
NA3
4.0
1.1
3 The accuracy for the extracted H2O2 concentration inside the MEC test chamber could not be determined due to the unavailability of a H2O2(V)
standard for the OSHA VI-6 Method as a basis for comparison.
The precision of the BioQuell data could not be
determined due to the nature of the fumigations. Proper
operation of the BioQuell system is not dependent on
concentration, but on achieving condensation conditions
by varying starting RH, injection amounts, and dwell
time.
The OSHA VI-6 Method for extractive sampling proved
to be unreliable therefore the results from this method
were excluded from use during data analysis.
Table 7-7 shows the precision expressed in RSD (%) for
the STERIS fumigations during dwell time.
Table 7-7. Precision (RSD %) Criteria for STERIS Fumigations
Measurement Parameter
Analytical Technology Corp. electrochemical sensor
OSHA VI-6 Method
RH probes (0-100 %)
Thermistor
Fumigation
A
NA
NA3
2.7
1.1
B
NA
NA3
2.2
2.3
C
NA
NA3
1.5
0.9
3 The accuracy for the extracted H2O2 concentration inside the MEC test chamber could not be determined due to the unavailability of a H2O2(V)
standard for the OSHA VI-6 Method as a basis for comparison.
-------
7.2.1.2 CIO2 Fumigations
Table 7-8 shows the precision expressed in RSD (%) for
the C102
Table 7-8. Precision (RSD %) Criteria for CIO Fumigations
Measurement Parameter
ClorDiSys GMP monitor (0.1-30 mg/L), InterScan LD223
(0-200 ppm-with dilution)
Modified SM 4500-C1O2 E
RH probes (0-1 00%)
Thermistor
Fumigation
A
4.7
4.5
0.1
0.7
B
4.7
0.0
1.3
0.5
All data from CIO fumigation satisfied the precision requirements.
7.3 Audits
This project was assigned Quality Assurance (QA)
Category III and did not require technical systems or
performance evaluation audits.
-------
-------
All Category 2 and 3 materials demonstrated
sufficient compatibility with H2O2 vapor. The only
reported functionality failure was with a PDA and it is
inconclusive whether the failure was a result of H2O2
vapor exposure or a random equipment failure.
In this study, all Category 2 and 3 materials proved to
be resistant to H2O2 exposure under all conditions tested.
As discussed in previous reports,5 C1O2 gas can cause
severe corrosion on several types of structural materials
and discoloration of wiring insulation. Exposure to H2O2
vapor resulted in none of the damaging effects of the
C1O2 gas. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), therefore, can be
considered the more compatible fumigant of the two.
Alcatel-Lucent reported noticeable damage to optical
plastics following H2O2 fumigations.15 The limited
sample size for these long term tests did not allow
confirmation of those results, as one of the two control
computers suffered more DVD failures than any
fumigated one.
Results from the 750 ppmv C1O2 fumigation suggest that
750 ppmv was more damaging to Category 4 materials
than the 3000 ppmv C1O2 fumigation. Although both
fumigation concentrations resulted in severe physical
damage to the computers by promoting rusting and
corrosion, only the computers exposed to 750 ppmv
C1O2 experienced unrecoverable failures. It is not readily
understood why the lower concentration (same RH)
fumigation was more damaging; however, the same
sample size and difference in computer batches cannot
be ruled out as confounding parameters.
8.0
Conclusion
-------
-------
9.0
Recommendations
This section provides recommendations resulting
from the experiments. The recommendations relate
to functional failures of various tested materials
and electronic components that were subjected to
decontamination scenarios using C1O2. There were no
documented effects or failures associated with the use of
vaporized H2O2, with the exception of noticeable damage
found by Alcatel-Lucent on optical plastics following
H2O2 fumigations. Recommendations for the use of both
fumigants are presented below.
9.1 Corrective Actions
Corrective actions can be implemented immediately
after the fumigation event to reduce/prevent further
degradation of sensitive materials and components.
These corrective actions include making copies of all
sensitive documents and electronic records as if they
were going to be altered, and replacing optical devices in
critical components.
9.2 Listing of "At Risk" Material and
Electronic Components
During the planning stages of a remediation, inventory
at-risk components, including those that contain
affected subsystems, such as optical disc drives.
These components could be candidates for alternative
decontamination techniques or immediate replacement
after fumigation.
9.3 Further Research
A research plan to investigate additional materials/
electronic component compatibilities that are vital to
other high-end electronic equipment, but not covered
under these experiments, can be developed to assist
with the recommendation in Section 9.2. The list may
include the compatibility of lubricated metals, aluminum
alloys, and other types of plastic used in the electronics
industry. As more information becomes available on
the effectiveness of additional fumigation conditions,
investigation of these additional fumigation conditions
is important. In planning activities for remediation, the
inventory of at-risk items and components can be done
so that these items and components can be identified
for special alternative decontamination procedures or
immediate replacement.
-------
-------
10.0
References
1. Science Applications International Corp. 6.
Compilation of Available Data on Building
Decontamination Alternatives. EPA/600/R-05/036.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Homeland Security Research Center, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
March 2005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/nhsrc/
pubs/600r05036.pdf.
2. Rogers, J.V; Sabourin, C.L.K.; Choi, Y.W.; Richter, 7.
W.R.; Rudnicki, D.C.; Riggs, K.B.; Taylor, M.L.;
Chang, J. Decontamination assessment of Bacillus
anthracis, Bacillus subtilis, and Geobacillus
stearothermophilus spores on indoor surfaces
using a hydrogen peroxide gas generator. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National
Homeland Security Research Center. November
2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/NHSRC/
pubs/paperlndoorBacillus 111606.pdf.
3. Brickhouse, M. D.; Lalain, T.; Bartram, P. W.; Hall,
M; Hess, Z.; Reiff, L.; Mantooth, B.; Zander, Z.;
Stark, D.; Humphreys, P.; Williams, B.; Ryan, S.;
Martin, B.. Effects of Vapor-Based Decontamination
Systems on Selected Building Interior Materials: 8.
Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide. EPA/600/R-08/074.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Homeland Security Research Center. July 2008.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/NHSRC/
pubs/600r08074.pdf.
4. Brickhouse, M. D.; Lalain, T.; Bartram, P. W.; Hall,
M.; Hess, Z.; Mantooth, B.; Reiff, L.; Zander, Z.;
Stark, D.; Humphreys, P.; Ryan, S.; Martin, B..
Effects of Vapor-Based Decontamination Systems 9.
on Selected Building Interior Materials: Chlorine
Dioxide. EPA/600/R-08/054. U.S. Environmental 10.
Protection Agency, National Homeland Security
Research Center. April 2008. Available at http://
www.epa.gov/NHSRC/pubs/600r08054.pdf.
5. ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Compatibility of Material
and Electronic Equipment with Chlorine Dioxide
Fumigation, Assessment and Evaluation Report.
Prepared under Contract No. EP-C-04-023, Work
Assignment No. 4-50 for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Homeland Security
Research Center, Office of Research and
Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. July
2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/nhsrc/
pubs/600r!0037.pdf
Martin, G. Blair. Practical Experiences with
Technologies for Decontamination ofB. anthracis
in Large Buildings. In: 2003 AWMA/EPA
Indoor Air Quality Problems and Engineering
Solutions Specialty Conference and Exhibition,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. July 21-23, 2003.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/nhsrc/pubs/
paperLargeScaleDecon020607.pdf
Ryan, S. Biological Threat Agent Decontamination
Research and Development, National Homeland
Security Research Center (NHSRC) Systematic
Decontamination Studies. In: Dun, S., Report on
the 2007 Workshop on Decontamination, Cleanup,
and Associated Issues for Sites Contaminated with
Chemical, Biological, or Radiological Materials.
EPA/600/R-08/059. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development,
National Homeland Security Research Center,
Decontamination and Consequence Management
Division, Research Triangle Park, NC. May
2008. Available at http://www.epa.gov/NHSRC/
pubs/600r08059.pdf.
Herd, M. Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor (HPV) for
room/building decontamination following chemical
or biological attack. In Wood, J., Report on 2005
Workshop on Decontamination, Cleanup, and
Associated Issues for Sites Contaminated with
Chemical, Biological, or Radiological Materials.
EPA/600/R-05/083. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. October 2005. Available
at http://www.epa. gov/nhsrc/pubs/600r05083 .pdf.
Personal communication with William Pawelski,
STERIS Corp.
Satterfield, C., Stein, T, "Decomposition of
Hydrogen Peroxide Vapor on Relatively Inert
Surfaces", Ind. Eng. Chem., 1957, 49 (7), 1173-
1180.
-------
11. Rastogi, V; Ryan, S. Studies of the Efficacy of
Chlorine Dioxide Gas in Decontamination of
Building Materials Contaminated with Bacillus
anthracis Spores, In: Dun, S., Report on the
2006 Workshop on Decontamination, Cleanup,
and Associated Issues for Sites Contaminated
with Chemical, Biological, or Radiological
Materials. EPA/600/R-06/121 2007. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Homeland
Security Research Center, Decontamination and
Consequence Management Division, Research
Triangle Park, NC. January 2007. Available at http://
www.epa. gov/ordnhsrc/pubs/600r06121 .pdf.
12. Canter, D. A. In Remediating Sites with Anthrax
Contamination: Building on Experience. AWMA/
EPA Indoor Air Quality Problems and Engineering
Solutions Specialty Conference and Exhibition,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., July 21-23, 2003.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/NHSRC/pubs/
paperAnthraxRemediation020607 .pdf
13. Czarneski, M. Decontamination of a 65 Room
Animal Facility Using Chlorine Dioxide Gas.
In: Dun, S., Report on 2006 Workshop on
Decontamination, Cleanup, and Associated Issues
for Sites Contaminated with Chemical, Biological,
or Radiological Materials. EPA/600/R-06/121 2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Homeland
Security Research Center, Decontamination and
Consequence Management Division, Research
Triangle Park, NC. January 2007.
14. Bartram, P. W; Lynn, J. T., Reiff, L. P.; Brickhouse,
M. D.; Lalain, T. A.; Ryan, S.; Martin, B.; Stark,
D.. Material Demand Studies: Interaction of
Chlorine Dioxide Gas With Building Materials.
EPA/600/R-08/091. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. September 2008.
Available at http://nepis.epa.gov/EPA/html/DLwait.
htm?url=/Adobe/PDF/
P1005VFM.PDF.
15. CBRTA, LGS Innovations LLC, Alcatel - Lucent;
Assessment and Evaluation of the Impact of
Fumigation with Hydrogen Peroxide Technologies
on Electronic Equipment. Alcatel - Lucent 600
Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974; July
2009.
16. LGS Innovations, LLC. Assessment and Evaluation
of the Impact of Chlorine Dioxide Gas on Electronic
Equipment; publication pending; U.S. EPA:
Washington, D.C., 2009.
17. Payne, S., Clayton, M., Touati, A. Final Test Report
on: Chlorine Dioxide Measurement Techniques
Assessment and Comparisons. Prepared by
ARCADIS G&M, Inc. for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Homeland Security
Research Center, Decontamination and Consequence
Management Divisions, Research Triangle Park,
NC. June 9, 2006.
18. Lorcheim, P. (ClorDiSys Systems Inc.) Personal
communication. In (ARCADIS-US), D. F. N., Ed.
Research Triangle Park, NC, 2005.
19. ClorDiSys Systems Inc., ClorDiSys EMS Chlorine
Dioxide Monitoring System: System Operations
Guide. In vl.OOed.; 2002.
20. Standard Method 4500-C1O2-E. Amperometric
Method II. In: Eaton, A. D.; Clesceri, L. S.; Rice,
E. W.; Greenberg, A. E., Eds. Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st
ed. American Public Health Association, American
Water Works Association, and Water Environment
Federation. Washington, D.C., 2005.
21. ARCADIS G&M, Inc. Quality Assurance Project
Plan for Fumigant Permeability and Breakthrough
Curves, Revision 1. Prepared under Contract
No. EP-C-04-023, Work Assignment No. 1-50.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Homeland Security Research Center, Research
Triangle Park, NC. April 2006.
22. ARCADIS G&M, Inc. Quality Assurance Project
Plan for the Compatibility of Material and
Electronic Equipment during Fumigation. Prepared
under Contract No. EP-C-04-023, Work Assignment
No. 4-50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Homeland Security Research Center,
Research Triangle Park, NC. September 2008.
23. PC-Doctor Inc. PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6
Technical Brief. http://www.PC Doctor.com/files/
english/PC Doctor Service-Center-6 tech.pdf.
-------
Appendix A:
Computers Specifications for
Category 4 Testing
Base Unit
Processor
Memory
Keyboard
Monitor
Video Card
Hard Drive
Floppy Disk Drive
Operating System
Mouse
TBU
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM Drive
Speakers
Documentation Diskette
Factory Installed Software
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Installation
Service One
Dell™ OptiPlex™ 745 Minitower, Intel* Core™ 2 Duo E6400/2.13GHz, 2M, 1066FSB (222-5690)
NTFS File System, Factory Install (420-3699)
512MB, Non-FCC, 667MHz DDR2 1x512, Dell™ OptiPlex™ 745 (311-5037)
Dell™ USB Keyboard, No Hot Keys, English, Black, OptiPlex™ (310-8010)
Dell™ E157FP,15 Inch Flat Panel 15.0 Inch Viewable Image Size, OptiPlex™ and Latitude™ (320-
4962)
Integrated Video, Intel* GMA3000, Dell™ OptiPlex™ 745 (320-5169)
80GB SATA 3.0Gb/s and 8MB Data Burst Cache™, Dell™ OptiPlex™ 320 and 745 (341-4214)
3.5 inch,1.44MB,Floppy Drive Dell™ OptiPlex™ 320 and 745 Desktop or Minitower (341-3840)
Microsoft Windows* XP Professional Service Pack 2, with Media, Dell™ OptiPlex™ 320, 740 and 745
English, Factory Install (420-6287)
Dell™ USB 2-Button Entry Mouse with Scroll, Black, OptiPlex™ (310-8008)
RoHS Compliant Lead Free Chassis and Motherboard, Dell™ OptiPlex™ (464-1131)
16X DVDiRW SATA, Black, Roxio Creator™ Dell™ Edition, Dell™ OptiPlex™ 745 Desktop or
Minitower (313-4378)
No Speaker, Dell™ OptiPlex™ (313-1416)
Resource CD contains Diagnostics and Drivers for Dell™ OptiPlex™ Systems (313-7168)
Energy Smart, Energy Star Labeling, EIST for Dell™ OptiPlex™ (if applicable) (3 10-8344)
Non-Standard Service Option (900-9006)
Type 6 Contract -Next Business Day Parts Delivery, Initial Year (980-4740)
Dell™ Hardware Warranty, Initial Year (985-2477)
Dell™ Hardware Warranty, Extended Year(s) (985-2478)
Type 6 Contract -Next Business Day Parts Delivery, 2 yr Extended (970-8672)
Standard On-Site Installation Declined (900-9987)
Dell™ Federal KYHD Service (980-3067)
-------
-------
Appendix B:
Parts List of Copper Aluminum
Service Panels
C.E.S. (Garner)
214-A Garner Business Court,
Garner NC, 27529.
Phone: 919-661-1155
Pax: 919-661-8866
2mail: Gamer00155ces-iis.net
ARCADIS US INC
4915 PROSPECTUS EH
DURHAM NC
27713
Date:
Entered by:
Account :
PACKING SLIP
GAR/031103
01 Oct 2008
Page 1/1
Robert Carr
00150396001
Crder Number:
Qty Item
34 BR110
1 STEPPING fi HANDLING
14 PSS PS5266-X
100 SO-14/3
14 MADISON MCS-5QA560
14 C-E BR2417CPGP
100 MADISON L-51
30 NM-B-14/2 ALTJM
250 NM-S-14/2-ro-250C
14 RACO 192
7 PSS 3232-1
7 PSS 66Q-IG
14 MADISON CPB-50
14 PSS TPJ18-I
14 RACO 778
Description
SP 1CA 3R BREAKER
SHIPPING .; HANDLING
15A 125V PLUG
SO-14/3
1/2 CORD CCSN
7CA MLO FL LD CIS.
3/B 2SCR NMC CCKN
14/2 ALUM RCMEX
HM-B-14/2-CU-HG-250CL
4SQ 1-1/2D BCX CCMB KQ
DPLX RCPT-NEMA5-15R
SP 15A120V GRB AC SW
1/2 PLSTC INS BUSH
IV 2G TOG/DPLX PLT
4-IN SQ 1/2D 26 SW RING
5 Price Per
S.2T
92.15
E
936
449
26
25
500
215
34
55
74
12
66
183
E
E
.86 E
.02 M
.00 C
.00 E
.30 C
.00 M
.00 M
.50 C
.00 C
.50 C
.86 C
.07 C
.14 C
$ Goods
442.68 *
B2.15 *
96.04
93.60
€2.86
364.00
25.30
15.00
53.75
13.23
3. 85
5.22
1.80
9.25
25.72
Signature:
Prir.t. Same:
Goods Total:
Tax Total:
Total:
TUB K1SK IM THŁ KICO3 iHALl MLSS TO ZBX BU*SK CM OBLlVBUf, KIT Pal OXU13 JtEMAlH ZHB PttflfiRl'i DP HB ULLEft OHXU. >AIB
OOODS AU 9OEJ3 AO^DRDllH to VBMDOKa JUffi CXJH OMI O3BCimOHS OS AALB, OJtlBS OP KHIŁS UtŁ AVAIIJkliLA U[>DM
$1291.45
S87.38
§1381.83
-------
-------
Appendix C:
Subsystems of Category 4 Computers
(Provided by Alcatel-Lucent)
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Major subsystem
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard card connector
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard card connector
Motherboard card connector
Motherboard card connector
Description
Dual processor CPU chip
Dual processor CPU heat sink
IO Controller 1C
CMOS (CMOS RAM with RTC & NVRAM)
SDRAM memory cards (DIMM)
SRAM DIMM module board mounted connector
Graphics and Memory Controller Hub
Intel 82Q965 heat sink
SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) Flash Device:
ROM BIOS FWH (firmware hub) : contains
BIOS Setup program POST, PCI auto-config and
Plug&Play support
SuperlO Controller (contains floppy drive
controller, serial port controller, parallel port
controller, power management (fan) controller
LPC Interface TPM (Trusted Platform Module)
protects signature keys and encryption
LAN-On-Motherboard (NIC) with 10/100/GbE
support
Battery (3V Lithium)
Audio CODEC (compression/decompression)
Frequency timing generator/Real time clock
battery — mount and socket
SATA DriveO (hard drive)
S ATA Drivel (DVD drive)
SATA Drive4 (not connected)
SATA DriveS (not connected)
Front Panel Connector (ON/OFF switch, 2 USB
ports, front audio in/out ports)
PCI Expressxl6 connector (SLOT1) (not
connected)
PCI Expressxl6 connector (SLOT4) (not
connected)
PCI Connector (SLOT2)
Chipsets involved
Intel* Core™ 2 Duo E6400
Intel* Core™ 2 Duo E6400
Intel* 82801HB/82801HR
ICH8
Intel* 82801HB/82801HR
ICH8
Hyundai 512 MB DDRW-
SDRAM
Intel* 82Q965
Intel* 82Q966
MXIC MX25L8005
SMSCSCH5514D-NS
Broadcom BCM5754KM
Ethernet NIC and ATMEL
AT45DBOO IB Flash SPI
memory device
Panasonic CR2032 3V
Analog Devices HO Audio
SoundMAX CODEC AD1983
Intel* Core 2 Duo E6400,
ICS9LP5052 and 32.768k
crystal clock chip
Intel* 82801HB/82801HR
ICH8
Intel* 82801HB/82801HR
ICH8
Intel* 82801HB/82801HR
ICH8
Intel*82801HB/82801HR
ICH8
PC-Doctor8 Tests
this subsystem
(yes/no)
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
n
y
y
y
y
n
y
y
n
n
y
n
n
y
-------
#
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
Major subsystem
Motherboard card connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard cable connector
Motherboard component
Motherboard component
Motherboard component
Motherboard component
Motherboard component
Motherboard component
Motherboard component
Fan
Power supply module
Power supply module
Power supply module
Power supply cable to
motherboard 24 pin
connector
Floppy disk drive
Floppy disk drive
Floppy disk drive
Floppy disk drive
Floppy disk drive
Floppy disk drive
Hard drive
Hard drive
Hard drive
Hard drive
Hard drive
Hard drive
DVD Drive
DVD Drive
DVD Drive
DVD Drive
DVD Drive
DVD Drive
DVD Drive
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Description
PCI Connector (SLOT3)
Floppy drive connector
Serial connector (not connected)
Fan connector
Internal Speaker connector (not connected)
Processor power connector (4 pin)
Main power connector (24 pin)
Beep speaker
Capacitor
Resistor
Transistor
Choke
Solder bond pad -- specify location
screws and other mounting hardware
Main chassis fan
Electrical function
Mains power plugs (110V)
Chassis
Power cable
Chassis
Motor
Head
Power connector
Power cable
Data cable
Chassis
Motor
Head
Power connector
Power cable
Data cable
Chassis
Drive motor
Head
Power connector
Power cable
Data cable
Drawer open/close on chassis
Screen
Data Cable
Data Cable connector
Power Cable
Chipsets involved
PC-Doctor8 Tests
this subsystem
(yes/no)
y
y
n
n
n
y
y
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
y
n
n
y
n
y
y
y
y
y
n
y
y
y
y
y
n
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
-------
#
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Major subsystem
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Mouse
Mouse
Keyboard
Keyboard
Communications Port COM 1
Printer Port LPT1
USB Port 1 keyboard
USB Port 2 mouse
USB Port 1
USB Port 2
USB Port 3
USB Port 4
USB Port 5
USB Port 6
Network (LAN) Port
Audio out
Audio in
CASE
CASE
CASE
CASE
CASE
CASE
CASE
Description
Power Cable HOVplug
Video connector on chassis
Base of monitor stand
USB Data Cable
Mechanical operation
USB Data Cable
Mechanical operation
COM1 connector on chassis
LPT1 connector on chassis
USB connector on chassis
USB connector on chassis
USB connector on chassis
USB connector on chassis
USB connector on chassis
USB connector on chassis
USB connector on chassis
USB connector on chassis
Network (LAN) adapter connector on chassis
Audio line out connector (green) on chassis
Audio line in connector (blue & pink) on chassis
Removable side of case
Case interior floor
Case back panel screens
Case front panel
PCI Plates
Release Latch
Screws on exterior
Chipsets involved
PC-Doctor8 Tests
this subsystem
(yes/no)
y
y
n
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
-------
-------
Appendix D:
PC-Doctor® Service Center™ 6 Tests
Test#
Test
System Board
1
2
RTC Rollover Test
RTC Accuracy Test
Intel8 Core™ 2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz CPU:0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Register Test
Level 2 Cache Test
Math Register Test
MMX Test
SSE Test
SSE2 Test
SSE3 Test
SSSE3 Test
Stress Test
Multicore Test
Intel8 Core™ 2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz CPU:1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Register Test
Level 2 Cache Test
Math Register Test
MMX Test
SSE Test
SSE2 Test
SSE3 Test
SSSE3 Test
Stress Test
Multicore Test
CMOS
23
24
Checksum Test
Pattern Test
512 MB DDR2-SDRAM (666 MHz)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Pattern Test
Advanced Pattern Test
Bit Low Test
Bit High Test
Nibble Move Test
Checkerboard Test
Walking One Left Test
Walking One Right Test
Auxiliary Pattern Test
Address Test
Modulo20 Test
Moving Inversion Test
C:
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Linear Seek Test
Random Seek Test
Funnel Seek Test
Surface Scan Test
SMART Status Test
SMART Short Self Test
SMART Extended Self Test
SMART Conveyance Self Test
HL-DT-ST DVD+-RW GSA-H31N
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
56
57
58
59
60
61
(DVD-RW Drive) Read Write Test
(DVD-R Drive) Read Write Test
(CD-R Drive) Read Write Test
(DVD Drive) Linear Seek Test
(DVD Drive) Random Seek Test
(DVD Drive) Funnel Seek Test
(DVD Drive) Linear Read Compare Test
(DVD+R DL Drive) Read Write Test
(DVD+RW Drive) Read Write Test
(DVD+R Drive) Read Write Test
(CD-RW Drive) Read Write Test
CD-ROM Drive) Linear Seek Test
(CD-ROM Drive) Random Seek Test
(CD-ROM Drive) Funnel Seek Test
(CD-ROM Drive) Linear Read Compare Test
(CD-ROM Drive) CD Audio Test
Floppy disk drive
62
63
64
65
Linear Seek Test
Random Seek Test
Funnel Seek Test
Surface Scan Test
PCDoctor8 USB Test Key 2.0 USB Device
66
67
68
69
70
71
Scan Test Port 1
Scan Test Port 2
Scan Test Port 3
Scan Test Port 4
Scan Test Port 5
Scan Test Port 6
Intel8 Q965/Q963 Express Chipset Family
72
73
74
Primary Surface Test
Fixed Transformation and Lighting Test
Transformation and Lighting Stress Test
-------
Intel8 Q965/Q963 Express Chipset Family
75
76
77
Primary Surface Test
Fixed Transformation and Lighting Test
Transformation and Lighting Stress Test
Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx Gigabit Controller
78
79
80
Network Link Test
TCP/IP Internal Loopback Test
Network External Loopback Test
HID Keyboard Device
81
Keyboard Interactive Test
Dell™ USB Mouse
82
Mouse Interactive Test
SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio Driver
83
84
Playback Mixer State Test
Sound Interactive Test
Intel8 Q965/Q963 Express Chipset Family
85
Audio Visual Interleave (AVI) Interactive Test
Dell ™ E157FP (Plug and Play Monitor)
86
Monitor Interactive Test
Communications Port (COM1)
87
88
89
90
91
External Register Test
External Loopback Test
Internal Register Test
Internal Control Signals Test
Internal Send and Receive Test
ECP Printer Port (LPT1)
92
93
Internal Read and Write Test
External Read and Write Test
PCI Bus
94
Configuration Test
PCDoctor8 USB Test Key 2.0 USB Device
95
USB Status Test
Dell™ USB Keyboard
96
USB Status Test
Dell™ USB Mouse
97
USB Status Test
Intel8 Q963/Q965 PCI Express Root Port - 2991
98
PCI Express Status Test
Microsoft UAA Bus Driver for High Definition Audio
99
PCI Express Status Test
Intel8 ICH8 Family PCI Express Root Port 1 - 283F
100
PCI Express Status Test
Intel8 ICH8 Family PCI Express Root Port 5 - 2847
101
PCI Express Status Test
Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx Gigabit Controller
102
PCI Express Status Test
SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio Driver
103
Rough Audio Test
Batch 5
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
System Timer
BIOS Timer
IRQ Controller
DMA Channels
RAM Refresh
RTC Clock
CMOS RAM
Keyboard
PCI
USB Port
Video Memory
Video Pages
VGA Controller Registers
VGA Color- DAC Registers
VESA Full Video Memory Test
COM 1 Registers And Interrupts
COM 1 Internal Loopback
COM 1 FIFO Buffers (16550A)
LPT 1 Command And Data Port
SMBUS
Batch 4
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
CPU 1 CPU Registers
CPU 1 CPU Arithmetics
CPU 1 CPU Logical Operations
CPU 1 CPU String Operations
CPU 1 CPU Misc Operations
CPU 1 CPU Interrupts/Exceptions
CPU 1 CPU Buffers/Cache
CPU 1 CoProc Registers
CPU 1 CoProc Commands
CPU 1 CoProc Arithmetics
CPU 1 CoProc Transcendental
CPU 1 CoProc Exceptions
CPU 1 MMX Test
CPU 2 CPU Registers
CPU 2 CPU Arithmetics
CPU 2 CPU Logical Operations
CPU 2 CPU String Operations
CPU 2 CPU Misc Operations
CPU 2 CPU Interrupts/Exceptions
CPU 2 CPU Buffers/Cache
CPU 2 CoProc Registers
CPU 2 CoProc Commands
-------
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
CPU 2 CoProc Arithmetics
CPU 2 CoProc Transcendental
CPU 2 CoProc Exceptions
CPU 2 MMX Test
Base Fast Pattern
Base Fast Address
Base Medium Pattern
Base Medium Address
Base Heavy Pattern
Base Heavy Address
Base Bus Throughput
Extended Fast Pattern
Extended Fast Address
Extended Medium Pattern
Extended Medium Address
Extended Heavy Pattern
Extended Heavy Address
Extended Code Test
Extended Advanced Pattern
PCI post Card Test
165
166
167
168
169
170
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Power Supply Tests
171
172
173
174
175
20/24
Motherboard
Hard drive
DVD drive
Floppy Drive
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |