Research to Inform Decontamination Strategies, Methods, and
Related Technical Challenges for Remediation of a Fentanyl-
Contaminated Site
Purpose
This technical brief provides decision makers with a practical summary of recent U.S. EPA
scientific information and data related to the technical challenges involved with remediating a
fentanyl-contaminated indoor site. The research topics included in this summary are as follows:
• Indoor building decontamination studies evaluating the following aspects:
o Physical removal of fentanyl;
o Chemical-based decontamination; and
o Impact of common diluents, cutting agents, and adulterants on decontamination
efficacy.
• Decontamination studies with personal protective equipment (PPE) and/or materials as
part of personnel decontamination line procedures (short contact time between PPE
material and decontaminant).
Introduction
The U.S. EPA's Homeland Security Research
Program (HSRP) helps to develop remediation
capabilities to recover from contamination
originating from natural disasters, intentional
releases, or accidents involving oil or hazardous
substances. The hazardous substances can include
chemical, radiological, nuclear, and biological
materials. The HSRP develops remediation tools
with consideration for efficacy, safety, resource
demand, logistics, training, and availability.
Fentanyl is a highly potent synthetic opioid (approximately 100 times stronger than
morphine). "Pharmaceutical fentanyl" was first developed and used for pain management in
Figure 1. Lethal doses of heroin (left, 30 mg) and
fentanyl (right, 3 mg). Source: New Hampshire State
Police Forensic Lab/Public domain
D
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/S-22/154 | September 2022
-------
cancer patients and can be administered for analgesic action of short duration in the immediate
postoperative period following surgery. The vast majority of cases of fentanyl-related
impairment, overdose and death in the United States are linked to illegally manufactured
fentanyl, referred to as "clandestine fentanyl". Clandestine fentanyl is predominantly
synthesized in the People's Republic of China and trafficked into the United States via
international mail or across the borders. More recently, drug cartels in Mexico have started
similar fentanyl synthesis and trafficking efforts. Fentanyl is sold through illegal drug markets
for its addictive, opioid intoxication effects. Fentanyl is often added to heroin to increase the
potency of the product, and to cocaine to prolong the duration of the effects. Fentanyl can also
be found in powders or pressed tablet forms.
Since only a small amount of fentanyl can be deadly, emergency responders and hazmat
teams are concerned about their potential exposure while responding to incidents at mixing
houses, pill factories, or in makeshift laboratories found in apartments, hotels, houses, garages,
and storage facilities. Exposures may also occur when dealing with remnants of laboratories
that have been dumped illegally. Other exposure scenarios involve locations of illicit fentanyl
smuggling and use, such as correctional facilities.
In 2018, EPA released a fentanyl fact sheet [1] to
support EPA On-Scene Coordinators and provide
assistance to local, state, tribal, and county hazmat
partners in remediation of opioid contamination. The fact
sheet provides information regarding the characteristics
of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues (such as carfentanil
and methylfentanyl) and potential exposure pathways,
physical properties, appropriate personal protective
equipment (PPE), field detection, sampling, and analysis
information. At that time, the information on cleanup of
fentanyl contaminated properties was limited to Figure 2. EPA Fentanyl Fact Sheet (May 2018), available
. , . . . athttps://www.epa.aov/emeraencv-response/fact-
wet chemistry bench-scale fentanyl degradation sheet-fentanvl-and-fentanvl-analoas.
research [2] and case study accounts that did not
represent controlled studies of actual fentanyl remediation efforts, especially from Canada [3].
This technical document summarizes the results from fentanyl decontamination studies
that were conducted under EPA's HSRP. Recognizing the emerging threat of fentanyl and the
significant hazards fentanyl poses to the public, EPA also recently updated its Voluntary
Guidelines for Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup document to include a chapter on
fentanyl remediation [4].
Fentanyl as a solid salt (e.g., fentanyl-HCI) has an extremely low vapor pressure.
Although not explicitly investigated, any evaporation or natural attenuation is expected to be
nonexistent on the time scale of a remediation effort. Fentanyl is also stable in drinking and
wastewater based its detection at wastewater treatment facilities.
The decontamination approaches described here are for fentanyl (and more specifically
for the hydrochloride salt of fentanyl). No decontamination research has been conducted so far
2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/S-22/154 | September 2022
-------
by U.S. EPA related to other fentanyl salts or for fentanyl analogues. While salt form may be
expected to have limited impact on chemical-based decontamination, extrapolation of results
for chemical-based decontamination to fentanyl analogues should be considered with caution
as degradation mechanisms may vary, depending on the specific fentanyl analogue.
Fentanyl Decontamination Research
Fentanyl decontamination studies [5,6] were conducted using small (10 cm2 surface
area) and medium (300 cm2) size material coupons. The latter, larger size allowed for the
inclusion of wipe sampling to determine the amount of fentanyl on the surface. Materials were
representative of indoor building materials and were mostly nonporous. Decontaminants were
applied using a spray system which applied remediation representative amounts (14 gallon /
1,000 ft2), equal to 60 |aL/cm2. Contact time between a decontaminant and building material
was one hour except for limited medium size coupon decontamination studies, for which it was
up to four hours. Fentanyl mass was quantified as amounts remaining on surfaces after
decontamination and in the runoff from each material coupon. Efficacy was determined against
recovered fentanyl amounts from controls that were not decontaminated. Fentanyl
decontamination studies were conducted to evaluate the oxidative degradation of fentanyl
based on percarbonate, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and hypochlorite (chlorine bleach)
chemistries.
Building Decontamination by Physical Removal
Physical removal of fentanyl salts from surfaces can occur either through spraying,
wiping or vacuuming of surfaces. A water spray, with or without detergent, physically removed
70-90% of fentanyl from a nonporous surface, but all fentanyl was recovered in the runoff [5].
As fentanyl does not immediately dissolve in water, on several occasions, a clumping of
fentanyl salts on the surface was observed. Wiping of fentanyl from surfaces can be effective,
but fentanyl would be transferred to the wipe itself [5]. No experimental data has been
collected on the efficacy of vacuuming surfaces contaminated with fentanyl. If vacuuming is
warranted, a commercial grade vacuum cleaner equipped with a HEPA dust collection system
(HEPA-filtered exhaust) is recommended. It should be noted that vacuuming does not remove
all particulate surface contamination and can actually cause particles to resuspend into the air.
Though HEPA filters are designed to trap particles in the size range of fentanyl powders, it is
possible that if the HEPA filter is not sealed/seated properly, particles may go around the filter
and become airborne again. As such, caution should be used when HEPA vacuuming and
personnel must be adequately protected during these activities.
Building Decontamination using Chemical-Based Decontaminants -1
Decontamination efficacies were obtained for 10 decontamination approaches [5,6]
using readily available products that utilize several different chemistries. The range of
measured efficacies across various nonporous materials (glass, acrylic, laminate, painted
drywall, stainless steel, wood) are tabulated in Table 1 from low to high efficacy. Table 1 also
3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/S-22/154 | September 2022
-------
shows the percent of unreacted fentanyl that was detected in the runoff liquid. Product
information is summarized in Table 2.
Table 1: Decontamination Efficacies against Fentanyl on Various Nonporous Materials.
Decontaminant. See Table
Range of efficacies
Percent fentanyl in
Reference
2 for product information
across materials (%)
runoff (%)
Water
62-95
33-80
5
OxiClean
50-78
32-66
5
Meth Remover
37-73
14-32
6
ZEP
57-78
11-55
6
pH 12 Bleach (undiluted)3
69
ND
5
Acidified pH 7 Bleach
59-91
1.7-25
5
Acidified pH 5 Bleach
94-98
1.5-4.7
5
Acidified pH 5 bleach with
surfactant
94-99
0.8-2.2
5
EasyDecon DF200
93-99.3
0.083-9.1
5
Dahlgren Decon
86-99.5
0.0022-0.024
5
a Tested on one material only with no determination of amount in runoff (ND)
Table 2: Decontamination Product Information.
Decontaminant
Vendor
Active Ingredient and
concentration (%)
Preparation Notes
Water
N/A
None
None
OxiClean
Church & Dwight
Percarbonate / HP,
0.4% HP
60 g product in 1 L water
Meth Remover
Apple Environment
HP, ~4% (label
information)
Proportional mixing of two parts
as per manufacturer directions
ZEP Professional Stain
Remover with Peroxide
ZEP
HP, ~4% (label
information)
Ready to use
pH 12 Bleach
(undiluted)
KoK Bleach
Chlorine, 5.5% FAC
None
Acidified pH 7 Bleach
KoK Bleach
Chlorine, 0.55% FAC
1 part bleach; 0.75 parts vinegar;
8.25 parts distilled water
Acidified pH 5 Bleach
KoK Bleach
Chlorine, 0.51% FAC
1.1 part bleach; 1.4 parts vinegar;
7.5 parts distilled water
Acidified pH 5 Bleach
with Surfactant
Clorox ProResults
garage and driveway
cleaner
Chlorine, 0.51% FAC
1 part bleach; 0.66 parts vinegar;
1.5 parts distilled water
EasyDecon DF200a
Intelagard
HP and/or activated
peroxygen species, 4% HP
Proportional mixing of three
parts as per manufacturer
directions
Dahlgren Decon
First Line
Technologies
Peracetic acid, 1.7%
peracetic acid**
Proportional mixing of three
parts as per manufacturer
directions
a EasyDecon DF200 and Decon7 are identical products as licensed from Sandia National Laboratories
** Reported peracetic acid concentration is biased low due to interference with hydrogen peroxide in titration
HP: hydrogen peroxide; FAC: free available chlorine
D
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/S-22/154 | September 2022
-------
Despite the occasional large range in efficacies across tested materials, no statistically
significant differences were found in efficacy across the nonporous materials. This is indicative
of the loose adherence of fentanyl on nonporous surfaces leading to minimal impact of the
material on decontamination efficacy. As with water, an occasional clumping of fentanyl on the
surface was observed in the presence of these decontamination solutions. This aggregation
leads to a lower decontamination efficacy.
Building Decontamination Using Chemical-Based Decontaminants - II
Additional fentanyl decontamination tests with medium size material coupons [5]
indicated that most of the residual fentanyl on surfaces after decontamination (evaluated for
chemical decontamination with pH 5 bleach with surfactant and Dahlgren Decon) is found in
the liquid residue remaining on the surface. This liquid residue can be removed using dry or wet
wipes. The combination of chemical degradation and physical removal of the residue results in
less fentanyl remaining on the surface, i.e., higher overall efficacy.
An extension of the decontamination contact time from one to four hours improved
efficacy (evaluated for Dahlgren Decon product only). This was attributed to the slow
dissolution of unreacted fentanyl that had initially clumped together in the presence of the
decontaminant on the surface.
Impact of Additives/Diluents on Decontamination Efficacies
Fentanyl and fentanyl related samples often contain additives such as cutting agents,
diluents, or adulterants. The presence of various additives (lactose, mannitol, or ascorbic acid)
to fentanyl at a 19:1 mass ratio on laminate resulted in noticeably higher fentanyl recoveries
following decontamination with either pH 5 bleach with surfactant or Dahlgren Decon [5]. The
impact of mannitol and lactose was relatively small while the presence of ascorbic acid resulted
in significantly higher recovery of unreacted fentanyl. This large difference can be attributed to
the relative reaction rates of these additives with the active oxidant in the decontaminant.
PPE/Gear Decontamination Efficacy Using Chemical-Based Decontaminants
Fentanyl decontamination studies [6] were also conducted using small (10 cm2 surface
area) size material coupons that were representative of PPE or response gear. Decontaminants
were applied as described earlier. However, the contact time between the decontaminant and
the PPE or response gear material was only five minutes, similar to contact times in a personnel
decontamination line. For PPE or response gear material that was visually contaminated with a
fentanyl powder, a diluted (1:4) Dahlgren Decon solution degraded fentanyl on surfaces within
five minutes to less than 5% fentanyl mass remaining [6]. pH5 bleach degraded fentanyl as well
but the time to reach 5% remaining was significantly longer (>15 min) [6]. As with the building
material decontamination, an occasional clumping of fentanyl salts on the surface was
observed, leading to poorer decontamination efficacy.
5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/S-22/154 | September 2022
-------
Summary of Fentanyl Decontamination Research
Bench-scale fentanyl decontamination testing demonstrated that (1 hr contact time):
• Full strength (non-buffered pH 12) bleach was not very efficacious (69%);
• Acidified chlorine bleach down to neutral pH (EPA's pH adjusted bleach definition)
showed degradation of fentanyl-HCI on nonporous surfaces but significant (40-60%)
amounts of fentanyl were still present;
• Chlorine bleach acidified to a pH of ~5 is noticeably more efficacious (95-99%) than
neutral pH 7 bleach;
• Dahlgren Decon and EasyDECON DF200 yield high (>99%) efficacy after a one-hour
contact time with fentanyl-HCI on nonporous surfaces. Note that the decontamination
product Decon7 contains the same formulation as the EasyDecon DF200 product;
• Physical removal of fentanyl via runoff was observed to be significant if chemical
degradation did not occur;
• Clumping of fentanyl was observed, and it appeared to decrease chemical degradation;
• The presence of additives such as lactose or mannitol does not significantly reduce the
efficacy of the Dahlgren Decon and pH5 bleach products. The presence of ascorbic acid
(Vitamin C) as an additive to fentanyl will result in a noticeable lower efficacy of these
two decontaminants; and
• For decontamination of PPE / responder gear, a 1:4 diluted Dahlgren Decon solution
was found to be highly effective (better than 99.5%) for in situ degradation of fentanyl
within five minutes. Bleach at pH 5 required longer reactions times and tended to
physically transfer more fentanyl into runoff water.
Limitations of Decontamination Studies
The following limitations should be considered:
• Results are based on fentanyl-HCI and outcomes may differ for freebase fentanyl or
other salts;
• Fentanyl analogues may not react in a similar manner;
• Decontamination efficacy results are limited to nonporous, hard surfaces; porous
materials may be harder to clean using these solution-based approaches;
• There are no data on decontamination of porous materials;
• Results do not address formation of possible toxic byproducts formation, although few
byproducts would be expected to be as potent as fentanyl. This may need to be
considered in the handling of the waste (see fentanyl fact sheet [1] for waste
management related information); and
6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/S-22/154 | September 2022
-------
• Results are based on bench-scale laboratory experiments; scaling up to field use should
be done with caution.
Conclusions
A release of fentanyl, either intentional or by accident, may require cleanup procedures
to ensure a safe return of a facility or infrastructure to its intended purpose. The bench-scale
fentanyl decontamination studies summarized here provide information on the selection of
chemical decontamination approaches. In reality, any cleanup approach will likely rely on a
combination of physical removal and the in situ chemical degradation of fentanyl. For example,
the hydrogen peroxide-based product Meth Remover, which was reported to be used in the
remediation of a fentanyl contaminated home, may not be as efficacious as the
abovementioned products—when considering solely the effects of chemical degradation
reported above. However, in combination with the physical removal of fentanyl from surfaces
through, for example, the wiping of residual decontamination solution from surfaces—as was
performed during field use of Meth Remover—high efficacy was obtained with minimal or no
fentanyl remaining on the surface. A practical implication of this combination of physical and
chemical removal is that an aqueous and/or solid waste stream containing fentanyl, by-
products, and other substances may need to be managed in the field. Management of waste
streams may be particularly important because demonstrating successful decontamination may
be difficult due to fentanyl sampling limitations for both porous and nonporous materials.
Hence, many contaminated materials, especially porous ones with additional sampling
challenges, may become part of the waste stream.
There are many factors that affect how efficacious a decontaminant is in degrading
fentanyl on a surface. The presence of adulterants and diluents can reduce efficacy due to
competing demand between these additives and the applied decontamination product. Caution
should be used when decontaminating field sites containing unknown quantities of additives
and other impurities. Porous materials are more difficult to clean as fentanyl may migrate into
pores and crevices, making it less accessible to a decontamination technology. Fentanyl
particulates may move through the air and contaminate previously uncontaminated areas or
decontaminated areas; in such cases, spraying surfaces may not be practical and volumetric
decontamination ("fumigation") approaches may be necessary. Current and planned fentanyl-
related research is intended to address these factors that can confound fentanyl clean-up, as
well as being able to apply these results to fentanyl analogues.
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, produced this document. This document underwent review prior to approval for
publication. Note that approval does not necessarily signify that the contents reflect the views
of the Agency. Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey official EPA
approval, endorsement, or recommendation.
D
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/S-22/154 | September 2022
-------
References
[1] Fact Sheet: Fentanyl and Fentanyl Analogues (2018). https://www.epa.gov/emergency-
response/fact-sheet-fentanyl-and-fentanyl-analogues. Last accessed July 05, 2022.
[2] Qi, L., Cheng, Z., Zuo, G., Li, S., & Fan, Q. (2010). Oxidative Degradation of Fentanyl in
Aqueous Solutions of Peroxides and Hypochlorites. Defence Science Journal, 61(1): 30-
35.
[3] Fentanyl Remediation: Guidance for Remediators, Regulatory Agencies and
Professionals (2020). https://open.alberta.ca/publications/fentanyl-
remediation#summary. Last accessed July 05, 2022.
[4] Voluntary Guidelines for Methamphetamine and Fentanyl Laboratory Cleanup (2021).
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/meth lab guidelines.pdf. Last
accessed July 05, 2022.
[5] Oudejans, L., See, D., Dodds, C., Corlew, M., and Magnuson, M. (2021).
Decontamination options for indoor surfaces contaminated with realistic fentanyl
preparations. J Environ Manage, 297: 113327.
[6] Oudejans, L. (2021). Remediation Options for Fentanyl Contaminated Indoor
Environments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-
21/105.
Contact Information
For more information, visit the EPA website at https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response-
research/publications-homeland-security-research-topics.
Technical Contact: Lukas Oudejans (oudejans.lukas@epa.gov)
General Feedback/Questions Contact: (CESER@epa.gov)
8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA/600/S-22/154 | September 2022
------- |