Beginning 1

1. Introduction
   1. Background

Mold is a fungus that can grow on virtually any substance, provided mois- ture is present. Without treatment or preventive measures, mold can dam- age buildings and negatively affect the health of building occupants. Mold is typically removed and remediated when it becomes visually apparent (when it “looks badâ€). Unfortunately, common mold removal practices ad- dress only the visual evidence of mold; they do not remove or remediate the mold spores.

In fact, air and surface sampling are required to test whether mold spores have been completely removed. However, since there are no indoor air quality regulations/limitations for mold spores, it is difficult to enforce and/or provide rationale to justify mold treatment based on indoor air quality. This question can only be verified and resolved through sample collection and analysis via an approved laboratory. Interpreting laboratory results for mold can be difficult for several reasons. First, there are no set maximum exposure limits (MELs) for airborne indoor mold concentra- tions. Setting limits is a difficult matter for many reasons. To begin with, there are limited data on the relationship between exposure and human response. Furthermore, an MEL would have to account for variation in sampling techniques; sensitivity to microbial exposures across the human population; and the vast number of varying types of mold and other bio- logical pollutants within the indoor environment (NAVFAC 2011).

The current preferred process for mold eradication is to control and elimi- nate the source of moisture that precipitates mold growth (USAPHC 2002). However, in U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) installations, it can be difficult to implement this common solution. In most, if not all, real- world operational settings, occupants often adjust system specific heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) set points, and open or close such physical controls as windows, doors, etc. to enhance their comfort without regard for how those actions affect the building’s propensity for mold growth. This, combined with outstanding maintenance needs on sys- tems that control moisture in buildings, are reoccurring issues on military installations that promote mold growth. Consequently, mold continues to

be an ongoing problem for Army installations and contingency basing lo- cations (Vavrin and Stein 2015). The problem is further compounded by the fact that current mold remediation technologies are labor intensive, and that workers must wear various levels of personal protective equip- ment (PPE) during mold removal and prevention processes. These specific requirements are detailed in UFGS-02 85 00.00 20, Mold Remediation (NAVFAC 2011).

In this work, Fort Campbell, KY, and the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) partnered with the Army Office of the Assis- tant Chief of Staff for Installation Management’s (OACSIM) Installation Technology Transfer Program (ITTP) to demonstrate the effectiveness of the two-step dry-fog mold remediation process technology developed by Pure Maintenance LLC, a commercial partner that owns the patented treat- ment technology. The dry-fog demonstration took place at two buildings at Fort Campbell, KY: a vacant dining facility, and a dormant barracks admin- istration section that included classrooms, restrooms, and offices.

2. Objective

The objective of this ITTP demonstration was to conduct independent per- formance testing of the novel dry-fog mold remediation and prevention process to determine the effectiveness of the treatment process at elimi- nating mold and preventing regrowth at military installations and contin- gency basing locations. Specific technical objectives were to:

1. Demonstrate the dry-fog process via the 2^nd generation application system (Figure 1) in two buildings at Fort Campbell, KY.
2. Determine the efficacy and perfor- mance (via sampling and analysis) of the dry-fog process.
3. Verify initial remediation impact(s) and non-reoccurrence of mold/mil- dew over a test period of 6 months (via sampling and analysis).

Figure 1. Dry-fog application system.

3. Approach

This project is related to two prior ITTP studies/demonstrations per- formed separately in Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09)^* and FY10 (Stephenson, Lattimore, and Torrey 2011). Both these projects were performed at Fort Polk, LA. The data in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, briefly summarize the FY09 and FY10 studies/demonstrations.

Table 1. Prior related demonstration – 2009.

Parameter	Data
Year of Study	2009
Study	Demonstration of Mold Assessment and Removal Technologies at Fort Polk, LA (L.D. Stephenson et al. 2009)
Approach/ Objective	Determine the mold burden, eradicate mold, and mitigate its recurrence
Findings	Dry ice was successfully tested on concrete and concrete block surfaces, along with biocide protectants applied post-removalAlthough dry ice was shown to be a successful multi-step mold removal process, a simple mold removal and long-term prevention strategy is desired

Table 2. Prior related demonstration – 2010.

Parameter	Data
Year of Study	2010
Study	Prevention of Toxic Molds in Army Facilities Using Surface-Applied Biocides (L.D. Stephenson, J.L. Lattimore, and K.M. Torrey 2011)
Approach/ Objective	Evaluate the efficacy of a two-step mold removal process, which involves application of biocidal “eradicants†to remove mold from a variety of surfaces, followed by application of biocidal “protectants†to prevent recurrence of mold
Findings	Two best tests for quantifying potential for growth, existing mold, mold removal and long-term efficacy of protectants are: (1) viable swab test and (2) viable airborne spore countBest performing eradicants were: Sporicidin® (a phenolic-based product) and Shockwave® (a quaternary ammonium chloride-based product)Best performing antimicrobial protectants were Fosters 40-20 and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) 6000Full body coverage, rubber gloves, eye protection, and dust filter should be used during application of both eradicants and protectantsAmerican Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5590 successfully predicted the long-term efficacy of protectants to mitigate recurrence of mold growth at Fort Polk. The 4-week accelerated test is suggested as a way to quantify relative efficacy among newly emerging protectants and can be used for screening purposes

* L. D. Stephenson, J. L. Lattimore, Ashok Kumar, and Raymond E. Patenaude. 2009. Demonstration of Mold Assessment and Removal Technologies at Fort Polk, Louisiana. Draft Technical Report. Champaign, IL: Engi- neer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL).

This project involves a demonstration and evaluation of the short term and long-term effects of a dry-fog technology. To demonstrate/validate this technology, the researcher partners:

1. Identified two buildings suitable with existing mold problems at Fort Campbell that are suitable for use in the demonstration project.
2. Conducted pretreatment air and surface sampling in the demonstration buildings to determine existing mold levels.
3. Treated the designated areas within the buildings using the dry-fog process.
4. Sampled immediately after treatment to determine the initial effects of the treatment process.
5. Performed additional sampling after 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months fol- lowing treatment to determine the long-term effects of the treatment.
6. Performed analyses to determine the efficacy of the dry-fog treatment technology.
7. Mode of technology transfer

The project team delivered the following technology transfer elements and activities during project execution:

• A Public Works Digest article (Hirschi and Herron 2017) was submit- ted for publishing.
• The Huntington, West Virginia District of the Corp of Engineers and

Region IV of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were briefed on early project results via telecom.

• A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineering and Construc-

tion webinar was provided.

• A one-page project summary delivered to the OACSIM Program Man- agement Office (PMO).
• A webinar with all 10 Regions and FEMA Headquarters is pending.