Beginning 2

1. Demonstration Process

This project team, made up of individuals from Fort Campbell, KY, the En- gineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Re- search Laboratory (ERDC-CERL), and Pure Maintenance LLC performed site validation, completed baseline/background sampling and analysis, ex- ecuted the treatment process using the two-step dry-fog technology and performed verification sampling and analysis to demonstrate the two-step dry-fog technology.

1. Site validation

Before initiation of any onsite activities, the project team held a kick-off meeting via telecon to identify the potential facilities and associated infra- structure at Fort Campbell, KY. On 9 March 2017, a site visit was held to facilitate a walk-through of the two demonstration locations, Bldg. 2261 (Dining Facility) and Bldg. 6733 (Barracks). Figure 2 shows their locations within the cantonment area of Fort Campbell. Both of these buildings were vacant and determined to be good candidates for the demonstration.

Figure 2. Fort Campbell cantonment area showing demonstration locations.

Source: Map Data 2017© Google.

1. Bldg. 2261

Bldg. 2261 (Figure 3) is a vacant dining facility with an interior area of 4000 sq ft, of which approximately 3700 sq ft were treated. Figures 4 and 5 show the existing conditions inside the facility. Mold was visible on most all surfaces to varying degrees.

Figure 3. Exterior of Bldg. 2261—dining facility.

Figure 4. Kitchen area inside Bldg. 2261.

Figure 5. Dining area inside Bldg. 2261.

2. Bldg. 6733

Bldg. 6733 (Figure 6) is a vacant hammerhead style barracks facility with interior area of 38,000 sq ft, of which approximately 2800 sq ft were treated. Only the administrative area of the first floor (i.e., classroom, of- fices, and restrooms) were included in this demonstration. Figures 7 and 8 show the amounts of mold visible on the wall surfaces.

These buildings were chosen because they were vacant, and because they were known to have high levels of mold. Given the short (8-month) demonstration period, vacant buildings were selected to make it easier to schedule treatments and to control building ingress and egress. However, the absence of personnel and functioning HVAC systems made it difficult to ensure constant environmental/occupational conditions. Outside tem- peratures had an additional impact on the variables of interest within the two buildings.

Figure 6. Exterior of Bldg. 6733 – barracks.

Figure 7. Classroom area inside Bldg. 6733.

Figure 8. Bathroom area inside Bldg. 6733.

2. Baseline/background sampling and analysis
   1. General information

Mold analyses are typically reported in terms of marker molds, outdoor molds, and hyphal fragments. This report focuses on marker molds, out- door molds, and hyphal fragments described below (Kung’u 2016):

• Marker molds are uncommon mold types that are not typically found in significant numbers outside. These mold types, which are associated with more serious health problems, are often the best indicator of in- door mold issues. The following are typical marker molds:
  • Stachybotrys, known as “black mold,†is considered the most dan- gerous mold type and is typically found in low numbers, if at all in outdoor samples. This mold has been linked with infant death.
  • Chaetomium, a marker mold that is not commonly found at signifi- cant levels indoors and is associated with health problems including fibromyalgia, MS, Lyme disease, and others.

• Common outdoor molds are typically molds that start growing out- doors, and that can still cause health issues when growing indoors. Health issues are usually related to cold, allergy, sinus, and respiratory problems. Typical outdoor molds are:
  • Penicillium/Aspergillus, a genus that includes approximately 200 species and that is the most common fungal genus in the United States. Penicillium/Aspergillus is commonly found in house dust, water damaged wall paper and sheet rock, wallpaper glue, fabrics moist chipboards, in rotting food, in materials concealed behind.
  • Cladosporium, a genus that includes approximately 28-40 species and that is one of the top three most common genuses in the United States found indoors on a variety of substrates.
  • Basidiospores, which is an extremely common mold genus in out- door samples that originate from fungus in gardens, forests, and woodlands. Basidiospores are often found in dirt of indoor potted plants or dust.
  • Hyphal Fragments are produced during mold reproduction and are often an indicator of active growth. Hyphal fragments can be found in small amounts outdoors and indoors in healthy environments. Indoor levels under 200 are generally considered “normal.â€

Tables 3 to 6 list “typical†U.S. outdoor average mold levels for various parts of the United States (EMLab 2012, pp 22-23, 29) for the location and months closest to those applicable to this demonstration. Data were not available for Kentucky or Tennessee, and Illinois was determined the most representable data set based on the demonstration’s geographic location and weather patterns.

Table 3. U.S. national outdoor average for April.

Fungal Type	Low (Dry Climate)(#spores/m3)	Medium (#spores/m3)	High (Humid Climate) (#spores/m3)
Alternaria	13	27	53
Basidiospores	67	240	960
Chaetomium	13	13	27
Cladosporium	107	320	1013
Penicillium/Aspergillus Types	53	160	400
Stachybotrys	13	13	40

Table 4. U.S. national outdoor average for July.

Fungal Type	Low (Dry Climate)(#spores/m3)	Medium (#spores/m3)	High (Humid Climate) (#spores/m3)
Alternaria	13	40	107
Basidiospores	107	427	3067
Chaetomium	13	13	27
Cladosporium	213	747	2120
Penicillium/Aspergillus Types	80	213	613
Stachybotrys	13	13	40

Table 5. U.S. national outdoor average for October.

Fungal Type	Low (Dry Climate)(#spores/m3)	Medium (#spores/m3)	High (Humid Climate) (#spores/m3)
Alternaria	13	40	107
Basidiospores	133	627	3625
Chaetomium	13	13	27
Cladosporium	213	800	2720
Penicillium/Aspergillus Types	100	267	747
Stachybotrys	13	13	40

Table 6. Annual outdoor average for Illinois.

Fungal Type	Low (Dry Climate)(#spores/m3)	Medium (#spores/m3)	High (Humid Climate) (#spores/m3)
Alternaria	13	53	187
Basidiospores	160	780	3220
Chaetomium	7	13	27
Cladosporium	120	693	2773
Penicillium/Aspergillus Types	53	133	400
Stachybotrys	13	13	53

2. Background sampling for this demonstration project

Before application of the dry-fog technology in the demonstration build- ings, background air samples and surface samples were taken inside and outside each building (Figure 9). Samples were taken at Bldg. 2261 on 20 March 2017 and at Bldg. 6733 on 21 March 2017. In Figure 9 below, the background/outdoor sample location at each building is shown as Loca- tions #5 and #17, respectively.

Figure 10 shows the sample collection containers for both air and surface sampling. Air sampling was conducted using a Zefon International Mold

Sampling Pump P/Z-Lite-IAQ (Figure 20). Sampling protocol for normal office space requires an air flow rate of 15 liters per minute (lpm) for a 5- minute period (EMLab 2012, pp 22-23, 29). Zefon Air-O-Cellâ„¢ sample containers were used to capture the air samples. Surface samples were taken using the tape pull method (EMLab 2012, pp 37-38, 29).

Figure 9. Sampling locations at Bldgs. 2261 and 6733 (not to scale).

Figure 10. Air and surface sampling equipment.

3. Sample analysis

Spore trap analysis and direct microscopic examination were performed for the samples collected at each location by EMLab P&K (Lab Identification [ID] #102297). Both of these methods are considered standard analyses when determining mold levels within the air and on surfaces of interest:

• Spore trap analysis is used to determine the number of a particular mold spore type within a known volume of air at a specific location. Results are reported in number of spores per cubic meter (#/m³). Positive results in- dicate airborne mold spores. Airborne mold spores contribute to an un- healthy environment and often lead to respiratory (and other) illnesses.
• Direct microscopic examination is used to determine specific types of

mold spores present on the surface of any material at a particular loca- tion. Positive results indicate mold growth on the identified surface.

One of these two types of samples was performed on each sample collected during the demonstration. Chapter 3 of this report gives the results.

3. Two-step dry-fog application

The dry-fog is a gas/vapor with micron sized particles that can cover, pen- etrate, and envelope mold spores. The small size (6–8 microns) of the par- ticles^* makes it possible to treat materials and spaces that current mold re- moval technologies cannot access. The first step of the two-step dry-fog process is the application of InstaPURE, which is a powerful disinfectant that destroys mold spores and disinfects any surface it touches. The sec- ond step of the two-step process is the application of EverPURE, which is an antimicrobial barrier that destroys bacteria or viruses that come in con- tact with surfaces treated with EverPURE. The U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency (USEPA) has approved both InstaPURE and EverPURE for use in all 50 U.S. states.

The dry-fog treatment system is completely mobile. It includes com- pressed air, spray nozzles, and the dry-fog box (Figure 11).

*Personal communication with Brandon Adams. 2 October 2017. Bountiful, Utah: Pure Maintenance LLC.

Figure 11. Equipment to apply the dry-fog treatment.

The dry-fog technology is housed inside the metal box (Figure 12). Inde- pendent control of the flow rates and pressures for the liquid and air pro- vides the patented ability to generate the dry-fog. The dry fog is made up of particles ranging from 6-8 microns in diameter. Mold spores generally vary from 10-30 microns in diameter (Peacock Enterprises 2017). The dry fog’s small particle size (much smaller than the mold spores) provides a mechanism to treat areas inaccessible to liquid treatments, and ensures that the fog can physically infiltrate all spaces and porous materials availa- ble to mold spores.

Figure 12. Dry-fog technology apparatus.

Air compressors provide pressure to quickly distribute the dry fog. The dry fog disseminates rather readily covering 1000 sq ft having 8- to 10-ft ceil- ing heights in approximately 1 hour (i.e., 10,000 cu ft per hour [cu ft/hr]). This is accomplished with minimal manpower requirements. A single indi- vidual can completely treat, including mobilizing and demobilization, a 2000 sq ft single-story facility/space in approximately 3 hours. Larger treatment volumes take correspondingly longer treatment times for a given number of air compressors and spray nozzles.

Bldg. 2261 took approximately 5 hours to treat. This included mobiliza- tion, surface and air sampling, and demobilization. Bldg. 6733 took a total of approximately 4 hours to treat and accomplish the same tasks.

The dry-fog technology is relatively inexpensive when compared to current mold removal procedures and their labor intensive requirements. Costs for the treatment of a one story building are estimated at approximately

$0.90–$1.20/sq ft. This estimate does not include travel costs by the ven- dor. Actual costs will be higher or lower depending on travel time, on multi- versus single-story buildings, and on special circumstances such as the geographical location, building use(s), and building layout.

Appendix A includes Material Specifications and Data Sheets (MSDSs) for InstaPURE and EverPURE. Given the chemical make-up of these liquids and the application process, i.e., the addition of deionized water and at- mospheric air, there are no (and to date have not been) adverse effects to humans or the contents within the treated buildings. The vendor (and oth- ers) have treated thousands of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings with these products with no negative effects on inhabitants or materials within treated buildings.

The dry-fog technology is currently available via licensing from the vendor. The vendor provides startup equipment, training (in person and online), and access to chemicals, local/national marketing materials, and business development support.

The treatment is performed by introducing the dry-fog via spray nozzles (Figures 13–15).

Figure 13. Dry-fog being applied via spray nozzle in Bldg. 2261.

Figure 14. Dry-fog being applied to intake of HVAC ducting Bldg. 2261.

Figure 15. Dry-fog being applied via spray nozzles in Bldg. 6733.

Figure 16 shows an example of minimalistic plastic barriers put in place to generate enough back pressure to provide positive pressure and to ensure coverage when doing smaller areas within larger, more spacious rooms.

Although these barriers do not completely contain the dry-fog, they do al- low the dry fog to accumulate sufficiently to provide treatment (Figure 17).

Figure 16. Positive pressure at various points within Bldg. 2261.

Figure 17. Dry-fog accumulation in kitchen area within Bldg. 2261.

Indicator strips are placed at various locations within the treatment area to ensure coverage. The strips are initially white and turn black (Figure 18) as the dry-fog fills the air at a concentration sufficient to indicate full treat- ment. HVAC systems are operated long enough to ensure complete cover- age (i.e., multiple duct system volumes) throughout the duct work and as- sociated filters/vents.

Figure 18. Indicator strips signify treatment (i.e., white to black).

Note that the treatment does not remove the black appearance of mold (Figure 19). Even though the treatment has eliminated the mold spores, treated surfaces will still appear “moldy†so it is essential that air and sur- face sampling be performed (before and after treatment) to provide quan- titative measurements of the treatment’s removal effectiveness. An addi- tional advantage of the dry-fog treatment is that surfaces can be cleaned with typical household cleaning products rather than with the more haz- ardous chemicals used for traditional mold treatment and cleaning.

Figure 19. Mold growing near duct vents in Bldg. 2261.

4. Verification sampling and analysis

After the dry-fogging application, Pure Maintenance, LLC (with members of the project team present) conducted air and surface sampling (Figure 20). Continued sampling occurred at 1 month (25 April 2017), 3 months

(22 June 2017), and 6 months (12 September 2017) following treatment. Chapter 3 of this report includes results and analyses of these sampling events. Appendix B includes all raw laboratory analysis results.

Figure 20. Air and surface sampling.