Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA523312: Development of a Portable Sensitive Equipment Decontamination System. Volume 1: Commercial Candidates Materials Evaluation (Chemical Agent Studies)"

See other formats


U.S ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING COMMAND 


ECBC-TR-766 


DEVELOPMENT OF A PORTABLE SENSITIVE 
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION SYSTEM 

VOLUME I - COMMERCIAL CANDIDATES MATERIALS EVALUATION 

(CHEMICAL AGENT STUDIES) 


Brian Maclver 

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE 


GTI 


Sys ferns, tnc 


Ralph Spafford 

GTI SYSTEMS, INC. 
Portsmouth, VA 23704-5910 


Entropic Sy 


Robert Kaiser 

ENTROPIC SYSTEMS INC 
Woburn, MA 01801-5205 


20100706061 

Approved for public release; 
distribution is unlimited. 


May 2010 



ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21010-5424 








Disclaimer 


The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army 
position unless so designated by other authorizing documents. 


REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 


Form Approved 
OMB No. 0704-0188 


Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 
data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information including suggestions for reducing 
this burden to Department of Defense Washington Headquarters Services Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188) 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington VA 22202- 
4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law. no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently 
valid OMB control number PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS 


1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 

XX-05-2010 


2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 


3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

Apr 2001 - Dec 2004 


4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Development of a Portable Sensitive Equipment Decontamination System 
Volume 1 - Commercial Candidates Materials Evaluation (Chemical Agent Studies) 


5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

04-098-D-0014-022-01 


5b GRANT NUMBER 


5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 


6. AUTHOR(S) 

Maclvcr, Brian (ECBC); Spafford, Ralph (GT1 Systems); and Kaiser, Robert 
(Fntropic Systems) 


5d. PROJECT NUMBER 


5e. TASK NUMBER 


5f WORK UNIT NUMBER 


7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

DIR, ECBC, ATTN: RDCB-DRP-D//RDCB-DRB-D, APG, MD 21010-5424 
GT1 Systems, Inc., 820 Portcentrc Parkway, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5910 
Entropic Systems Inc., 34D Holton Street, Woburn, MA 01801-5205 


8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT 
NUMBER 

ECBC-TR-766 


9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road. MSC 6201 
Fort Bel voir, VA 22060-6201 


10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 

DTRA 


11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT 
NUMBER(S) 


12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 


13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 


14 ABSTRACT 


The objective of the study was to evaluate commercial off the shelf materials to develop a decontamination method that is 
effective against a broad spectrum of agents (chemical, biological. Toxic Industrial Materials), compatible w ith vehiclc/aircraft 
interior material, man-portable, simple to use with rapid and easy disposal, and inexpensive. 


15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Wipes 
CAR C 


Dccontaminant 

GD 


Antibacterial 

HFE 


Agent 

HD 


Mandrel 

Vapor 


AC AMS 

DAAMS 

vx 


Carbon Fiber 

Agent 

16, SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

18. NUMBER 
OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

Sandra J. Johnson 

a. REPORT 

U 

b. ABSTRACT 

U 

c. THIS PAGE 

U 

UL 

146 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area 
code) 

(410)436-2914 


Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39 18 





























Blank 


PREFACE 


The work described in this report was authorized under Contract No. 04-098-D-0014- 
022-01. The work was started in April 2001 and completed in December 2004. 

This report was published through the Technical Releases Office; however, it was edited 
and prepared by the Decontamination Sciences Branch, Research and Technology Directorate, U.S. Army 
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center. 

The work described in this report was performed prior to the development of the 2007 
Source Document. Therefore, different test methodology and calculation procedures were used that do 
not necessarily agree with the current procedures. 

The use of either trade or manufacturers’ names in this report does not constitute an 
official endorsement of any commercial products. This technical report may not be cited for purposes of 
advertisement. 


This report has been approved for public release. Registered users should request 
additional copies from the Defense Technical Information Center; unregistered users should direct such 
requests to the National Technical Information Service. 


Blank 


CONTENTS 


1. SUMMARY. 1 

2. INTRODUCTION.2 

3. BACKGROUND.3 

4. TECHNICAL APPROACH...4 

5. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT. 4 

5.1 Computer-Controlled Linear- and Rotary-Wiping Devices.4 

5.2 Wipe Materials.6 

5.3 Test Surfaccs/Substrates.9 

5 4 Solvents/Decontaminants.. 1 1 

6. WIPE TEST PROCEDURES.12 

6.1 Manual Rotary Wiping for Dry and Solvent-Moistened Wipes. 12 

6.2 Automated Rotary-Wiping Procedures for Dry and Solvent-Moistened Wipes.13 

6.3 Automated Rotary-Wiping Procedures for Sorbent Powder Decontaminant.19 

6.4 Automated Linear Wiping for Dry and Solvent Moistened Wipes.20 

6.5 Procedures for Determination of Residual Agent on Post-Test Coupons.23 

6.5.1 Static Vapor Off-Gas Monitoring.24 

6.5.2 Time-Resolved Near Real Time (NRT) Vapor Off-Gas Monitoring with 

MINICAMS.24 

6.5.3 Near Real-Time Vapor Off-Gas Monitoring Using ACAMS. 28 

6.5.4 Depot Area Air-Monitoring System (DAAMS) Sampling and Analysis.29 

6.5.5 Solvent Extraction and GC Analysis.30 

6.5.6 Wipe Contact Times.31 

6.6 Temperature and Relative Humidity Measurement. 32 

7. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS.32 

7.1 HD Rotary-Wiping Screening Tests of Potential Wiping Materials.50 

7.2 Preliminary Tests with Rotary-Wiping Device.53 

7.3 HD Automated Rotary-Wiping Tests on Non-Absorptivc Aluminum Surfaces.57 

7.4 TGD Rotary-Wiping Tests with Vapor Monitoring.68 

7.5 Comparison of HD and TGD Vapor Off-Gas Curves.70 

7.6 HD Linear-Wiping Tests on Aluminum.74 

7.6.1 Test Procedure.74 

7.6.2 Test Results.77 

7.6.3 Discussion of Results.84 

7.6.3.1 Type of Wipe.84 

7.6.3.2 Number of Wipe Passcs/Wipe Contact Time.84 

7.6.3.3 Wet Wipe vs. Dry Wipe vs. Spray-and-Wipc. 85 

7.6.3.4 Comparison of Wiping Solvents.85 

7.6.3.5 Agent Spreading.85 

7.7 HD Rotary and Linear-Wiping Tests on Absorptive Test Surfaces.88 


v 








































7.7.1 HD Rotary-Wiping Tests on CARC and Alkyd Test Surfaces with Activated 

Carbon Fabric and Felt Wipes Using HFE-7200 Solvent.88 

7.7.1.1 Results.90 

7.7.1.2 Temperature Dependence of Off-Gas Monitoring.92 

7.7.2 HD Linear-Wiping Tests on CARC and Alkyd Test Surfaces with Activated 

Carbon Fabric and Felt Wipes Using HFE-7200 Solvent.95 

7.7.3 Tests on Polyethylene and Polycarbonate Test Surfaces with Activated Carbon 

Fabric and Felt Wipes, Using HFE-7200 and Isopropyl Alcohol Solvents, 
M295/MI00 Sorbent Powder, and MgO Nanopartielc Powder.98 

7.7.4 Abrasion Tests with M295/M 100 Sorbent Pow der and MgO Nanopartielc 

Powder.101 

7.7.5 Tests on Aluminum, CARC, and Alkyd Test Surfaces with Activated Carbon 

Fabric and Felt Wipes Using HFE-7200 and Isopropyl Alcohol Solvents, 

M295/M I00 Sorbent Powder, and MgO Nanopartielc Pow'der.103 

7.8 Comparative Rotary-Wiping Tests with Activated Carbon Fabric.105 

7.84 Test Procedures.106 

7.8.1.1 Automated Rotary-Wiping Procedures for Dry and 

Solvent-Moistened Wipes.106 

7.8.1.2 Automated Rotary-Wiping Procedures for Sorbent Powder 

Deeontaminant.106 

7.8.2 Results.107 

7.8.3 Discussion of Test Results.126 

7.8.4 Robustness and Shedding of Wipes.127 

8. CONCLUSIONS....127 

9. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ... .. 129 

ACRONYMS.131 

APPENDIXES 

A. DETERMINATION OF WEIGHT OF HFE-7200 SPRAYED ONTO 

WIPES IN ROTARY-WIPING TESTS.133 

B. SEMI-QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF MANUAL 

WIPING FORCE.135 


vt 





















FIGURES 


1. Photograph of the rotary-wiping test apparatus.5 

2. Photograph of the linear-wiping test apparatus.5 

3. Photograph of swatches of the three most effective wipe materials ev aluated in 

the study.9 

4. Photograph of test surfaecs/panels evaluated.10 

5. Close-up photograph of aluminum test surface ...1 1 

6. Photograph of rotary-wiping mandrel.14 

7. Photographs of activated carbon fabric mounted on rotary-w iping mandrel.14 

8. Photograph of CARC-paintcd panel, mounted in baseplate of rotary-wiping test 

apparatus.15 

9. Photograph of 3M Microeare HFH-7200 aerosol can ..18 

10. Photographs of assembled and disassembled Misto® olive oil sprayer..18 

1 1. Photograph of linear-wiping test apparatus using original baseplate with three 

aluminum test coupons.21 

12. Photograph of linear-wiping test apparatus w ith single CARC-painted test 

coupon.....21 

13. Photograph of activated carbon fabric mounted on linear wiping mandrel..22 

14. Photograph of M1N1CAMS (left) and sampling jar (right). 25 

15. Typical HD vapor off-gas curves from Test J978-026 (B).26 

16. HD vapor off-gas curve - test J978-026(A).56 

17. HD v apor off-gas curve - test J978-026(B).56 

18. GD vapor off-gas curves from test J906-130. Upper eurve: GD concentration vs. 

time, lower curv e: GC off-gassing rate vs. time...71 

19. GD vapor off-gas curves from test J906-138(C). Upper eurv e: GD concentration 

vs. time, lower curve: GC off-gassing rate vs. time.72 

20. HD vapor off-gas curves from test J906-100(B). Upper eurve: GD concentration 

vs. time lower curve: GC off-gassing rate vs. time.73 

21. Configuration of test coupons in linear wipe test system. .. 75 

22. HD-sprcading bar charts (a) AC fabric, (b) AC felt, and 

(c) non-adsorptivc fabric wipes.87 

23. HD vapor off-gas curve from test J1073-092.93 

24. HD vapor off-gas curve from test J 1073-1 10.93 

25. HD vapor off-gas curves from test J1073-114.94 

26. Comparative HD decontamination efficacy test results activated carbon fabric.124 

27 Comparative VX decontamination effieacy test results activated carbon fabric. 124 

28. Comparative TGD decontamination efficacy test results activated carbon fabric.125 

29. Comparative HD decontamination effieacy test results Scotch-Britc 2021....125 


TABLES 

1. Properties of activated carbon fabric and activated carbon felt.7 

2. Properties of Scotch-Britc™ high performance cloth.7 

3. Chemical agents used in study.12 

4. Amount of agent deposited on test panels. 16 


vii 




































5. Three wipe materials evaluated. . 17 

6. HD M1N1CAMS-FPD method parameters for statie vapor off-gas monitoring.24 

7. Sampling and analysis data from a typical M1N1CAMS vapor off-gas test.27 

8. HD MIN1CAMS-FPD method parameters.28 

9. HD ACAMS-FPD method parameters.29 

10. HD DAAMS-GC/FPD method parameters.30 

1 1 GC/FPD parameters used in the analyses of the HD, TGD, and VX solvent 

extracts.31 

12. Wiping contact times of rotary and linear wiping programs.31 

13. Comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters.34 

14. Additional comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters.41 

15. Summary of HD manual rotary-wiping screening tests of potential wiping 

materials.51 

16. Summary of HD automated rotary-wiping screening tests of potential wiping 

materials.53 

17. Summary of preliminary HD wipe tests on aluminum surfaces with automated 

rotary-wiping test apparatus. 55 

18. HD-wiping tests with rotary-wiping device on aluminum surface.60 

19. Summary of HD-wiping tests with rotary-wiping device on aluminum surface.63 

20. Summary of effect of additional wet wiping sequences on HD rotary wiping.65 

21. Amount of residual HD on post-wiped aluminum control surfaces.66 

22. HD Rotary-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces with wipe analysis 

(solvent extraction).67 

23. Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces with rotary wipe test 
apparatus analysis of agent off-gassing from both the test coupons and the 

activated carbon fabric wipes.68 

24. Summary of preliminary TGD wiping tests with rotary-wiping device on 

aluminum surface.69 

25. Results of HD-wiping tests with automated linear-wiping device on non- 

absorptive aluminum control surfaces.78 

26. Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces w ith linear wipe test 

apparatus.80 

27. Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces with linear wipe test 

apparatus multiple-pass, slow wipe speed, indoor (low) contamination density.81 

28. Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces with linear wipe test 

apparatus.82 

29. Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces w ith linear wipe test 

apparatus.83 

30. Summary of HD Linear-wiping tests (From Data in Tables 24, 26, and 28).84 

31. Comparison of wiping solvents.85 

32. Summary of HD rotary-w iping tests with CARC- and alkyl-painted surfaces.91 

33. Summary of HD linear wiping tests with CARC- and alkyl-painted surfaces.97 

34. Summary of HD rotary and linear wiping tests on polycarbonate and high density 

polyethylene surfaces with M100 reactive sorbent powder and MgO nanoparticlc 
powder. 100 

35. Summary of HD abrasion tests with polycarbonate, polyethylene, and mirrored 

surfaces with M 100 reactive sorbent powder and MgO nanoparticlc powder.102 

36. Summary of HD rotary-wiping tests with CARC- and alkyd-paintcd panels and 
with M100 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanoparticlc powder, HFE7200, and 

1PA.104 

37. Key to the detailed test results in Tables 37 through 51.....108 

viii 




































38. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on aluminum coupons with no powder. Ml 00 

reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanoparticle powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA.109 

39. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on CARC-painted stainless steel coupons with 

M100 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA. 110 

40. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on alkyd-paintcd stainless steel coupons with 

M100 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA.. 1 11 

41. Results of HD rotary-w iping tests on CARC-painted stainless steel coupons with 

M100 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA.1 12 

42. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on alkyd-paintcd stainless steel coupons with 

Ml00 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA.. 1 13 

43. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on nylon webbing samples with Ml00 reactive 

sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA.114 

44. Results of VX rotary-wiping tests on aluminum coupons with M100 reactive 

sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA...115 

45. Results of VX rotary-w iping tests on CARC-painted stainless steel coupons with 

MI00 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA. ..1 16 

46. Results of VX rotary-w iping tests on alkyd-paintcd stainless steel coupons with 

Ml00 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA.117 

47. Results of VX rotary-wiping tests on nylon webbing samples with Ml 00 rcacti\c 

sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE7200, and 1PA.118 

48. Results of TGD rotary-wiping tests with aluminum coupons with Ml00 reactive 

sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA..1 19 

49. Results of TGD rotary-wiping tests on CARC-painted stainless steel coupons 
with Ml00 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200. and 

1PA.120 

50. Results of TGD rotary-wiping tests on alkyd-paintcd stainless steel coupons with 

M100 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and IPA.121 

51. Results of TGD rotary-wiping tests on nylon webbing samples with Ml 00 

reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and IPA...122 

52. Summary of comparative rotary-w iping tests.123 


IX 

















Blank 


x 


DEVELOPMENT OF A PORTABLE SENSITIVE 
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION SYSTEM 

VOLUME I - COMMERCIAL CANDIDATES MATERIALS EVALUATION 

(CHEMICAL AGENT STUDIES) 


1. SUMMARY 

This is the final report on the laboratory work conducted by Southern Research Institute 
(SRI) and Entropie Systems, Ine. (ESI), to develop a Portable (Block 111) Sensitive Equipment 
Deeontaimnation System. The work was eondueted over the period of April 2001 through September 
2003 under SeiTeeh Services, lne., subcontracts 01-98-D-0014-020 and 02-98-D-0014-022 under U.S. 
Army Prime Contract DAADI3-98-D-00I4. D.O. 0020 and D.O. 0022. ESEs portion of the work was 
eondueted under subcontract to Southern Research Institute under SRI contract numbers SC-00183 and 
SC-00193. 


Under the JSSED Block 111 Sensitive Equipment Decontamination Program, the effect of 
dry and solvent-moistened wipes on the removal of chemical agents (CA) from surfaces was 
systematically studied. The studies were conducted using specialized automated rotary and linear wipe 
test systems developed under the program. A variety of dry and solvent-moistened wipes were evaluated 
on a range of surface types that were contaminated with droplets of neat CA agent—HD, TGD. or VX. 
The test surfaces evaluated included stainless steel, aluminum, Chemical Agent Resistant Coating 
(CARC)-paintcd panels, alkyd-paintcd panels, polyethylene, polycarbonate, and nylon webbing. 

The objective of the study was to evaluate commercial off the shelf (COTS) materials to 
develop a decontamination method that is effective against broad spectrum of agents (chemical, 
biological, Toxic Industrial Materials (TIM)), compatible with vehicle/aireraft interior material, man- 
portable, simple to use with rapid and easy disposal, and inexpensive. A two-tiered approach was used to 
meet this objective: 

1 Wipe test studies, with neat CA agents (HD, TGD, and VX), were eondueted on 

a range of test surfaces conducted by Southern Research Institute. 

2. Concurrent method Development and simulant studies were performed under 
subcontract to Southern Research Institute by Entropie Systems, lne. (ESI), with 
fluorescent diethyl phthalatc (DEP), a VX simulant. 

This evaluation report describes the live agent decontamination wipe tests conducted at 
SRI using automated rotary and linear wipe test systems with the agents HD, TGD, and VX on a range of 
test surfaces—aluminum, CARC, alkyd paint, nylon webbing, polyethylene, and polycarbonate. 

The most effective overall decontamination wipe system was a woven, activated carbon 
fabric wipe, pre-moistened with a commercial ethoxy-nonafluorobutane solvent (3M Novcc iM HFE- 
7200). This wipe system effectively removed from 90% (% by weight determined from solvent 
extraction) to greater than 99% of the surface agent contamination on non-absorptive and lovv-agent- 
absorptivc test surfaces in tests with HD, TGD, and VX. Dry activated carbon fiber wipes alone removed 
greater than 99% of HD surface contamination from non-absorptive aluminum surfaces. The 
decontamination efficacy results of the activated carbon fiber wipe system were equal or superior to 
results obtained in control tests with the reactive sorbent in the M295 Individual Equipment 


1 


Decontamination Kit, in the Ml00 Sorbent Decontamination System, and in comparison tests with 
magnesium oxide nanoparticlc powder. 

On non-absorptivc surfaces, limited vapor off-gas testing with HD demonstrated that HD 
vapor concentrations over a HD-contaminated non-absorptive aluminum surface can be reduced to near or 
below 1.0 Time Weighted Average (TWA) (the allowable exposure limit at the time the of the test 
program) after wiping. 

GD vapor concentrations over a TGD-contaminatcd non-absorptivc aluminum surface 
can be reduced to the same absolute concentration levels (in terms of mass per unit volume, mg/m 3 ) as 
HD. But because the allowable exposure level of GD is 100 times lower than the allowable exposure 
level for HD [on the basis of the Airborne Exposure Limit (AELs) in AR 385-61 of 0.003 mg/m for HD 
and 0.00003 mg/m for GD], surface wiping most likely would have difficulty reducing the mass of GD 
enough to become below the AEL. In addition, because the AEL for VX is a factor of three times lower 
than GD, the decision was made not to include GD and VX vapor monitoring as a screen for these 
candidate wiper materials. 


2. INTRODUCTION 

This is the final report on the laboratory work, conducted by SRI and ESI, to develop a 
Block 111 Sensitive Equipment Decontamination System with oversight and in cooperation with U.S. 
Army Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center ECBC). The work was conducted over the period from 
April 2001 through September 2003, under SciTcch Services, Inc., subcontracts 01-98-D-0014-020 and 
02-98-D-0014-022, under U.S. Army Prime Contract DAAD13-98-D-0014, D.O. 0020, and D.O. 0022. 
ESTs portion of the work was conducted under subcontract to Southern Research Institute under SRI 
contract numbers SC-00183 and SC-00193. 

This is the first (Volume I) of two reports (Volumes 1 and II) that summarize the 
evaluation and development of a wipe material to meet sensitive equipment and vehicle interior Joint 
Serv ice (JS) requirement needs, as defined within the JS Operational Requirements Documents (ORD) for 
Sensitive Equipment Decontamination and Platform Interior Decontamination. This report and Volume 
11, demonstrate an effort to evaluate COTS and military materials, applicable to the ORD definitions for 
portable decontamination system, which would support a thorough decontamination efficacy process and 
provide immediate and operational decontamination efficacy. In addition to a COTS./military materials 
comparison. Volume 1 also measures the decontamination efficacy of chemical agent by these material 
processes, from a variety of sensitive type material surfaces, as a function of the total mass removed. The 
mass removed was determined by solvent extraction and diffusion by vapor analysis. Volume II 
summarizes similar work conducted using chemical agent simulants. 

Volume 1 describes the live agent decontamination wipe tests conducted using automated 
rotary and linear wipe test systems with the agents HD, TGD, and VX on a range of test surfaces— 
aluminum, CARC, alkyd paint, nylon webbing, polyethylene, and polycarbonate. 

Volume II describes the work specific to the development of activated carbon fiber fabric 
as a portable sensitive cquipment/intcrior decontamination system. Within the Volume II report, the test 
objectives arc defined from interpretation of the JSSED and Joint Platform Interior Decontamination 
(JP1D) ORD Key Performance Parameters (KPP), fora portable decontamination system. The Volume II 
report provides the test data, results, and conclusions demonstrating the Area Cost Factor (ACF) fabric 
w ipc development, focusing on the adsorptive processes and surface decontamination efficacy for select 
materials 


2 


3. 


BACKGROUND 


The Joint Service Integration Group defined the requirements for a system that would 
provide the ability to decontaminate chemical and biological agents from sensitive equipment (avionics, 
electronics, electrical, and environmental systems and equipment), aireraft/vchicle interiors (during 
flight/s\ground/shipboard operations), and assorted cargo. The U.S. Army ECBC was the lead acquisition 
agency for this program. 

This JSSED System development was broken down into three distinct, progressively 
increasing capability "blocks" to reduce technology and financial risk. 

• The Block 1 system addressed the ability to successfully decontaminate sensitive 
equipment without affecting operation readiness, reliability, or maintainability. 

• The Block 11 system addressed the ability to decontaminate the interiors of 
aircraft/vehicles, requiring unique volumetric processing of all aireraft/v chicles 
current or planned for U.S. inventory. 

• The Block 111 system addressed the ability to decontaminate aircraft and vehicle 
interiors during flight, ground, or shipboard operations, also known as 
decontamination "on-thc-movc." 

The work conducted under the study described in this report was a feasibility study. The 
preliminary development program for a Block III sensitive equipment decontamination system/process 
was based on the use of solvent-moistened adsorptive wipes for the physical removal of chemical-warfare 
agents from surfaces. For purposes of comparison, the decontamination tests were also performed with 
the decontamination powder used in the Army's current M 295 decontamination kit and Ml00 Sorbent 
Decontamination System, and with reactive nanoparticle powders, a potential next-generation sorbent 
dccontaminant. 


The decontamination system/process will provide on-demand decontamination without 
adverse effects on the crew, mission, or platform performance. Based on the technology assessment 
performed, the most feasible solutions for Block 111 systems to date arc spot decontamination "kits" for 
sensitive equipment and interiors, which incorporate solvent wash and sorbent decontamination 
components. These "kits" would include one or more solvents compatible with electronics and sensitive 
materials for the dissolution of agent contamination, and sorbent decontamination materials for the 
remov al of the dissolved agent from the surface. 

These kits would rely on physical remov al of the agent from the contaminated surface by 
dissolution in a solvent, followed by both capture and storage of the contaminated solvent, or by 
adsorption of the dissolved contaminant on a solid substrate. In cither case, the contaminated material 
would be safely isolated, and ultimately disposed of, at an appropriate off board site. 

The technologies evaluated under the program w ere: 

• Adsorptive Wipe - Solvent Moistened Wipes 

• Solvent Spray and Wipe 

• Sorbent Powder and Wipe 


3 


this effort. 


SRI and ESI worked closely with and under the guidance of ECBC in the performance of 


In February 2006, Version 1.1 of the Joint Platform Interior Decontamination (JP1D) 
Capability Development Document (CDD) was released. The original ORDs for JSSED and JP1D were 
converted to CDDs. The Joint Material Decontamination System (JMDS) is expected to meet the 
decontamination requirements of both CDDs for their respective items. At some point, a Capability 
Production Document w ill incorporate all of the requirements. While JMDS was intending to incorporate 
three independent variant decontamination systems in order to meet the requirements of both CDDs, this 
issue was not resolved at the time of this writing. The program objective was to develop a wipe that 
would provide immediate and operational decontamination capabilities for contamination reduction, and 
was also safe for use on electronic equipment. This technology has potential application to the JSSED 
program to provide the warfighter with a capability to significantly reduce the initial contamination by 
90%. 


In April 2006, a Technology Transition Agreement (TTA) for the solvent wipe was 
initiated. The TTA is a living document and serv es as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the 
Joint Science & Technology Office (JSTO) (technology developer) and the Joint Program Manager (JPM) 
(intended receiver of a technology or capability developer). The wipe is described as a “Portable 
Decontaminant for Vehicle Interiors" (PDVI), which is capable of removing gross surface chemical and 
biological agent contamination from sensitive materials and complex surfaces in vehicle interiors. 


4. TECHNICAL APPROACH 

The technical approach to the task was a joint effort between SRI and ESI, in close 
collaboration with the ECBC program manager, Mr. Brian Maclver. 

The ESI examined the fundamental parameters of surface contaminant removal by a wet 
solvent wipe system, using automated wipe test systems that were designed and fabricated for the 
program. The ESI studies examined the quantitative removal of diethylphthalate (DEP), a VX simulant, 
doped with a fluorescent dye from aluminum test surfaces. 

The SRI conducted live agent decontamination tests, using the automated wipe test 
systems with the chemical agents HD, TGD, and VX on a range of test surfaces—aluminum, CARC, 
alkyd paint, nylon webbing, polyethylene, and polycarbonate. 


5. MATERIALS AM) EQUIPMENT 

5.1 Computer-Controlled Linear- and Rotary-Wiping Devices 

To evaluate the effect of different parameters on surface contaminant removal by wiping, 
and to eliminate wiping variability introduced by hand wiping, ESI, with technical design input from SRI, 
designed and had fabricated two computer-controlled wiping systems: a linear-wiping system and a 
rotary-wiping system. With the linear-wiping system, the wipe was mechanically pulled horizontally 
over a contaminated area. With the rotary-wiping system, the wipe was rotated in place over a 
contaminated area. 

A photograph of the rotary-wiping system, with a non-adsorptivc wipe material mounted 
on the rotary-w iping mandrel, is shown in Figure 1. A photograph of the linear-wiping system is shown 
in Figure 2. 


4 



Each system was powered remotely by a computer-controlled stepper motor, which 
provided control of the speed of the mechanical motion of the wipe, constancy of wiping motion, and 
duration of wiping. 



Figure 1 . Photograph of the rotary-wiping test apparatus. 



Figure 2. Photograph of the linear-wiping test apparatus. 


5 
















The two wiping systems were sized to allow the wiping experiments to be performed in a 
standard 10 in. wide by 20 in. long, 4 qt Pyrcx baking dish. 

In both systems, the vertical load on the wipe was established solely by the weight of the 
wipe base and of any auxiliary weight placed on the base. In the rotary-wiping device, a pin drive 
mechanism was used to decouple the weight of the drive motor from the rotating wipe base. 

A more detailed discussion of the design of the linear- and rotary-wiping systems, along 
with design sketches, parts lists, and details of the construction materials for the wiping systems are given 
in Volume II of this report. The instruction manuals for the two wiping systems, prepared by ESI, arc 
included as Attachment A of Volume II. 

After the receipt, assembly, and inspection of the wiping devices, SRI had five additional 
rotary-wiping mandrels (3 in. diameter, 6061 aluminum alloy, as shown in Figure 5 of Appendix A) and 
12 additional square aluminum test coupons (for the linear-wiping device) fabricated by Precision 
Industries, Inc., of Birmingham, AL. 

The original baseplates on both the rotary and linear-wiping systems were designed and 
fabricated with 1.5 in. square cutouts for mounting 1.5 x 1.5 x 0.25 in. square aluminum coupons. The 
baseplate in the rotary-wiping system had a single eutout. The baseplate in the linear-wiping system had 
three cutouts. Subsequent testing was conducted with 2 x 2 x 0.125 in, CARC- and alkyd-paintcd 
stainless steel panels, which were provided by the Government. In order to conduct automated-wiping 
tests with these panels, additional baseplates were fabricated for the automated-wiping systems—one for 
the rotary-wiping system and one for the linear-wiping system. Each of the additional baseplates was 
fabricated with a single eutout. These additional baseplates were also used in the tests with polycarbonate 
and polyethylene test coupons, which were commercially pre-eut to the same dimensions as the CARC 
and alkyd stainless steel panels. 

5.2 Wipe Materials 

The materials described in this section (Figure 3) were among those tested with the 
wiping technology. 

• KoTHmcx AW 1101/1103: Woven activated carbon fiber (ACF) cloth 
manufactured by Taiwan Carbon Technology Co., Ltd., Nantuen Chiu, Taichung, 
408 Taiwan, ROC. The properties of the ACF fabric arc as listed in Table 1 
below. 

• KoTHmcx AM 1132/1131: Activated carbon felt manufactured by Taiwan 
Carbon Technology Co., Ltd., Nantuen Chiu, Taichung, 408 Taiwan, ROC. The 
properties of the activated carbon felt are as listed in Table 1 below. 


6 


Table 1. Properties of activated carbon fabric and activ ated carbon felt. 


Material 

AW 1101 

AW 1103 

AM1131 

AM1132 

Material Form 

Plain Weave Fabric 

Plain Weave Fabric 

Felt 

h Felt 

Surface Area, m 2 /g 

1100 

1050 

1100 

1100 

Total Pore Volume, mL/g 

0 5-0.6 

0 5-0.6 

0.5-0.6 

0 5-0 6 

Avg Pore Diameter, A 

19-20 

19-20 

19-20 

19-20 

Fabric Weight, g/m 2 

95-105 

115 

150 

250 

Fabric Thickness mm 

0.40-0.50 

04 

20 

2.75 

Fabric Width, cm 

98-102 

120 

117 

117 

Decomposition Temp °C 

>500 

>500 

>500 

>500 


• 3M Scotch-Brite™ 2011 High Performance Cloth: Scotch-Britc™ 2011 is a 
commercial high performance microfiber cleaning cloth manufactured by the 3M 
Company. Typical properties of the cloth are listed in Table 2. 

• 3M Scotch-Britc™ 2021/2021N High Performance Cloth: Scotch-Brite™ 2021 
and 202IN (N=Natural) arc white knitted cloths, each composed of a bi¬ 
component microfiber with serging on all sides. Scotch-Britc™ 202IN is a 
“natural'’ off-white unbleached cloth. Scotch-Britc™ 2021 is a bleached 202IN 
cloth with a white color. Typical properties of the cloths arc listed in Table 2. 


Table 2. Properties of Scotch-Brite™ high performance cloth 


Material 

2011 

2021/2021N 

Property 

Typical Value 

Typical Value 

Dimensions, cm 

32 x 36 

43.1 x 49 5 

Thickness, mm 

1.57 

1.57 

Weight, g 

30.8 

50 

Fiber Type 

Polyester and nylon 

80% polyester/20% nylon 

Tuft Density, number/enY 

37 

37 

Water Absorption, g water/g wipe 

7 2 

4.3 

Oil Absorption, g oil/g wipe 

7.1 

4.4 

Drag - glass (dry, kinetic coefficient) 

0.85 

0.85 

Drag - formica (dry, kinetic coefficient) 

041 

041 

Tear Resistance (6400 g pendulum) 



Machine Direction, g force 

5570 

5570 

Cross Direction, g force 

4290 

4290 

Linting 

Minimal 

- 


• Teri® Reinforced Wipers: Dry commercial four-ply, nylon-reinforced, 95%- 
rccyclcd-papcr wipes manufactured by Kimberly-Clark®. Obtained from 
Southern Research Institute stockroom. 

• Lever 2000® Antibacterial Wipes: Commercial pre-moistened antibacterial 
wipes manufactured by the Lever Brothers Company and purchased locally. The 
wipes arc moistened with a 0.15% aqueous solution of bcnzalkonium chloride, 
with less than 1% each of unspecified preservatives and fragrances/perfumes. 


Scotch-Brite™ is a registered trademark of 3M Corporation. St. Paul. MN. 

Teri R is a registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark, Dallas, TX. 

Lever 2000 R is a registered trademark of Lever Brothers Company. New York, NY. 


7 
































• Swiffcr® Wipes: Dry commercial Swiffer Disposable Refill Cloths, 

manufactured by Proctor and Gamble and purchased locally. 

• Pledge® Grab-lt Wipes: Dry wipes cut from commercial Pledge® Grab-lt 
disposable mitts, manufactured by S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., and purchased 
locally. 

• Cutex® Simple Pad (non-acetone): Cutex® Simple Pads (non-acetone) arc 
commercial pre-moistened felt pads in individual sealed packages. The listed 
ingredients of each pad arc ethyl acetate, isopropyl alcohol, water, CDP 
conditioner, and fragrance. 

• Clorox® Disinfecting Wipes - Lemon: Pre-moistened commercial non-woven 

wipes. The listed active ingredients arc 0.145% n-alkyl dimethyl benzyl 

ammonium chloride and 0.145% n-alkyl dimethyl ethyl benzyl ammonium 
chloride. The solvent not specified, but is assumed to be primarily 1-5% 
aqueous isopropyl alcohol. 

• Clorox® Disinfecting Wipes - Fresh: Pre-moistened commercial non-woven 

wipes. The listed active ingredients are 0.145% n-alkyl dimethyl benzyl 

ammonium chloride, 0.145% n-alkyl dimethyl ethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, 
and 1 to 5% isopropyl alcohol. The solvent not specified, but is assumed to be 
water. 

• Bounty® Paper Towels: Bounty Big Roll. 

• U.S. Safety Respirator Wipes (Alcohol Free): Commercial alcohol-free foil- 
packaged, pre-moistened towelcttes, manufactured by U.S. Safety. The active 
ingredient in the wipe is a 0.4% aqueous bcnzalkonium chloride solution. 

• Non-Wovcn Polyester Felt: Non-woven polyester felt—Southern Research 
Institute toxic Agent Facility stock roll manufactured by Fiber Taxis, Ine., and 
used for the fabrication of V-G conversion pads for DAAMS, ACAMS, and 
M1N1CAMS sampling and analysis. 

• Professional Wypall® X70 Workhorse® Manufactured Rags: Kimberly-Clark® 
Professional Wypall® X70 Workhorse® Manufactured Rags are eloth-like 
Hydroknit non-woven composite wipes, which arc manufactured using jets of 
water to bond soft absorbent paper fibers to polypropylene non-woven fabric. 


SwiffcrK is a registered trademark of Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati. OH 
Pledged is a registered trademark of S.C. Johnson & Son, Racine. Wl. 

Cutex® is a registered trademark of McdTcch Laboratories, Inc. Irvington, NY. 
Clorox® is a registered trademark of The Clorox Company, Oakland, CA. 

Bounty® is a registered trademark of Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH. 

Wypall® and Workhorse® arc registered trademarks of Kimberly-Clark, Dallas, TX. 


8 



— 




Activated Carbon Fabric, Scotch-Brite™, and 2021 Activated Carbon Felt. 


Figure 3. Photograph of swatches of the three most effective wipe materials evaluated in the study. 


5.3 Test Surfaccs/Substratcs 

The test surfaces/substrates, described in this section (Figure 4 and Figure 5), were 
among those tested with the wiping technology. 

• Aluminum: The majority of the tests w ere conducted with 1.5 x 1.5 in. square. 
0.25 in thick aluminum coupons cut from stock material of the AT 2026, Type 2. 
sheets. The surfaces of the aluminum coupons were machined smooth, but w ere 
not polished. 

• Stainless Steel: The preliminary manual rotary tests were conducted \\ ith a set of 
machined stainless steel disks. Each stainless steel coupon w^as a 7 cm diameter 
x 3 mm thick cylindrical disk, with flat machined (but not polished) surfaces that 
were cut from stock of a type 304 grade sheet. 

• CARC: CARC-paintcd stainless steel panels w ere prepared and furnished for use 
in the wiping tests by ECBC. Each panel was 2x2 in. square, 0.125 in. thick 
and was treated with zinc phosphate. One surface of the panel was covered with 
1.0 mil of epoxy primer conforming to Mil .-P-52192, and 2.0 mils of 
polyurethane topcoat conforming to MIL-C-53039A. 

• Alkyd: Alkyd-paintcd stainless steel panels were prepared and furnished for use 
in the wiping tests by ECBC. Each panel was 2x2 in. square, 0.125 in. thick. 
One surface of the panel was painted with alkyd topcoat per MIL-E-52798A 
(olive green). 

• Nylon Webbing: A sheet of red nylon duck cloth (MIL-C-7219F) w as furnished 
for use in the tests by ECBC. Information on the type and class of the cloth is 
not know n The sheet of nylon webbing w as cut into 2 x 2 in. squares for testing. 


9 










• Polyethylene: Sorbent-powder scratch tests and a limited set of wipe tests were 
conducted on a set of high-density polyethylene coupons purchased from AAA 
Plastics of Birmingham, AL. Each coupon/panel was purchased pre-cut to 
dimensions of 2 x 2 in. square x 0.125 in thick. 

• Polycarbonate: Sorbent-powder scratch tests and a limited set of wipe tests were 
conducted on a set of polycarbonate coupons purchased from AAA Plastics of 
Birmingham, Alabama, as clear polycarbonate, 0.125 in thick. Each 
coupon/panel was purchased pre-eut to dimensions of 2 x 2 x 0.125 in. 

• First Surface Mirror: Sorbent-powder scratch tests were conducted on a set of 
first surface mirrors purchased from Edmond Seientifics, Tonawanda, NY (part # 
68-1289). The dimensions of each mirror were 38 x 38 mm square x 3.2 mm 
thick. 



AL UMNUM I, 



POLVCARftOfUTE 



■■ ■■■ t ■" J ; ■ J „ I 

■ -.!• • : ■ — r "- - 


Figure 4. Photograph of test surfaccs/pancls evaluated. 


10 































Figure 5. Closc-up photograph of aluminum test surface 


5.4 Solvents/Decontaminants 

The solvents/deeontaminants described in this section were among those used with the 
wiping technology. 

• HFE-7200: HFE-7200 is ethyl nonafluorobutyl ether (C 4 F g OC 2 Hs), a 

hydrofluoroether (HFE) manufactured by the 3M™ Company as a non-ozone- 
depleting solvent under the trade name Novee™ Engineered Fluid HFE-7200. 
HFE-7200 is a clear, colorless, low-odor, volatile liquid that is nonflammable, 
essentially nontoxic, generally non-hazardous to personnel, and compatible with 
a wide range of metals, plasties, and elastomers. HFE-7200 has a low 
environmental impact, and, while it is highly volatile, HFE-7200 evaporates 
slowly enough to be useful as a solvent in an adsorptive wipe. 

• HFE-711PA: HFE-711PA is an azeotropic mixture consisting of 95.5% (by 
weight) HFE-7100 (methyl nonafluorobutyl ether) and 4.5% (by weight) 
isopropanol. It is manufactured by the 3M™ Company as a non-ozone-depleting 
cleaning solvent under the trade name Novee™ Engineered Fluid HFE-711PA. 
HFE-71IPA has physical, toxicity, and environmental properties similar to those 
of HFE-7200, but has the potential for enhanced HD solubility because of the 
I PA component of the azeotrope. 

• Isopropanol: Isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been a common solvent with good 
solubility properties for CA agents. 


11 







• Hexane: n-Hexane is an excellent HD solvent. 

• M295/M100 Sorbent Powder: The M295/M100 sorbent powder is a surface- 
modified, activated alumina-reactive sorbent powder (A-200-SiC-l005S), used 
as the adsorbent resin in the M295 Individual Equipment Decontamination Kit, 
and in the Ml00 Sorbent Decontamination System. The powder was supplied by 
ECBC. The powder was used in decontamination-efficacy control tests as a 
reference dccontaminant to enable comparison of the efficacies of the candidate 
wipe materials. 

• MgO Nanopartielc Powder: NanoActivc" Magnesium Oxide Plus is a high, 
specific surface area, nanopartiele powder (> 600 m7g) manufactured by 
NanoScale Materials, Ine., 1310 Research Park Dr., Manhattan, KS 66502. The 
MgO Plus has small crystallite size, high porosity, and high chemical reactivity at 
room and elevated temperatures. The powder was supplied by ECBC. 

• Chemical Agents (CA): The neat agents used in the wipe tests to contaminate the 
test surfaces and to prepare agent standard solutions in isopropyl alcohol for use 
in instrument calibration, were provided and authorized for use by ECBC under 
the terms of Bailment Agreement DAAD13-00-H-0009. 

The lot numbers and Government-reported purities of the neat agents used in the study 
are listed in Table 3. 


Table 3. Chemical agents used in study. 


Agent 

Lot Number 

Purity 

HD 

010503-1 

97.5% 

HD 

010503-2 

97.5% 

HD 

010503-3 

97.5% 

HD 

011003-1 

97.5% 

VX 

020605-4 

96.0% 

TGD 

000705-1 

99.0% 

TGD 

012401-3 

99.0% 

TGD 

011003-1 

99.0% 


The neat agents were adjusted for purity in the preparation of standard solutions for 
instrument calibration. The weight of neat agent deposited on the test surfaces in the wipe tests was not 
adjusted for agent purity. 


6. WIPE TEST PROCEDURES 

6.1 Manual Rotary Wiping for Dry and Solvent-Moistened Wipes 

Initially, manual rotary-wiping tests were conducted while the automated rotary- and 
linear-wiping test apparatuses were being fabricated. The manual wiping procedures used in the tests 
were designed to simulate the rotary-wiping procedures that would subsequently be used in tests with the 
automated rotary-wiping test apparatus. 


12 














Each test was conducted at room temperature and ambient relative humidity. In a given 
test a flat, cylindrical stainless steel substrate was contaminated with 10 mg of neat HD. The agent- 
contaminated surface was then manually wiped with a dry wipe, with a wipe moistened (but not 
saturated) with HFE-7200, or with a commercial wipe that was already moistened with a solvent (as 
received). 


Each stainless steel substrate was a 7 cm diameter x 3 mm thick, cylindrical disk with a 
flat machined surface. Either five 2 pL droplets or eight 1.25 pL (approximate) droplets of neat HD (a 
total of 10.0 mg) were placed in a uniform pattern in the center of a 1 in. diameter area of the stainless 
steel surface, using a micropipettor. 

In each test, a square swatch of the candidate wiping material (typically 4.5 x 4.5 in.) was 
fastened tautly with plastic cable ties to one end of a 1 lb aluminum cylinder (2-1/2 in. diameter and 
2-1/16 in. long). 


In each test with a dry wipe or with a pre-moistened wipe, the cylinder with the attached 
wipe was placed gently down on the stainless steel substrate, with the wipe contacting the contaminated 
surface. The cylinder was then rotated clockwise by hand one revolution over a 10 s period. The cylinder 
was then rotated counterclockw ise one revolution over a 10 s period. The wipe remained in contact with 
the suifaee at all times during the wiping procedure. Care was taken not to impart any manual downward 
force on the cylinder during its rotation. 

In each test with HFE-7200, the dry wipe mounted on the aluminum cylinder was 
uniformly sprayed with HFE-7200 from a pressurized aerosol can of the solvent until the w ipe was moist, 
but not saturated, with HFE-7200. (The HFE-7200 was uniformly sprayed onto the surface of the wipe 
for approximately 2 s from a distance of about 1 in.) The cylinder was then placed gently down on the 
stainless steel substrate with the HFE-7200-moistcncd wipe contacting the contaminated surface. The 
elapsed time between the spraying of the wipe with HFE-7200 and the contacting of the wipe with the 
contaminated surface was just a second or two to minimize solvent evaporation. The cylinder was then 
rotated clockwise by hand one revolution over a 10-s period. The cylinder was then rotated 
counterclockwise one revolution over a 10 s period. The wipe remained in contact with the surface at all 
times during the wiping procedure. Care was taken not to impart any manual downward force on the 
cylinder during its rotation. 

After the completion of each set of wipe sequences, each contaminated wipe was 
removed from the aluminum cylinder and placed in a sodium hypochlorite dccontaminant solution. Each 
stainless steel disk was placed in sample jar containing 25 mL of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) to extract any 
residual agent from the disk. After a 60 min extraction period, the IPA extract was analyzed for residual 
HD by Gas Chromatography- Flame Photometric Detector (GC-FPD). The GC parameters used in the 
analyses arc summarized in Section 6.5.5. The minimum quantifiable amount of HD remaining on a 
given panel was 12 pg (out of the 10,000 pg initially deposited on each panel). 

6.2 Automated Rotary-Wiping Procedures for Dry and Solvent-Moistened Wipes 

The automated rotary-wiping tests were conducted with the automated rotary-wiping 
system described in Section 5.1 “Computer-Controlled Linear- and Rotary-Wiping Devices'' and in 
Attachment A, Volume 11 of this report. 

All of the tests were run at room temperature and ambient relative humidity. Prior to the 
start of a test, the identification number, material type, and dimensions of the test coupon to be used as a 
substrate in the test were recorded. Then the connection of the control Personal Computer (PC) to the 
stepper motor driver of the rotary-wiping system was visually confirmed. The HypcrTcrminal terminal 


13 


cmulation/serial communications program on the control PC was then opened, and the appropriate rotary- 
wiping program command was selected. The operation of the rotary-wiping system (hardware and 
software) was then verified by running a test program. 

(1) Attaching the wipe. 

• The rotary-wiping mandrel (Figure 6) was removed from the rotary-wiping test 
apparatus. 

• A pre-cut 4.5 x 4.5 in. swatch of the wiping material to be evaluated was fastened 
tautly across the bottom surface of the rotary-wiping mandrel and fastened to the 
mandrel with a stainless steel hose clamp, as show n in Figure 7 




Figure 7. Photographs of activated carbon fabric mounted on rotary-wiping mandrel. 


14 





(2) Mounting the coupons. 


• The test coupon/pancl, with any necessary spacers, was then mounted in the 
appropriate baseplate template for the chosen test, as shown in Figure 8. 



Figure 8. Photograph of CARC-painted panel, mounted in baseplate of rotary-wiping test apparatus 


• As discussed in Section 5.1 “Computer-Controlled Linear- and Rotary-Wiping 
Devices", two different baseplates were used in the automated rotary-wiping 
tests. One baseplate had a 1.5 in. square cutout for mounting a 1.5 x 1.5 in. 
square, 0.25 in. thick aluminum coupon. One baseplate had a 2.0 in. square 
cutout for mounting a 2 x 2 in. square, 0.125 in. thick. CARC-painted stainless 
steel panel, alkyd-painted stainless steel panels, polycarbonate coupon, or 
polyethylene coupon. 

• Because of minor thickness differences in the 2x2 in square, 0.125 in. thick test 
coupons, custom-fabricated 2x2 in. square, 3/32 in. thick aluminum shims, 
augmented with electrical tape for added thickness as needed, were used in these 
tests to make the surface of each test sample flush with the wiping surface of the 
baseplate of the wiping apparatus. 

• In the tests with the nylon webbing, a 2 in. square swatch of the webbing was 
mounted on an aluminum test coupon, with the edges of the nylon swatch 
extending beyond each of the four edges of the aluminum test coupon. The 
extended edges of the nylon webbing were folded down around the edges of the 
aluminum test coupon. The aluminum coupon was pushed up through the 
underside of the template opening of the baseplate until the surface of the nylon 
webbing was flush with the upper (wiping) surface of the aluminum baseplate. 


15 


(3) Applying the contaminant. 


All of the work with chemical agents under this test program was conducted in U.S. 
Army-approved chemical fume hoods in SRFs Toxic Agent Facility, in full compliance with all of the 
safety, security, surety, and personnel reliability requirements of SRTs Bailment Agreement DAAD13- 
00-H-0009 with the U.S. Army. 

• After the test coupon was mounted in the baseplate of the rotary-w iping test 
apparatus, a 1 dram vial, containing approximately 1 mL of the agent to be used 
in the tests, was retrieved from the agent storage vault of the Toxic Agent 
Facility and transported to the chemical fume hood in which the w ipe tests were 
being conducted. 

• The upper surface of the test panel mounted in the rotary-wiping test apparatus 
w'as then uniformly contaminated with CA droplets using a mieroliter syringe or 
a mieropipettor. 

• In the initial HD tests with aluminum test panels, each aluminum panel was 
contaminated with 10 mg of neat HD, corresponding to a HD contamination 
density of about 7 g/irf. In all of the remaining tests with aluminum and the 
other test surfaces, the agent contamination density was cither 10 g/m (the 
standard outdoor threat contamination density) or 1 g/m (the standard indoor 
threat contamination density). 

• The amount of each agent deposited on each type of coupon and the 
corresponding contamination density is summarized in the Table 4 


Table 4. Amount of agent de 

posited on test panels. 


Agent Contamination Density 

Test Surface Dimensions 

10 g/m^ 

7 g/m'* 

1 g/m‘ ! 

1 5. x 1,5-in 

14.5 mg 

10.0 mg 

1.45 mg 

2 0 x 2.0-in. 

26.1 mg 

- 

2.61 mg 


• The neat agents were deposited as approximately 0.25 pL droplets from a 10 pL 
syringe to generate the indoor flow') threat agent contamination density, or as 
approximately 1.0 pL droplets from a 25 pL syringe to generate the outdoor 
(high) threat agent contamination density. Thickened GD was deposited as 
approximately 2 pL droplets from a mieropipettor. The agent was generally 
deposited over the center 1 in. square of each test coupon. 

(4) Initiating the wiping sequence. 

• At this point in the test procedure, rotary wiping could be initiated with the dry 
wipe that had been attached to the rotary-wiping mandrel, or the wipe could be 
moistened with a solvent just prior to the initiation of the rotary w iping. 

In the tests in which solvent-moistened wipes were used, the wipe that had been 
preattached to the rotary-wiping mandrel was moistened with solvent (either HFE-7200, HFE-71IPA, or 


16 









IPA). The solvent was sprayed initially from a pressurized aerosol ean of HFE-7200 (Mieroeare HFE- 
7200) and then, after the small supply of aerosol cans were exhausted, it was sprayed from a manual 
hand-pump pressurized cylinder of HFE-7200, HFE-71 IPA, or IPA (Misto® 01i\c Oil Sprayer). 

The spraying procedure with the aerosol can of HFE-7200 (shown in Figure 9.) consisted 
of spraying the exposed bottom surface of the mandrel-mounted wipe in a single clockwise rotation, over 
a period of about 2 s, and from a distance of about 3 in., until all of the exposed wipe surface was 
moistened (“wet”) with solvent (but not dripping), as determined by visual observation. 

With this spraying procedure, as described in Appendix A, the measured weight of HFE- 
7200 on a mandrel-mounted, HFE-7200 moistened, 4.5 x 4.5 in. swatch of each of three wipe materials 
evaluated in this study, is shown in Table 5. 


Ta ble 5. Three wipe materials evaluated. 


Material 

Weight 

Scotch-Brite™ 2001 

7 1 ± 0.8 g 

KoTHmex AW 101 Activated Carbon Fabric 

4.6 ± 0.4 g 

KoTHmex AM 1132-activated Carbon Felt 

6 9 ± 0.5 g 


The retained weight of HFE-7200 on the activated carbon fabric is lower than the 
retained weight on each of the other two materials, because of the weight and open weave of the fabric. 

Before the start of a test, 85 mL of solvent was added to the the Misto® Olive Oil 
Sprayer (shown in Figure 10) from a graduated cylinder. The sprayer was then pressurized with 10 hand 
pumps. In the rotary-wiping tests, the mounted wipe swatch was sprayed from a distance of about 2 in. in 
two sequential clockwise rotations, over a period of about 5 s. Each wipe was moistened to the point of 
observing a visual coloration difference (as in the spraying from the Mieroeare pressurized aerosol ean), 
but not enough for the wipes to drip. The measured weight of HFE-7200 that was retained by the sprayed 
wipes was not determined. 

In the linear-wiping tests, the mounted wipe swatch was sprayed twice in a clockwise 
manner, from a distance of about 2 in., following the rectangular shape of the surface of the linear wipe 
mandrel. 


17 









Figure 9. Photograph of 3M Microcarc HFE-7200 aerosol can. 



Figure 10 . Photographs of assembled and disassembled Misto® olive oil sprayer. 


After the test coupon was mounted in the baseplate of the rotary-wiping test apparatus, 
and the surface of the coupon was contaminated with agent, the wiping mandrel with a preattached wipe 
(dry in some tests or solvent moistened in other tests) was placed on top of the agent-contaminated 
surface so that the turning pin on the shaft of the stepper motor was positioned in the slotted shaft of the 
wiping mandrel. The selected rotary-wiping command was then entered into the HyperTerminal™ serial 
communications program on the control PC, initiating the rotary-wiping procedure. 


18 







In many tests, multiple iterations of a given wiping command were used (c.g., three 
iterations of the G330 command, designated as 3 x G330). In these tests, the given wiping command was 
re-entered through the PC immediately after each wiping iteration was completed. 

Both single and multiple wipe sequences were used in various tests during the study: 

• Dry: In each dry-wipe test, a single wipe sequence with a dry wipe was used. 

• Wet : In each wet-wipe test, a wipe moistened with HFE-7200 or other solvent 
was used for each wipe sequence. 

• Dry/Dry : In each dry/dry test, two wipe sequences were used, each with a dry 
wipe. 

• Wet Dry : In each w'et/dry test, two w ipe sequences were employed—one 
sequence using a wipe moistened with a solvent (cither HFE-7200 or HFE-71 
I PA), followed immediately by a second w ; ipe sequence using a dry w ipe. 

• Wet/Wet : In each wet/wet test, two wipe sequences were employed—the first 
sequence using a wipe moistened with HFE-7200, followed immediately by a 
second wipe sequence using a wipe moistened with HFE-7200. 

• Wet Wet Dry . In each w'et/wet/dry sequence, three wipe sequences were 
employed the first sequence using a wipe moistened with HFE-7200, followed 
immediately by a second wipe sequence using a wipe moistened with HFE-7200, 
followed immediately by a third w ipe sequence using a dry wipe. 

In the tests w ith multiple w ipe sequences, after the completion of each w ipe sequence, the 
wiping mandrel was immediately replaced with a new wiping mandrel with a preattached dry or wet wipe 
and another wipe test sequence was initiated from the control PC. 

In three rotary HD tests on CARC-painted stainless steel panels, the agent contaminated 
test surface was sprayed with HFE-7200 from a Misto® Olive Oil Sprayer to lightly wet the agent- 
contaminated surface with solvent before the initiation of a single wipe sequence with a dry wipe or a 
wipe moistened w ith HFE-7200. 

After the wiping procedure was complete, the wiped test coupon was removed from the 
rotary-wnping test apparatus and analyzed for residual agent. The sampling and analysis procedures for 
determining the post-test amount of residual agent on the test surface are described in Section 6.5. 

6.3 Automated Rotary-Wiping Procedures for Sorbent Powder Decontaminant 

The procedures for the automated rotary-wiping tests with M295/M100 sorbent powder 
and with MgO nanoparticlc particle powder were nearly identical to the procedures used in the automated 
rotary-wiping tests with dry or solvent-moistened wipe materials described in Section 6.2. The difference 
between the procedures was the step involving dccontaminant powder deposited onto the upper surface of 
the test panel after the contamination of the surface w ith CA agent, and the subsequent removal of the 
powder from the decontaminated surface after the test. 

Prior to the start of a test, a predetermined amount of sorbent powder or nanoparticlc 
powder was weighed out on an analytical balance directly into a glass screw top vial. 


19 







The test substrate/panel was then mounted in the automated rotary wipe test apparatus, an 
appropriate wiping material was attached to the rotary wiping mandrel, the PC connection to the rotary¬ 
wiping stepper motor was eheeked and verified, and the upper surface of the test eoupon was 
contaminated with CA agent. 

Immediately after the agent contamination of the exposed surface of the test panel, the 
decontaminant powder was uniformly deposited over the contaminated surfaee. This was initially 
accomplished by positioning a stainless steel screen holder over the test eoupon so that the screen was 
direetly above the eoupon. The powder from the glass vial was then poured onto the surfaee of the 
screen, being careful to distribute the powder as evenly as possible over the area of the screen directly 
above the coupon. Then a flux brush, with bristles trimmed to approximately 3/16 in., was used to brush 
any residual powder through the screen. The sereen was then removed and the rotary wiping procedure 
was initiated. 


The screen assembly, however, was found to be too cumbersome and time-consuming for 
the deposition of the decontaminant powder. Therefore, in most of the tests, the decontaminant powder 
was manually deposited onto the contaminated surface of the test panel directly from the vial of powder. 
The same technician (the SRI Agent Handler) deposited the powder on the contaminated test surfaee in a 
careful, uniform, and reproducible manner in all of the tests. 

After the wiping sequence was completed, and the wiping apparatus was disassembled and 
removed, a glass pipette connected to a vacuum (with filter trap) was used in conjunction with a trimmed flux 
brush to remove the residual contaminated powder from the surfaee of the test eoupon. 

6.4 Automated Linear Wiping for Dry and Solvent Moistened Wipes 

The automated linear-wiping tests were conducted with the automated linear-wiping 
system, described in Seetion 5.1 and in Attachment A, Volume II of this report. Linear-wiping tests were 
conducted with HD on aluminum, CARC, alkyd, polyethylene, and polycarbonate test panels/substratcs. 
Linear-w iping tests were not conducted on nylon webbing. 

All of the tests were run at room temperature and ambient relative humidity. The 
identification number, material type, and dimensions of the test eoupon to be used as a substrate in the test 
were recorded before the test was started. Then the connection of the control PC to the stepper motor 
driver of the linear-wiping system was visually confirmed. The appropriate rotary-wiping program 
command was selected using the HypcrTerminal terminal emulation/scrial communications program on 
the control PC. The operation of the linear w iping system (hardware and software) verified by running a 
test program, for example, GO. 

A photograph of the linear-wiping test apparatus configured as initially received, with 
three aluminum test coupons for the preliminary linear-wiping tests, is shown below' in Figure 11. 

(1) Mounting the coupons. 

• Three 1.5 x 1.5 in. square aluminum coupons were placed in the cut-out slots in 
the aluminum baseplate of the linear-wiping device, as show n in Figure 11. 

• A 2.0 x 2.0 in. test eoupon, the test eoupon/pancl, with any necessary spacers, 
was mounted in the cutout slot in the appropriate baseplate template for the 
chosen test, as shown in Figure 12. 


20 


• As diseussed in Seetion 5.1, two different baseplates were used in the automated 
rotary-wiping tests—one baseplate with three 1.5 in. square eutouts for mounting 
1.5 x 1.5 x 0.25 in square aluminum eoupons, and one baseplate with a single 
2.0 in. square eutout for mounting a 2 x 2 x 0.125 in. CARC-painted stainless 
steel panel, alkyd-painted stainless steel panels, polycarbonate coupon, or 
polyethylene eoupon. 



Figure 11. Photograph of linear-wiping test apparatus using original baseplate with three aluminum test coupons. 



Figure 12 . Photograph of linear-wiping test apparatus with single CARC-painted test coupon. 


• Because of minor thiekness variabilities in the 2x2 in. square x 0.125 in. thick 
test coupons, thin eustom-fabrieatcd 2 x 2 in. square x 3/32 in. thiek aluminum 
shims, augmented with eleetrieal tape for added thiekness as needed, were used 
in these tests. The shims were needed to make the surfaec of each test sample 
flush with the w iping surface of the baseplate of the wiping apparatus. 


21 












(2) Attaching the wipe. 

• The linear wiping block was then remo\ed from the linear wipe test apparatus 
and a pre-cut 8 x 5 in. swatch of wiping material was fastened tautly across the 
bottom surface of the rotary-wiping mandrel. The wipe w'as then attached to the 
block by loosening the four wing nuts on the block, placing the ends of the wipe 
swatch under the metal bar on the block, and tightening the wing nuts. A 
photograph of an activated carbon fiber wipe material mounted on the linear 
w iping block is shown in Figure 13 below. 



Figure 13. Photograph of activated carbon fabric mounted 


on linear wiping mandrel. 


(3) Applying the contaminant. 

• After the test coupon was mounted in the baseplate of the linear wipe test 
apparatus, and the wiping material was attached to the wiping block, a 1 dram 
vial containing approximately 1 mL of the CA agent to be used in the tests was 
retrieved and transported to the chemical fume hood. 

• The upper surface of the designated test coupon was then uniformly 
contaminated with HD droplets using a microliter syringe (cither a 10 pL syringe 
or a 25 pL syringe). The HD contamination density was either 10 g/m 2 or 1 g/m 2 
(1.45 mg on the 1.5 x 1.4 in. aluminum test coupons and 2.61 mg on the 2.0 x 2.0 
in test coupons). 

(4) Initiating the wiping sequence. 

• Dry Wipes: After agent contamination, the wiping mandrel was then positioned 
at the far left side of the aluminum baseplate or just to the left of the leftmost 
aluminum test coupon (in the tests with three coupons). The wiping sequence, 
with dry wipes, was initiated. 

• Wet Wipes: In the tests using solvent-moistened wipes, the surface of the block- 
mounted wipe swatch was sprayed with solvent from a Misto® Olive Oil 
Sprayer. The spraying procedure consisted of adding 85 mL of solvent to the 


22 





sprayer from a graduated cylinder (conducted prior to the start of a test). The 
sprayer was pressurized with 10 hand pumps. The mounted wipe swatch was 
then sprayed twice from a distance of about 2 in., in a clockwise manner, 
following the rectangular surface of the linear wipe mandrel (a total spraying 
time of about 5 or 6 s). Each wipe was moistened to the point of observing a 
visual coloration difference, but not enough for the wipes to drip. 

• The linear wipe block with attached wiping material (cither solvent-moistened or 
dry) was then placed dow n on the far left side of the aluminum baseplate. The 
nylon fishing line was then attached to the two eyelets on the opposite sides of 
the wiping mandrel, routed through the pulley, wrapped around the motor shaft 
three times, and tensioned by loosening the wing nut on the pulley, moving the 
pulley away from the motor until the line is taut, and tightening the wing nut. 

• The selected rotary-wiping command was then entered into the HyperTcrminal™ 
serial communications program, and the linear wipe procedure was initiated. 

• In a few tests, multiple iterations of a given wiping command were used (c.g., 
four iterations of the G240 command, designated as 4 x G240). In these tests, the 
given wiping command was repeated immediately after each w iping iteration. 

One iteration of the G240 linear-wiping program consisted of six sequential linear w ipe 
passes over the test coupons: (1) a left to right pass, (2) a right to left return pass, (3) a second left to right 
pass, (4) a second right to left return pass, (5) a third left to right pass, and (6) a third right to left return 
pass. The duration of each pass w as 2.0 s, so the total wiping time was 12.0 s. 

In several HO linear-wiping tests, the agent-contaminated test surface was sprayed with 
HFE-7200 from a Misto® Olive Oil Sprayer to lightly wet the agent-contaminated surface with solvent 
before the initiation of a single wipe sequence with a dry wipe or a w ipc moistened w ith HFE-7200. 

After the wiping procedure was complete, the wiped test coupon was removed from the 
rotary-wiping test apparatus and analyzed for residual agent. The sampling and analysis procedures for 
determining the post-test amount of residual agent on the test surface are described in Section 6.5. 

6.5 Procedures for Determination of Residual Agent on Post-Test Coupons 

Several different sampling and analysis procedures were used throughout the 
experimental test program for determining the amount of agent remaining following the decontamination 
process on and in a test surface after the wiping procedures: 

• Static vapor off-gassing 

• Near Real Time Vapor Off-Gas Monitoring with M1N1CAMS and ACAMS 

• DAAMS Sampling and Analysis 

• Solvent Extraction and GC Analysis 


23 


6.5.1 


Static Vapor Off-Gas Monitoring 


Only a single preliminary test using static vapor off-gas monitoring (bag sampling) was 
conducted during the study. It was used in the first wiping test, involving HD contamination, and the 
wiping of an aluminum control surface, followed by vapor off-gas monitoring. It is described briefly here 
for completeness. 

The decontaminated (wiped) stainless steel disk was placed in a polyethylene bag with a 
total volume of about 30 L of air, at ambient temperature and relative humidity. The bag was sealed and 
allowed to sit undisturbed for 2 h. The headspace in the bag was sampled with a MIN1CAMS, configured 
and calibrated to detect HD vapor at a concentration of less than 0.5 TWA, at roughly 1 h intervals over 
about a 3 h time frame. 

Select MINICAMS parameters arc summarized in the Table 6 below: 


Table 6. HD M1NICAMS-FPD method parameters for static vapor off-gas monito ring 


Parameter 

HD 

Column 

15 meter DB-1 

PCT Sorbent 

Tenax-TA 

FPD Filter 

Sulfur 

Low Column Temp, °C 

50 

High Column Temp, °C 

250 

Ramping Rate, °C/min 

334 

Column Time, s 

101 

Low PCT Temp, °C 

40 

High PCT Temp, °C 

250 

FPD Temperature, °C 

150 

Sample Rate, mL/min 

250 

Sample Time, min 

4 

Purge Time, s 

130 

Total Cycle Time, s 

370 

Retention Time, s 

112 

H2 Pressure, psig 

35 

Air Pressure, psig 

35 

Carrier Gas 

Nitrogen 

N2 Pressure, psig 

40 

PMT Voltage, v 

950 


6.5.2 Time-Resolved Near Real Time (NRT) V apor Off-Gas Monitoring with 

MINICAMS 

Time-resolved MINICAMS NRT monitoring of post-wipe test coupons was conducted 
primarily in wiping tests with HD-contaminated and wiped aluminum test coupons. In the MINICAMS 
time-resolved NRT sampling and analysis, the wiped test coupon was placed in a 16 oz. glass sampling 
jar. The jar was fitted with stainless steel air inlet and outlet tube fittings in the Teflon-lined cap of the 
jar. Room air was sampled at timed intervals into and through the jar into a MINICAMS through 
approximately 6 ft of unheated 0.125 in. OD Teflon TFE tubing. Photographs of a glass sampling jar 
containing an aluminum test coupon and of the MINICAMS used to sample the effluent air from the jar 
arc shown in Figure 14. The collected samples were analyzed directly by the MINICAMS. The air 


24 
























flowing across the wiped aluminum test coupon in each jar was sampled and analyzed for residual agent 
vapor for up to 2 h. 

In each test, the concentration of off-gassing HD (in units of TWA) and the HD off¬ 
gassing rate (in units of ng/min) were plotted as a function of time. Typical HD vapor off-gas curv es are 
shown in Figure 15. The sampling and analysis data from a typical MINICAMS vapor off-gassing test, 
from which the vapor off-gas curves were generated, arc shown in Table 7. 



Figure 14. Photograph of MINICAMS (left) and sampling jar (right). 


In Table 7, the MINICAMS HD response (peak height in nA) is tabulated for each 
MINICAMS cycle, along with the MINICAMS time of day output and the calculated elapsed time from 
the start of sampling. The total cycle time of each MINICAMS cycle was 430 s, or approximately 
7.2 min. Thus, the elapsed time interval in each line item entry was incremented by 430 s from the 
previous entry. 


Prior to the start of a test or scries of tests, a multipoint calibration of the MINICAMS 
was performed using standard solutions of HD in 1PA. A linear regression analysis of the ealibration data 
was conducted to correlate the HD peak response in each MINICAMS cycle to a known amount of HD. 
From the calculated amount of HD determined in each MINICAMS cycle, the sample volume, and the 
TWA value for HD (3 ng/L), the concentration of HD in each MINICAMS cycle was calculated and 
listed. From the calculated amount of HD detected in each cycle and the MINICAMS sample time 
(5 min), the off-gassing rate of HD (in units of ng/min) was calculated and listed. Two vapor off-gas 
curves were generated in each test—a plot of HD concentration (TWA) vs. time and a plot of HD off¬ 
gassing rate (ng/min) vs. time. 

The cumulative amount of HD as a function of elapsed time was then calculated through 
each sampling interval by numerical integration (Simpson’s Rule) and was tabulated in the rightmost 
column of each line of the tabulated data. The calculated cumulative amount of HD at the end of the total 
sampling period (typically 120 min) was reported as the amount of residual HD recovered from the w iped 
test surface. 


25 



The decontamination efficacy (DE) of the wiping procedure was then calculated from the 
following equation: 


(Amount of Agent Initially Deposited - Amount of Residual Agent) 

DE = - X 100% Equation 1 

(Amount of Agent Initially Deposited) 


HD Off-Gassing Curve 
Test J973-026b 
Activated Carbon Fiber Wipe 
Sequential Wet/Dry Wiping 

t2 00 - —i— 



0.00 i-1--L- J-1--i-1-1 

0 0 20 0 40 0 60 0 60 0 100 0 120 0 140 0 

Elapsed Tima, mm 


HD Off-Gasing Curve 
J973-026b 

Activated Caron Fabric Wipe 
Sequential Wet/Dry Wiping 



Figure 15. Typical HD vapor off-gas cur\es from Test J978-026 (B). 

(NOTE: Y-axis in upper curve in units of ng/L; y-a\is in lower curve in units of TWA.) 


26 



































Table 7. Sampling and analysis data from a 
Test Number: J973-026(B) 


typical Ml NIC AMS vapor off-gas test. 



Elapsed 

Peak 


Sample 



Off-Gassing 

Cumulative 


Time 

Height 

Calc'd 

Volume 

Conc’n 

Calc’d 

Rate 

Off-Gassing 

Time 

min 

nA 

na 

L 

ng/L 

TWA 

nq/min 

na 


— 







1414 

7.2 

1366.2 

50 66 

2 00 

25 33 

8.44 

10.13 

1422 

14.3 

381 4 

25 00 

200 

12.50 

4.17 

5.00 

54.22 

1429 

21.5 

117,9 

13.06 

2.00 

6.53 

2.18 

2.61 

81.50 

1436 

28.7 

52.6 

8.35 

2.00 

4.18 

1.39 

1.67' 

96.84 

1443 

35.8 

28,1 

5 90 

2 00 

2.95 

0 98 

1.18 

107 06 

1450 

43.0 

17.5 

4 54 

2 00 

2 27 

0.76 

0.91 

114.55 

1458 

502 

13.5 

3.94 

2 00 

1.97 

0 66 

0.79 

120.62 

1505 H 

57.3 

11.3 

3,57 

200 

1.78 

0.59 

0.71 

126.00 

1512 

64.5 

8 8 

3 11 

2.00 

1.55 

0.52 

0.62 

130.78 

1519 

71.7 

8.2 

2.99 

2.00 

1 49 

0.50 

0.60 

135.15 

1526 

78.8 

8.3 

3.01 

2.00 

1.50 

0.50 

0.60 

139.44 

1533 

86 0 

6.1 

2.54 

2 00 

1.27 

0.42 

051 

14341 

1541 

932 

64 

2.60 

2.00 

1.30 

0.43 

0 52 

147.10 

1548 

100.3 

5 9 

2 49 

2 00 

1.24 

0.41 

0.50 

150.75 

1555 

107.5 

4.5 

2 14 

2.00 

1.07 

0.36 

0.43 

154.06 

1602 

114 7 

5,2 

2 32 

2,00 

1.16 

0.39 

046 

157.26 

1609 

121 8 

5 6 

2 42 

2.00 

1.21 

0 40 

0.48 

160.66" 








- 

MINICAMS Calibration Data 



r i 










1 

Linearization 


_ 

1 






Factor 

1.807 




i 

- - 


Amount 

Peak 



Curve Fit 




HD 

Area 

Linearized 

Lin Reg 

Deviation 





ng 

nA 

Area 

Peak Area 

% 





0.00 

0 

0 

0.00 





1.580 

3.04 

1.85 

1.70 

-9.1% 




2,95 

5.74 

2.63 

3.17 

16 9% 





5.91 

20.90 

5.38 

6 34 

15.2% 





11.80 

83 00 

11 54 

12.66 

8 9% 





23 60 

365 00 

26.18 

25.32 

-3.4% 



f —- i 


L J 

i 






Linear Regression Analysis 













SUMMARY OUTPUT 

L_ 






i ; 







Regression Statistics 






Multiple R 

0.995988 



1 




R Square 

0 991992 

r 

1 

f- 




Adiusted R Sq 

" 0.741992 

( 






Standard Error 

0.900573 

L 






Observations 

5' 

1 

— 







J 

1- 

l___ 






ANOVA 









df 

ss 

MS 

F 

ignificance 

F 



Regression 

1 

401 8526 

401.85265 

495 483 

0.000199 




Residual 

4 

3 244126^ 

0 8110315^ 





Total 

5 

405.0968 





j l ^ 





1 




Coefficients 

tendsrd Em 

t Stst 

P-value | 

Lower 95%Upper 95% 

Lower 95 0% 

Upper 95.0% 

Intercept 

0 

#N/A 

#N/A 

#N/A 

#N/A 

#N/A 

#N/A 

#N/A 

X Variable 1 

1.072901 

0.033054 

32.459234 

5.4E-06 

0 981128 

1 164673 

0 981128424 

1.164672858 









27 


















































































































In the agent tests discussed in this volume of the report, decontamination efficacy and 
wipe efficiency arc identical for the tests with non-absorptivc test surfaces, i.c., stainless steel and 
aluminum. However, in the tests with agent-absorptive test surfaces (CARC- and alkyd-paintcd panels, 
nylon webbing, polycarbonate, and high-density polyethylene), the agent vapor off-gas monitoring and 
solvent extraction techniques used in the tests determine the amount of residual agent remaining “in" (at 
least to some extent) as well as “on" the contaminated and wiped surface of each test coupon. Thus, for 
the agent-absorptive surfaces, decontamination efficacy may not be identical to wipe efficiency, 
depending on the extent of agent absorption into the surface. All of the agent-wipe test results in this 
volume of the report arc reported in terms of decontamination efficacy. 

The MINICAMS-FPD instalment and HD method parameters are summarized in Table 8 

below. 


Table 8. HD MINICAMS-FPD method parameters. 


Parameter 

HD 

Column 

15 meter DB-1 

PCT Sorbent 

Tenax-TA 

FPD Filter 

Sulfur 

Low Column Temp, °C 

50 

High Column Temp, °C 

200 

Ramping Rate, °C/mm 

334 

Column Time, s 

101 

Low PCT Temp, °C 

40 

High PCT Temp, °C 

250 

FPD Temperature, °C 

150 

Sample Rate, mL/mm 

400 

Sample Time, mm 

5 

Purge Time, s 

130 

Total Cycle Time, s 

430 

Retention Time, s 

112 

H 2 Pressure, psig 

35 

Air Pressure, psig 

35 

Carrier Gas 

Helium 

He Pressure, psig 

40 

PMT Voltage, v 

900 


6.5.3 Near Real-Time Vapor Off-Gas Monitoring Using ACAMS 

Time-resolved Automatic Continuous Air-Monitoring System (ACAMS) NRT 
monitoring of post-wipe test coupons was conducted in preliminary tests w ith TGD-contaminatcd and 
wiped aluminum test coupons. In the ACAMS time-resolved NRT sampling and analysis, the wiped test 
coupon was placed in a glass sampling jar with air inlet and outlet fittings in the cap of the jar. Room air 
was sampled at timed interv als into and through the jar into an ACAMS. Refer to Table 9 for the method 
parameters. The collected samples were analyzed directly by the ACAMS. Each jar was sampled and 
analyzed for residual agent vapor for up to 2 h. In each test, the concentration of off-gassing GD (in units 
of ng/min and in units of TWA) was plotted as a function time. 


28 
























Table 9. HD ACAMS-FPD method parameters. 


Parameter 

GD 

Column 

15 meter DB-1 

PCT Sorbent 

Tenax-TA 

FPD Filter 

Sulfur 

Sample Rate, mL/min 

200 

Sample Time, min 

3.5 

Total Cycle Time, s 

330 

Sample Volume, mL 

700 


6.5.4 Depot Area Air-Monitoring System (DAAMS) Sampling and Analysis 

DA AMS sampling and analysis were used in HD-wiping tests only, primarily with 
aluminum and CARC test coupons. Refer to Table 10 for method parameters. In the DAAMS sampling 
and analysis, after the completion of the wiping procedure, the wiped test coupon was placed in a 16 oz. 
glass sampling jar that was fitted with stainless steel air inlet and outlet Swagelok fittings in the Teflon- 
lined cap of the jar. Room air was pumped into and through the jar and then through a 3 mm OD Tenax 
TA DAAMS transfer tube. In about one-third of the tests, a DAAMS sample flow' rate of 50 mL/min, and 
a sample time of 120 min (for a total sample volume of 6.0 L) was used to determine the total amount of 
residual agent that could be recovered from the w iped test surface by vapor off-gas analysis. 

In the remainder of the tests w ith DAAMS sampling and analysis, room air was pumped 
into and through the jar then through a 3 mm OD Tenax TA DAAMS transfer tube at a How rate of 
200 mL/min for 15 min. Then the DAAMS tube was replaced with a second tube that sampled at the 
same flow rate for another 15 min, then by a third tube that sampled for another 30 min, a fourth tube that 
sampled for another 30 min, and a fifth tube that sampled for a final 30 min. A total of five DAAMS 
tubes were used to sample sequentially, at 200 mL/min for a total of 120 min (a total sample volume of 
24 L). In a few of the tests, the DAAMS sample flow' rate was decreased from 200 to 50 mL/min, and the 
DAAMS sample times were decreased from 15 and 30 min to 15 and 30 s, respectively, because of large 
amounts of off-gassed HD collected in earlier tests. 

The DAAaMS transfer tubes were then thermally desorbed into an HP 5890 Series 11 GC 
equipped with a DAAMS injection port, a flame ionization detector, and an HP 3396A Series II 
integrator. 


Prior to the tests, the GC was calibrated over a range of 8 to 984 ng HD. The calibration 
curve was linear over the calibration range with a correlation coefficient of 0.999. The total amount of 
HD collected on, and desorbed from the DAAMS tube (in ng), was determined directly from GC response 
of the desorbed DAAMS sample and the HD calibration curve. This value is a measure of the residual 
amount of HD that remained on the test surface after the completion of the wiping cycles. The 
decontamination efficacy of the wiping protocol is calculated from the residual amount of HD remaining 
on the test surface and the known amount of HD (10 mg) initially deposited on the test surface. 


29 











T able 1 0 . HD DAAMS-GC7FPD method parameters. 


Parameter 

HD-DAAMS-GC/FID 

Sorbent 

Tenax-TA 

Sample Rate, mL/min 

50 - 200 mL/min 

Sample Time, min 

15-120 (varied)*’ 

Sample Volume (L) 

x - 6 varied * 2 

Column 

15-m DB-210 

Carrier Gas 

Helium 

Carrier Pressure, psig 

lb 

Injection Port Temp. °C 

225 

Init. Column Temp °C 

80 

Initial Hold Time (min) 

0.5 

Ramping Rate, °C/min 

40 

Final Column Temp, °C 

140 

Final Hold Time (min) 

2 

Detector 

FID 

Detector Temperature, °C 

300 

H? Pressure, psig 

55 

Air Pressure, psig 

85 

HD Retention Time, min 

-1.30 

GD Retention Time, min 

NA 

VX Retention time, min 

NA 

FPD Filter 

N/A 


6.5.5 Solvent Extraction and GC Analysis 

In the majority of the agent-wiping tests conducted, the amount of post-wipe residual 
agent remaining on the surface of a test coupon was determined by solvent extraction and GC analysis. 

After the completion of the wiping procedure, each wiped test coupon was remov ed from 
the wipe test apparatus and placed into a glass sampling jar containing a prc-mcasured volume of 
extraction solvent—isopropyl alcohol (IPA) in most of the tests, hexane in a couple of HD tests. The 

1.5 x 1.5 in. square aluminum and nylon test coupons were placed into a 4 oz. sampling jar containing 
25 ml of extraction solvent. The 2x2 in. square CARC, alkyl, polyethylene, or polycarbonate test 
coupons were placed in an 8 oz. sampling jar containing 50 mL of extraction solvent. Before the start of a 
test, the appropriate volume of extraction solvent was added to each sampling jar using a variable-volume 
Brinkmann Digital Dispcnscttc connected to a bottle of reagent or pesticide grade solvent. 

Each test coupon was allowed to sit immersed in the extraction solvent at room 
temperature, with occasional swirling, for a minimum of 2 h. At the end of the extraction period, an 
aliquot of the extraction solvent was removed from the sample jar, volumetrieally diluted if required, 
transferred to a glass autosamplcr vial, and analyzed for agent on an HP 5890 Scries II GC equipped with 
an autosamplcr, a flame photometric detector, and an HP 3396A Series II integrator. HD analyses were 
conducted with a sulfur interference filter in the FPD; GD and VX analyses were conducted with a 
phosphorus interference filter. 


30 

























The GC was calibrated over a nominal range of 0.5-20 ng for HD, 0.9-14 ng for VX, and 
0.9-14 ng for GD. The GC/FPD parameters used in the analyses of the HD, TGD, and VX solvent 
extracts are shown in the Table 1 1 below. 


Table 11. GC/FPD parameters used in the analyses of the HD, TGD, and VX so lvent extracts. 


Parameter 

HD/TGD/VX-GC/FPD 

Column 

15-m DB-210 

Carrier Gas 

Helium 

Carner Pressure, psig 

75 

Injection Port Temp °C 

275 

Init Column Temp., °C 

80 

Initial Hold Time (min) 

0.5 

Ramping Rate, °C/min 

40 

Final Column Temp, °C 

140 

Final Hold Time (min) 

0.5 

HD Injection Volume pL 

2 to 5 (variable) 

VX Injection Volume, pL 

3 

TGD Injection Volume pL 

3 

Detector 

FPD 

Detector Temperature, °C 

250 

H 2 Pressure, psig 

45 

Air Pressure, psig 

80 

HD Retention Time min 

-1.230 

GD Retention Time, min 

-1 3 

VX Retention time, min 

- 3 0 

FPD Filter 

Phosphorus - TGD & VX 

Sulfur - HD 


6.5.6 Wipe Contact Times 

The total wiping contact times used in the various rotary and linear wiping tests arc 
summarized in Table 12 below. 


Table 12. Wiping contact times of rotary and linear wiping programs. 


Rotary-Wiping Sequence 

Contact Time 
(S) 

Linear Wipe Sequence 

Contact Time 

J§L 

1 x G300 

8 

1 x GO 

0.5 

^ 1 x G330 

16 

1 x G180 

2 

2 x G330 

32 

1 x G240 

12 

3 x G330 

48 

4 x G240 

48 


31 
































6.6 


Temperature and Relative Humidity Measurement 


All of the ehemieal-agent wipe tests in this study were conducted in a chemical fume 
hood at ambient temperature and relative humidity. The ambient temperature and relative humidity (RH) 
in the fume hood were measured with a small Fisherbrand Model 11-661-13 digital 
hygrometer/thermometer. The digital temperature/RH meter was located in the front comer of a Pyrex 
baking dish located on the floor of the hood. The Pyrex dish served as the agent spill tray and as the 
holding tray for the mieroliter syringes and other agent-related items that were used in the wipe tests. 

With a few exceptions, the ambient temperature and relative humidity was noted and 
recorded once during each test. The measured temperature and relative humidity of each test are listed in 
the next section of this report. 


7. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

A comprehensive listing of the entire wipe tests, with the associated test parameters for 
each test that were conducted with agents during the study, is given in Table 13 and Table 14. 

The wiping tests in Table 13 and Table 14 are listed in chronological order. Each line 
item entry in the table includes the following information: 

• Test number (keyed to SRI notebook and page number) 

• Wiping material 

• Test panel/surface 

• Agent (HD, TGD, or VX) 

• Agent Lot 

• Amount of agent deposited on test surface 

• Solvent or deeontaminant powder applied to contaminated surface 

• Method of dispensing solvent (typically MieroCare aerosol can or Misto® Olive 
Oil Sprayer 

• Type of wipe test (manual rotary, automated rotary, automated linear) 

• Weight of wiping mandrel (rotary-wiping tests) or wiping block (linear-wiping 
tests) 

• Wiping program used in automated tests 

• Number of iterations of w iping program 

• Type of w ipe used in each wipe iteration [dry, wet (= solvent moistened)] 

• Solvent sprayed onto contaminated test coupon or deeontaminant powder applied 
to contaminated surface 


32 



• Sampling method for determination of residual agent 

• Extraction solvent, if applicable 

• Analysis method for determination of residual agent (GC/FPD, GC/FID, 
MINICAMS/FPD, ACAMS/FPD) 

• Surface temperature of test panel 

• Ambient relative humidity 

The various agent-wiping tests that were conducted during the study are grouped into the 
following categories: 

• HD Rotary Screening Tests of Potential Wiping Materials 

• Developmental HD Wipe Tests with Vapor Monitoring 

• HD Automated Rotary-Wiping Tests on Non-Absorptivc Aluminum Surfaces 

• TGD Automated Rotary-Wiping Tests on Non-Absorptivc Aluminum Surfaces 

• HD Automated Linear-Wiping tests on Non-Absorptivc Aluminum Surfaces 

• HD Automated Rotary-Wiping Tests on Absorptive Surfaces 

• HD Automated Linear-Wiping tests on Absorptive Surfaces 

• HD, VX, and TGD Comparative Automated Rotary-Wiping Tests 

In the following sections of this report, each category of tests is described, and the test 
results are presented and discussed. 


33 



Table 13. Comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters. 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Wipe Material 

Test 

Substrate 

Agent 

Agent 

Lot 

Agent 

Deposited 

Solvent 

or 

Decon 

Solvent 
or Decon 
Dispenser 

Type of Test 

J906-008a-c 

3M Scotch Brite 2011 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-008d-f 

3M Scotch Brite 2011 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-014a-c 

3M Scotch Brite 2011 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-014d-f 

3M Scotch Brite 2011 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-026a-c 

A/C Felt AM 1131 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-026d-f 

A/C Felt AM 1131 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-030a-c 

A/C Fabric AW 1501 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-030d-f 

A/C Fabric AW 1501 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-034a-c 

P&G Swifter wipes 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-034d-f 

P&G Swifter wipes 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-038a-c 

Polyester felt nonwoven 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-038d-f 

Polyester felt nonwoven 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-042a-c 

Pledge "Grab-lt" wipes 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-042d-f 

Pledge "Grab-lt" wipes 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-046a-c 

Ten Reinforced Wipers 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-046d-f 

Teh Reinforced Wipers 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-050a-c 

3M Scotch Brite 202IN 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-050d-f 

3M Scotch Brite 202IN 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-054a-c 

Cutex Simple Pad 
(non-acetone) 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

Ethyl Acetate 
IPA 
Water 

- 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-059a-b 

Clorox Disinfecting 
Wipes 

(Lemon Scent) 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

AqueousIPA 
1-5% 

- 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-059d-f 

Clorox Disinfecting 
Wipes 

(Fresh Scent) 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

AqueousIPA 
1-5% 

- 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-070a-c 

Bounty Paper Towels 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-070d-f 

Bounty Paper Towels 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-078a-c 

Lever 2000 Wipes 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

70-99% water 


Manual 

rotary 

J906-078d-f 

Safety Equipment 
Cleaning Pads 

ss disks 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

>99% water 

- 

Manual 

rotary 

J906-085a 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J906-085b 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-090a 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J906-090b 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-094a 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 


34 













































Table 13. Comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Wipe Material 

Test 

Substrate 

Agen 

t 

Agent 

Lot 

Agent 

Deposited 

Solvent 

or 

Decon 

Solvent 
or Decon 
Dispenser 

Type of Test 

J906-094b 

A/C Fabnc AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J 906-100a 

A/C Fabnc AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J906-100b 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-104 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J 906-106 (3) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-110 (3) 

Teri Reinforced Wipers 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-112 (3) 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-130 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

TGD 

012401-3 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-134 (2) 

A/C Fabnc AW 1101 

aluminum 

TGD 

012401-3 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-138 (3) 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

TGD 

012401-3 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J906-142 (3) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

TGD 

012401-3 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-008 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-012 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-014 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-016 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-022 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-026 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-030 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-046 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-048 (3) 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-050 (3) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-052 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-054 (3) 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-056 (3) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-058 (3) 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-060 (3) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Micro-Care 

Rotary 

J973-062 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-066 (3) 

Wypall X70 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-070 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-71IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-074 (3) 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-71IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-078 (3) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-71 IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-082 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

10 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-088 (3) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-096 (3) 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-104 (3) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14,5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J973-114 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J973-116 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J973-118 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J973-120 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-122 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-124 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-126 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J973-128 

A'C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 


35 


























































Table 13. Comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Kepucates) 

Wipe Material 

Test 

Substrate 

Age 

nt 

Agent 

Lot 

Agent 

uepositea 

Solvent 

or 

Decon 

Solvent 
or Decon 
Dispenser 

Type of Test 

J973-130 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J973-132 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-134 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

* 

Linear 

J973-136 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-140 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-142 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-144 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-146 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J973-148 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J973-150 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J973-152 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J973-156 

A/C FabncAW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-004 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-006 

3M Scotch Bnte 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-008 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-014 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-016 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-018 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-022 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-026 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1.45 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-028 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-032 

3M Scotch Bnte 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-034 

3M Scotch Bnte 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1.45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-038 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1.45 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-040 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1.45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-042 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-044 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-046 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14 5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-048 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1.45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-050 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-054 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-056 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-058 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1073-060 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

1.45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-064 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-066 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

011003-1 

14.5 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-068 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-070 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14 5 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-074 

A/C Fabnc AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14 5 mg 

Hexane 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-076 

A/C FabncAW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14 5 mg 

Hexane 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-078 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

Hexane 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-080 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14 5 mg 

Hexane 

Misto 

Linear 

J1073-084 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 


36 























































Table 13. Comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Wipe Material 

Test 

Substrate 

Agent 

Agent! Lot 

Agent 

Deposited 

Solvent 

or 

Decon 

[ Solvent 

1 or Decon 

Type of Test 

J1073-086 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1073-088 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1,45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-090 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-092 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-096 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

26.1 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-098 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

none 

010503-3 

control 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-100 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

none 

010503-3 

control 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-102 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

26 1 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-104 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-108 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-110 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-114 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-120 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-122 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-124 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1073-126 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-004 

A 1C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-005 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1190-010 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-011 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1190-016 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

None 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-017 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-022 

A 10 Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-023 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-026 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1190-027 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-030 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-031 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1190-034 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-035 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-038 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1190-039 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-042 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-043 

A/C Felt AM 1132 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-044 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-045 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

14.5 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-062 

A/C Fabnc AW 1101 

Polycarbonate 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1190-063 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Polycarbonate 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Linear 

J1190-072 

A'C Fabric AW 1101 

Polyethylene 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

None 

- 

Linear 

J1190-073 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Polyethylene 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

- 

Linear 

J1190-074 

None - Surface 
recovery control 

Polycarbonate 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

None 

Control 

J1190-075 

None - Surface 
recovery control 

Polyethylene 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

None 

Control 


37 























































Table 13. Comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Wipe Material 

Test 

Substrate 

Agent 

Agent 

Lot 

Agent 

Deposited 

Solvent 

or 

Decon 

Solvent 
or Decon 
Dispenser 

Type of Test i 

J1190-096 

3M Scotch Bnte 2021 

Polycarbonate 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-097 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Polycarbonate 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-098 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Polycarbonate 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-100 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Polyethylene 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-101 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Polyethylene 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-102 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Polyethylene 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-103 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Polycarbonate 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-104 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Polycarbonate 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-105 

3M Scotch Bhte 2021 

Polycarbonate 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-108 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Mirror 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-109 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Mirror 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-110 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Mirror 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-111 

A 1C Fabric AW 1101 

Polycarbonate 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-112 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Polyethylene 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-113 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Mirror 

none 

010503-3 

scratch test 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-114 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-115 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-116 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-117 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-118 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-124 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-125 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-126 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-127 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-128 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-129 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

J1190-130 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1190-131 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1190-132 

Chamois Cloth 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-133 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-134 

A 1C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-135 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-136 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

J1190-137 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 


38 













































Table 13. Comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Wipe Material 

Test 

Substrate 

Age 

nt 

Agent 

Lot 

Agent 

Deposited 

Solvent 

or 

Decon 

Solvent 
or Decon 
Dispenser 

Type of Test 

J1190-138 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 


Rotary 

J1190-139 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1190-140 

A 1C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

J1190-141 

Chamois Cloth 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-006 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-007 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-008 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-009 

A 1C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-010 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-011 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-012 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-013 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-014 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-015 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

aluminum 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-022 (2) 

A 1C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-023 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-024 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-025 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-026 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-027 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-028 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-029 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-030 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-031 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-032 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-033 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-034 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-035 (2) 

3M Scotch Bnte 2021 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-036 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

CARC 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-037 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-038 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-039 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-040 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2.61 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-041 (2) 

3M Scotch Brite 2021 

Alkyd 

HD 

010503-3 

2 61 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-056 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-057 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-058 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-059 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

HD 

010503-3 

1.45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-060 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

HD 

010503-3 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 


39 




















































Table 13. Comprehcnsi\e list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Wipe Material 

Test 

Substrate 

Age 

nt 

Agent 

Lot 

Agent 

Deposited 

Solvent 

or 

Decon 

Solvent 
or Decon 
Dispenser 

Type of Test 

K023-062 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

VX 

020605-4 

1.45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-063 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

vx 

020605-4 

1 45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-064 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

VX 

020605-4 

1 45 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-065 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

vx 

020605-4 

1.45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-066 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

vx 

020605-4 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-068 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

vx 

020605-4 

1.45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-069 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

vx 

020605-4 

1 45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-070 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

vx 

020605-4 

1.45 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-071 (20 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

vx 

020605-4 

1 45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-072 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

vx 

020605-4 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-074 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

vx 

020605-4 

2 60 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-075 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

vx 

020605-4 

2 60 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-076 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

vx 

020605-4 

2.60 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-077 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

vx 

020605-4 

2 60 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-078 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

vx 

020605-4 

2 60 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-080 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

vx 

020605-4 

2 60 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-081 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

vx 

020605-4 

2.60 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-082 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

vx 

020605-4 

2.60 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-083 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

vx 

020605-4 

2 60 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-084 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

vx 

020605-4 

2.60 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-086 (2) 

A'C Fabric AW 1101 - 

2 ply 

aluminum 

vx 

020605-4 

1 45 mg 

None 

• 

Rotary 

K023-088 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-089 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

TGD 

011003-1 

1.45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-090 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-091 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-092 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

aluminum 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-093 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 - 

2 Ply 

aluminum 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-095 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-096 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-097 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-098 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

TGD 

011003-1 

1.45 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-099 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Nylon Web 

TGD 

011003-1 

1 45 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-101 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

TGD 

011003-1 

2.60 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-102 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

TGD 

011003-1 

2.60 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-103 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

TGD 

011003-1 

2 60 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-104 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

TGD 

011003-1 

2 60 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-105 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

CARC 

TGD 

011003-1 

2.60 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-107 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

TGD 

011003-1 

2 60 mg 

None 

- 

Rotary 

K023-108 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

TGD 

011003-1 

2 60 mg 

HFE-7200 

Misto 

Rotary 


40 



















































Table 13. Comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued) 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Wipe Material 

Test 

Substrate 

Age 

nt 

Agent 

Lot 

Agent 

Deposited 

Solvent 

or 

Decon 

Solvent 
or Decon 
Dispenser 

Type of Test 

K023-109 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

TGD 

011003-1 

2.60 mg 

IPA 

Misto 

Rotary 

K023-110 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

TGD 

011003-1 

2.60 mg 

M295 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 

K023-111 (2) 

A/C Fabric AW 1101 

Alkyd 

TGD 

011003-1 

2 60 mg 

MgO 

Powder 

manual 

Rotary 


Table 14. Additional comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters. 


Test ID 
(& No. of 

lr 

AvpilCvlOSJ 

Weight 

Wiping 

Number 

of 

Wipe 

1 

2 

. 3 

Placed 

On 

[Coupon 

Sampling 

Method 

Solvent 

Analysis 

Temp 

c 

RH 

y. 

J906-008a-c 


- 

- 

Dry 

- 


None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

22 

J906-008d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

22 

J906-014a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

27 

33 

J906-014d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

27 

33 

J906-026a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

26 

28 

J906-026d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 

> 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

26 

28 

J906-030a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

53 

J906-030d-f 


- 

- 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

53 

J906-034a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

26 

64 

J906-034d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 


None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

26 

64 

J906-038a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 


None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

27 

60 

J906-038d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

27 

60 

J906-042a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

26 

60 

J906-042d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

26 

60 

J906-046a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

30 

47 

J906-046d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

30 

47 

J906-050a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 

> 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

28 

48 

J906-050d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

28 

48 

J906-054a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Pre-wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

27 

30 

J906-059a-b 

- 

- 

- 

Pre-wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

27 

59 

J906-059d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Pre-wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

27 

59 

J906-070a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

30 

32 

J906-070d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

30 

32 

J906-078a-c 

- 

- 

- 

Pre-wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

26 

52 

J906-078d-f 

- 

- 

- 

Pre-wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent Extraction 

10 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

26 

52 

J906-085a 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS 

- 

- 

23 

51 

J906-085b 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS 

- 

- 

23 

53 


41 






























































Table 14. Additional comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Mandrel 

Weight 

Wiping 

Program 

Number 

of 

Iterations 

Wipe 

Wipe 

{Placed 

3 Coupon 

Sampling (Extraction 
Method | Solvent 


Surface 

Temp 

c 

RH 

% 

J906-090a 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS 

- 

- 

23 

53 

J906-090b 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS 

- 

- 

23 

53 

J906-094a 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Dry 

- 

* 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

23 

58 

J906-094b 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

23 

58 

J906-100a 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Dry 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 


23 

59 

J906-100b 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Wet 

Dry 

> 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

23 

59 

J906-104 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

22 

60 

J906-106 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 


22 

56 

J906-110 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 


22 

55 

J906-112 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 


22 

66 

J906-130 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

ACAMS 

- 

- 

23 

58 

J906-134 (2) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

ACAMS 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J906-138 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

* 

None 

ACAMS 

- 

- 

22 

54 

J906-142 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

ACAMS 

- 

- 

22 

57 

J973-008 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

23 

28 

J973-012 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

2 

Wet 

Dry 

> 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

24 

26 

J973-014 (3) 

1100 g 

G330 

2 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

21 

33 

J973-016 (3) 

1100 g 

G330 

2 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

22 

47 

J973-022 (3) 

1100 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

* 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 


21 

33 

J973-026 (3) 

350g 

G300 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

21 

29 

J973-030 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

21 

33 

J973-046 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 

- 

21 

62 

J973-048 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 

- 

21 

49 

J973-050 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 


21 

39 

J973-052 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

22 

30 

J973-054 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

23 

31 

J973-056 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

23 

26 

J973-058 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Wet 

Dry 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

21 

65 

J973-060 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Wet 

Dry 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 


21 

68 

J973-062 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Wet 

Dry 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

22 

26 

J973-066 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Wet 

Dry 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

23 

22 

J973-070 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

21 

23 

J973-074 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

23 

22 

J973-078 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

* 

21 

27 

J973-082 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

- 

21 

48 

J973-088 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

Coupon-MCAM 

Wipes-SE 

25/50 mL 
IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

33 

J973-096 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

Coupon-MCAM 

Wipes-SE 

25/50 mL 
IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

21 

J973-104 (3) 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

Coupon-MCAM 

Wipes-SE 

25/50 mL 
IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

19 

J973-114 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

51 


42 























































Table 14. Additional comprehenshe list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 1 
(& No. of Mandrel 
Replicates) Weight 

Wiping j of 

Wipe 

Wipe 

I Placed 
Wlpd On 

3 Coupon 

Sampling 

Method 

Extraction) E? 3 

Solvent JAnalysIsl C 

RH 

J973-116 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

57 

J973-118 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

57 

J973-120 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

20 

27 

J973-122 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

20 

27 

J973-124 

631 9 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

20 

27 

J973-126 

631 9 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

60 

J973-128 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

60 

J973-130 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 


- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

60 

J973-132 

631 9 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

60 

J973-134 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

60 

J973-136 

631 9 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

60 

J973-140 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

51 

J973-142 

631 g 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

51 

J973-144 

631 g 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

51 

J973-146 

631 9 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 

GC-FID 

21 

49 

J973-148 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

49 

J973-150 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

49 

J973-152 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

49 

J973-156 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 

GC-FID 

21 

50 

J1073-004 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

HFE- 

7200 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

67 

J1073-006 

631 g 

GO 

1 

Dry 

* 

* 

HFE- 

7200 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

67 

J1073-008 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

HFE- 

7200 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

67 

J1073-014 

631 g 

G240 

4 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

66 

J1073-016 

631 g 

G240 

4 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

66 

J1073-018 

631 g 

G240 

4 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

66 

J1073-022 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 

GC-FID 

21 

52 

J1073-026 

631 g 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS1-2&3, 

Solvext-1 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FID 

21 

38 

J1073-028 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS1-2&3; 

Solvext-1 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FID 

21 

36 

J1073-032 

631 g 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

58 

J1073-034 

631 9 

GO 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

58 

J1073-038 

631 g 

GO 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

32 

J1073-040 

631 g 

GO 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

32 

J1073-042 

631 g 

G240 

4 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

36 


43 





















































Table 14. Additional comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Mandrel 

Weight 

Wiping 

Number 

of 

iterations 

Wipe 

1 

wipe 

2 

Wipe 

3 

Placed 

On 

Coupon 

Sampling 

Method 

Solvent 

^Urface 
l Temp 

Anaiv«i«l C 

WldlySIS Kr 

RH 

J1073-044 

631 g 

G240 

4 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

36 

J1073-046 

631 g 

G240 

4 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

36 

J1073-048 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

36 

J1073-050 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

36 

J1073-054 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

58 

J1073-056 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

58 

J1073-058 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

58 

J1073-060 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

58 

J1073-064 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

69 

J1073-066 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

69 

J1073-068 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

65 

J1073-070 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

65 

J1073-074 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

68 

J1073-076 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

27 

68 

J1073-078 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

68 

J1073-080 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

68 

J1073-084 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 

GC-FID 

25 

65 

J1073-086 

350 g 

G330 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 

GC-FID 

25 

66 

J1073-088 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

Dry 

- 

None 

DAAMS1 

- 

GC-FID 

24 

62 

J1073-090 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

GC-FPD 

20 

34 

J1073-092 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

GC-FPD 

22 

35 

J1073-096 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

35 

J1073-098 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

35 

J1073-100 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

35 

J1073-102 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 


- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

35 

J1073-104 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 


- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

35 

J1073-108 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 


- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

21 

- 

J1073-110 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 


- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

GC-FPD 

22 

- 

J1073-114 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 


- 

None 

MINICAMS 

- 

GC-FPD 

22 

- 

J1073-120 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 


- 

HFE- 

7200 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1073-122 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 


- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1073-124 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 


- 

HFE- 

7200 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 


44 



















































Table 14. Additional comprehensi ve list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Mandrel 

Weight 

Wiping 

Program 

Number 

of 

Iterations 

Wipe 

1 

Wipe 

2 

Wipe 

3 

Placed 

On 

coupon 

Sampling 

Method 

r~ri 


Surface 

Temp 

C 

RH 

% 


Analysis 

J1073-126 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-004 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

24 

- 

J1190-005 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

24 

- 

J1190-010 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

23 

- 

J1190-011 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

23 

- 

J1190-016 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-017 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-022 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

HFE-7200 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

24 

- 

J1190-023 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

HFE-7200 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

24 

- 

J1190-026 

631 9 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-027 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-030 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

24 

- 

J1190-031 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

24 

- 

J1190-034 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

HFE-7200 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-035 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

HFE-7200 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-038 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-039 j 

631 g 

G240 

1 

Wet 


- 

None 

DAAMS2 

- 

GC-FID 

22 

- 

J1190-042 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

- 

J1190-043 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

- 

J1190-044 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

- 

J1190-045 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

- 

J1190-062 

631 9 

G180 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

- 

J1190-063 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

- 

J1190-072 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

- 

J1190-073 

631 g 

G180 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

- 

J1190-074 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

- 

J1190-075 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

25 

- 

J1190-096 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- 

- 

M295 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J1190-097 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- i 

- 

MgO 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J1190-098 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- 

- 

None 

- 

- 

- 

- 

* 

J1190-100 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

40 

J1190-101 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

40 

J1190-102 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

40 

J1190-103 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

40 

J1190-104 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

40 

J1190-105 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

40 

J1190-108 

350 9 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 


45 























































Table 14. Additional comprehensive list of wipe tests anJ test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Mandrel 

Weight 

Wiping 

Program 

Number 

of 

Iterations 

Wipe 

1 

Wipe 

2 

Wipe 

3 

Placed 

On 

Coupon 

Sampling 

Method 

Extraction 

Solvent 

Analysis 

Surface 

Temp 

C 

RH 

% 

J1190-109 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- 

- 

M295 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

J1190-110 

350 g 

G330 

3 

- 

- 

- 

MgO 

- 

- 

- 

21 

57 

J1190-111 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

- 

- 

- 

21 

57 

J1190-112 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

- 

- 

- 

21 

57 

J1190-113 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

- 

- 

- 

21 

57 

J1190-114 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 ml IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

J1190-115 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 ml IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

J1190-116 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

J1190-117 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

J1190-118 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

J1190-124 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-125 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-126 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-127 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-128 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

• 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-129 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-130 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-131 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-132 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-133 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-134 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-135 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-136 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-137 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-138 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-139 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-140 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

J1190-141 

350 g 

G330 

3 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

63 

K023-006 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-007 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-008 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-009 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-010 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 


46 
















































Tabic 14. Additional comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates^ 

Mandrel 

Weight 

Wiping 

Program 

Number 

of 

Iterations 

Wipe 

1 

Wipe 

2 

Wipe 

3 

Placed 

On 

Coupon 

Sampling 

Method 

Extraction 

Solvent 

Analysis 

Surface 

Temp 

C 

RH 

% 

K023-011 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-012 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-013 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-014 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-015 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

55 

K023-022 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-023 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-024 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-025 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-026 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-027 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-028 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-029 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-030 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-031 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

51 

K023-032 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-033 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-034 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-035 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-036 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-037 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-038 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-039 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-040 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-041 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

52 

K023-056 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-057 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-058 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-059 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-060 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

24 

59 

K023-062 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-063 (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 


47 


















































Table 14. Additional comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


Test ID 
(& No. of 
Replicates) 

Mandrel 

Weight 

Wiping 

Program 

Number 

of 

Iterations 

Wipe 

1 

Wipe 

2 

Wipe 

3 

Placed 

On 

Coupon 

Sampling 

Method 

Extraction 

Solvent 

Analysis 

Surface 

Temp 

C 

RH 

% 

K023-064 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL (PA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-065 
(2) .. 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-066 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-068 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

59 

K023-069 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

59 

K023-070 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

59 

K023-071 

(20 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

59 

K023-072 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

59 

K023-074 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-075 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-076 
.. . (2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-077 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-078 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-080 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-081 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-082 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-083 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-084 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

62 

K023-086 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

59 

K023-088 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-089 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

• 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-090 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-091 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-092 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-093 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-095 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-096 
(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-097 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

• 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-098 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 

K023-099 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

25 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

22 

61 


48 













































Table 14. Additional comprehensive list of wipe tests and test parameters (continued). 


r Test ID 1 
(& No. of Mandrel 
Replicates) Weight 

Wiping 

Program 

Number 

of 

Iterations 

Wipe 

1 

Wipe 

2 

Wipe 

3 

Placed 

On 

Coupon 

Sampling 

Method 

Solvent 

Analysis 

^uirace 

Temp 

C 

RH 

% 

7^ 
O 
^ N) 
NJ CO 

O 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-102 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-103 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-104 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

* 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-105 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-107 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-108 

(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-109 

(2L 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Wet 

- 

- 

None 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-110 
(2) 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

M295 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 

K023-111 
_ £1 _ 

350 g 

G300 

1 

Dry 

- 

- 

MgO 

Solvent 

Extraction 

50 mL IPA 

GC-FPD 

23 

61 


49 



























7.1 HD Rotarv-Wiping Screening Tests of Potential Wiping Materials 

Based on prior work conducted at Entropic Systems, Inc., the agent-wiping studies under 
the JSSED Block III program focused on three wiping materials—activated carbon fiber (KoTHmex AW 
1101), activated carbon felt (KoTHmex AM 1132), and a non-adsorptivc microfiber cloth (3M Scotch- 
Britc 2021). However, during the course of the program, several additional commercial and 
developmental wipes were tested for comparison with the activated carbon and microfiber wipes. 

The bulk of the screening tests of potential wiping materials were conducted at the start 
of the test program while the automated rotary and linear wipe test apparatuses were being fabricated. A 
preliminary set of manual decontamination efficacy screening tests on flat stainless steel surfaces was 
conducted with neat sulfur mustard (HD) and 14 different wiping materials. The wiping procedures used 
in the tests were designed to simulate the rotary-wiping procedures that would subsequently be used in 
tests with the automated rotary wipe test apparatus and are described in Section 6.2. 

The manual rotary-wiping tests were conducted with: 

• 3M Seoteh-Britc 2011 

• 3M Seoteh-Britc 2021N 

• Activated Carbon Felt 

• Activated Carbon Fiber 

• Procter and Gamble Swiffer 

• Polyester Felt 

• Pledge Grab-It wipes 

• Ten Reinforced Wipers 

• Cutex Non-alcohol Pad 

• Clorox Disinfecting Wipes - Fresh Scent 

• Clorox Disinfecting Wipes - Lemon Scent 

• Bounty Paper towels 

• Lever 2000 Wipes 

• Safety Equipment Cleaning Pads 

Subsequent screening tests were conducted with HD on aluminum control surfaces, using 
the automated rotary-wiping apparatus with the follow ing wipes: 

• Tcri Reinforced Wiper 

• Wypall® X70 Workhorse® Manufactured Rags 


50 



The results of the manual-wiping tests are summarized in Table 15. Table 16 lists a 
summary of the automated rotary-wiping tests. Table 15 lists the wiping material, solvent (if used), test 
number, test date, the amount of HD recovered from the test coupon, and the calculated mass of HD per 
volume per time for each test. The tests conducted with wipes that were moistened with HFE-7200 are 
shaded in the table for clarity. The results presented have not been corrected for extraction efficiency. 

Decontamination Efficacy (DE) is calculated from the following equation: 


(Amount of Agent Initially Deposited - Amount of Residual Agent) 

DE = - X 100% Equation 2 

(Amount of Agent Initially Deposited) 


Table 15, Summary of HD manual rotary-wiping sereening tests of potential wiping materials. _ 

Wipe Method - Manual Rotary One clockwise revolution at 0.1 rev/s followed by one counterclockwise revolution at 0.1 
rev/s 

HD Contamination Amount—10 mg Weight of Aluminum Wipe Cylinder—1 lb. Sampling and 

Analysis Method—Solvent Extraction (IPA)-GCZFPD 


Wiping Material 

Soivent 

Test No. 

Date 

HD Recovered 
From Coupon 

E9. 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

None 

J906-008a 

05/23/01 

56 0 

99.5 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

None 

J906-008b 

05/23/01 

140 

986 

3 M Scotch-Brite 2011 

None 

J906-008C 

05/23/01 

92.7 

99.1 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

HFE-7200 

J906-008d 

05/23/01 

186 

98.2 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

HFE-7200 

J906-008e 

05/23/01 

359 

96 4 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

HFE-7200 

J906-Q08f 

05/23/01 

69 

99.3 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

None 

J906-0l4a 

05/29/01 

41.8 

99.6 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

None 

J906-014b 

05/29/01 

94 4 

99.1 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

None 

J 906-014c 

05/29/01 

117 

98 8 

3 M Scotch-Brite 2011 

HFE-7200 

J906-014d 

05/29/01 

125 

988 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

HFE-7200 

J906-014e 

05/29/01 

314 

96.9 

3M Scotch-Brite 2011 

HFE-7200 

J 906-014f 

05/29/01 

245 

97.6 

Activated Carbon Felt 

None 

J906-026a 

05/30/01 

49.6 

99 5 

Activated Carbon Felt 

None 

J906-026b 

05/30/01 

56.0 

99.4 

Activated Carbon Felt 

None 

J906-026c 

05/30/01 

.** 

.** 

Activated Carbon Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-026d 

05/30/01 

68 1 

99 3 

Activated Carbon Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-026e 

05/30/01 

40.9 

99.6 

Activated Carbon Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-026f 

05/30/01 

93.1 

99.1 

Activated Carbon Fiber 

None 

J906-030a 

05/31/01 

7.70 

99.9 

Activated Carbon Fiber 

None 

J906-030b 

05/31/01 

6.78 

99.9 

Activated Carbon Fiber 

None 

J906-030c 

05/31/01 

7 26 

99.9 

Activated Carbon Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-030d 

05/31/01 

9 60 

99 9 

Activated Carbon Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-030e 

05/31/01 

23.5 

99 8 

Activated Carbon Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-030f 

05/31/01 

23 5 

99 8 

Proctor and Gamble 
Swifter 

None 

J906-034a 

06/01/01 

4157 

58.4 

Proctor and Gamble 
Swifter 

None 

J906-034b 

06/01/01 

4343 

56.6 

Proctor and Gamble 
Swifter 

None 

J906-034C 

06/01/01 

4312 

56.9 

Proctor and Gamble 
Swifter 

HFE-7200 

J906-034d 

06/01/01 

961 

90 4 

Proctor and Gamble 
Swifter 

HFE-7200 

J 906-034e 

06/01/01 

1514 

84.9 

Proctor and Gamble 
Swifter 

HFE-7200 

J906-034f 

06/01/01 

1181 

88 2 

Polyester Felt 

None 

J906-038a 

06/07/01 

1074 

89.3 

Polyester Felt 

None 

J906-038b 

06/07/01 

1897 

81.1 

Polyester Felt 

None 

J906-038c 

06/07/01 

872 

91.3 


51 











































Tab le 15. Summary of HD manual rotary-wiping screening tests of potential wiping materials (continued). 


Wipe Method - Manual Rotary One clockwise revolution at 0.1 rev/s followed by one counterclockwise revolution at 0 1 rev/s 

HD Contamination Amount—10 mg Weight of Aluminum Wipe Cylinder—1 lb Sampling and Analysis 

Method—Solvent Extraction (IPA)-GC/FPD 

Wiping Material 

Solvent 

Test No. 

Date 

HD Recovered 
From Coupon 
pg 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

Polyester Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-038d 

06/07/01 

983 

90 2 

Polyester Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-038e 

06/07/01 

557 

94.4 

Polyester Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-038f 

06/07/01 

234 

97.7 

Pledge “Grab-lt” Wipes 

None 

J906-042a 

06/11/01 

3883 

61.2 

Pledge “Grab-lt” Wipes 

None 

J906-042b 

06/11/01 

4321 

56.8 

Pledge "Grab-lt’ Wipes 

None 

J906-042c 

06/11/01 

4954 

50.5 

Pledge “Grab-lt” Wipes 

HFE-7200 

J906-042d 

06/11/01 

1708 

82 9 

Pledge “Grab-lt" Wipes 

HFE-7200 

J906-042e 

06/11/01 

2583 

74.4 

Pledge “Grab-lt” Wipes 

HFE-7200 

J906-042f 

06/11/01 

1624 

83.8 

Teri Reinforced Wipers 

None 

J906-046a 

06/13/01 

13.0 

99.9 

Ten Reinforced Wipers 

None 

J906-046b 

06/13/01 

133 

987 

Teri Reinforced Wipers 

None 

J906-046C 

06/13/01 

24.2 

99 8 

Teri Reinforced Wipers 

HFE-7200 

J906-046d 

06/13/01 

31.0 

99.7 

Teh Reinforced Wipers 

HFE-7200 

J906-046e 

06/13/01 

157 

98.4 

Teh Reinforced Wipers 

HFE-7200 

J906-046f 

06/13/01 

53.5 

99.5 

3M Scotch-Brite 2021N 

None 

J906-050a 

06/14/01 

25.9 

99.7 

3M Scotch-Bnte 2021N 

None 

J906-050b 

06/14/01 

54 5 

99 5 

3M Scotch-Brite 2021N 

None 

J906-050c 

06/14/01 

58.1 

99 4 

3M Scotch-Bnte 2021N 

HFE-7200 

J906-050d 

06/14/01 

269 

97.3 

3M Scotch-Brite 2021N 

HFE-7200 

J906-050e 

06/14/01 

<5 

>99.9 

3M Scotch-Bnte 2021N 

HFE-7200 

J906-050f 

06/14/01 

10.4 

99 9 

Cutex Simple Pad (non¬ 
acetone)* ** 

Ethyl 

acetate/lPAA/Vater 

J906-054a 

06/19/01 

168 

98 3 

Cutex Simple Pad (non¬ 
acetone)* 

Ethyl 

acetate/IPA/Water 

J906-054b 

06/19/01 

137 

98.6 

Cutex Simple Pad (non¬ 
acetone)* 

Ethyl 

acetate/IPAA/Vater 

J906-054C 

06/19/01 

332 

96 7 

Clorox Disinfecting Wipes - 
Lemon* 

1—5% Aqueous IPA 

J906-059a 

06/20/01 

495 

95.1 

Clorox Disinfecting Wipes - 
Lemon* 

1—5% Aqueous IPA 

J906-059b 

06/20/01 

607 

94.0 

Clorox Disinfecting Wipes - 
Fresh* 

1—5% Aqueous IPA 

J906-059d 

06/20/01 

396 

96.1 

Clorox Disinfecting Wipes - 
Fresh* 

1—5% Aqueous IPA 

J906-059e 

06/20/01 

737 

92.7 

Clorox Disinfecting Wipes - 
Fresh* 

1—5% Aqueous IPA 

J906-059f 

06/20/01 

524 

94 8 

Bounty Paper Towels 

None 

J906-070a 

06/25/01 

312 

96.9 

Bounty Paper Towels 

None 

J906-070b 

06/25/01 

201 

98.8 

Bounty Paper Towels 

None 

J906-070c 

06/25/01 

145 

98.5 

Bounty Paper Towels 

HFE-7200 

J906-070d 

06/25/01 

601 

94.0 

Bounty Paper Towels 

HFE-7200 

J906-070e 

06/25/01 

994 

90.1 

Bounty Paper Towels 

HFE-7200 

J906-070f 

06/25/01 

673 

93 3 

Lever 2000 Wipes* 

70-99% Water 

J906-078a 

06/28/01 

365 

96.4 

Lever 2000 Wipes* 

70-99% Water 

J906-078b 

06/28/01 

338 

96.6 

Lever 2000 Wipes* 

70-99% Water 

J906-078C 

06/28/01 

112 

98.9 

Safety Equipment Cleaning 
Pads* 

>99% Water 

J906-078d 

06/28/01 

3430 

65.7 

Safety Equipment Cleaning 
Pads* 

>99% Water 

J906-078e 

06/28/01 

4491 

55.6 

Safety Equipment Cleaning 
Pads* 

>99% Water 

J906-078f 

06/28/01 

5479 

45.2 


*Note: The materials marked with an asterisk were pre-moistened with their own solvent and were evaluated as received. 

** The residual HD found in Test J906-026c is anomalously high and is not included in the test results. 


52 


















































Table 16. Summary of H D automated rotary-wiping screening tests of potential wiping materials. 


Wiping 

Material 

Test 

Surface 

Wipe 

Method 

Added 

Solvent 

Test No. 

Wiping 

Sequence 

Sampling 

Method 

No. of 

Wiping 

Cycles 

Total 

Mandrel 

Weight 

HD 

Contami¬ 

nation 

HD 

Recovered 

From 

Coupon 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

Teri 

Reinforced 

Wipers 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

J906- 

110 

Wet/Dry 

MINI 

CAMS 

24 

350 

10 

0.856 

>99 99 

Teri 

Reinforced 

Wipers 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

J906- 

110 

Wet/Dry 

MINI 

CAMS 

24 

350 

10 

0.132 

>99.99 

Teri 

Reinforced 

Wipers 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

J906- 

110 

Wet/Dry 

MINI 

CAMS 

24 

350 

10 

0.099 

>99,99 

Wypall 

X70 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

066 

Wet/Dry 

MINI 

CAMS 

24 

350 

10 

0 092 

>99.99 

Wypall 

X70 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

066 

Wet/Dry 

MINI 

CAMS 

24 

350 

10 

0.428 

>99.99 

Wypall 

X70 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

066 

Wet/Dry 

MINI 

CAMS 

24 

350 

10 

0 155 

>99 99 


* Pre-Moistened with HFE-7200 


The Tcri Towels did not maintain their integrity during the wiping procedure, and tended 
to shred during the wipe tests. 

The manual wiping tests (see Appendix B) were conducted under ldcntieal arbitrary 
wiping conditions that were assumed to be less than thorough, in order to allow for some residual agent to 
remain on the stainless steel surfaces so that comparisons could be made between the various wiping 
materials. The wiping materials evaluated were the three wipe material candidates that had been pre¬ 
selected, based on prior work by Entropic Systems, Inc. (activated carbon fiber, activated carbon felt, and 
3M Scotch Britc 2001), several commercial wipes, and several wiping materials from the laboratory's 
stockroom. The initial screening tests were intended as preliminary tests to check the proposed wipe test 
procedures. These procedures would be used in tests with the automated rotary-wiping test apparatus, 
while comparing the decontamination efficacies of several wiping materials in removing liquid HD 
contamination from a non-absorptive control surfaec. 

Under the conditions of the manual decontamination efficacy tests, the activated carbon 
cloth, activated carbon felt, 3M Scotch-Brite 2001, and Teri Reinforced Wipers (Teri Towels) showed 
roughly equivalent wiping efficacies of >99%. The cfficaeics of these four materials were superior to the 
corresponding decontamination efficacies of the other wipes tested. Testing also found that using these 
four “best" wipes dry exhibited decontamination efficacies as good as, or slightly better than, the 
corresponding decontamination efficacies of the same wipes moistened with HFE-7200. 

7.2 Preliminary Tests with Rotary-Wiping Device 

Eight preliminary agent wipe tests were conducted at ambient temperature and relative 
humidity with HD with the rotary-wiping device. Each test was conducted using the 350 g aluminum 
rotary-wiping mandrel, with no added weight, and a single iteration of the G330 rotary-wiping program 
command. The G330 command activates eight sequential clockwise/countcrclockwise cycles of the 
wiping mandrel. Each rotational cycle consists of one clockwise revolution at a rate of 1.0 rev/s, followed 
by one counterclockwise revolution at 1.0 rev/s. 

• Each of the first four tests were conducted with medium weight 3M Scoteh-Britc 
2001 wipes, using DA AMS sampling and analysis to determine the amount of 
residual HD off-gassing from the wiped surface. 


53 




















• The remaining four tests were eondueted with KoTHmcx AW 1101 -aetivated 
earbon fabric, using M1N1CAMS to monitor the residual HD off-gassing from 
the wiped surface. 

During testing, the surface of a 1.5 x 1.5 in. square aluminum test coupon was mounted in the 
rotary-wiping device and uniformly contaminated with 10 mg of neat HD, applied as 1 pL droplets from a 
microliter syringe. The wiping mandrel, with a prcattachcd wipe (dry in some tests and wet with HFE-7200 in 
other tests), was placed on top of the agent-contaminated surface so that the turning pin on the shaft of the 
stepper motor was positioned in the slotted shaft of the wiping mandrel. Then the G330-wiping command was 
input to the wiping dev ice from the control PC. 

After the wiping procedure was complete, the wiped test coupon was placed in a glass 
sampling jar with an air inlet and outlet fitting in the cap of the jar. Room air was sampled into and 
through the jar into either a DAAMS sorbent tube or a M1N1CAMS. DAAMS tubes were subsequently 
analyzed for collected agent by GC/FPD. The collected MINICAMS samples were analyzed directed by 
the M1N1CAMS. Each jar was sampled and analyzed for residual agent vapor for up to 2 h. 

The results of the preliminary wiping tests arc shown in Table 17. The initial goal of the 
wiping tests was to decontaminate each test coupon, resulting in an agent vapor off-gassing concentration 
of no greater than a few' TWA. 

In the first six tests using a single wipe, whether dry or moistened with HFE-7200, the 
initial HD off-gassing concentration was generally off-sealc of our analytical equipment (estimated to be 
equivalent to a concentration of approximately 30 TWA of HD). 

In tests seven and eight, each contaminated surface was wiped with two wipes in 
succession. In test sev en a dry wipe, followed by another dry wipe with a fresh swatch of material, was 
tested. In test eight, a wipe moistened with HFE-7200 followed by a dry' wipe, were used. As shown in 
Table 17, this dual-wipe procedure resulted in the desired agent off-gassing concentrations, with the 
vvet/dry wipe sequence superior to the dry/dry wipe sequence. 

Plots of the measured HD off-gassing concentration, as a function of time, in the two 
dual-wipe tests are shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17. The test data was also tabulated and plotted in 
terms of off-gassing rate (in ng/min), as a function of time. This off-gassing curve was numerically 
integrated over the monitoring duration to determine the cumulative amounts of HD that off-gassed from 
the wiped surfaces. The cumulative residual HD on the test coupon subjected to the dry/dry wipe 
procedure was 100 ng. The cumulative residual HD on the test coupon subjected to the vvet/dry wipe 
procedure was 35 ng. 


54 


Table 17. Summary of preliminary HD wipe tests on aluminum surfaces w ith automated rotary-wiping test 
apparatus. 


Wiping 

Material 

Solvent 

Test 

No. 

Wiping 

Sequence 

Sampling 

Method 

No. of 

Wiping 

Cycles 

Total 

Mandrel 

Weight 

g 

Cumulative 

Off-Gassing 

ng 

HD 

Contami¬ 

nation 

Amount 

mg 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

Scotch- 

Brite 

None 

J906- 

085 

Dry 

DAAMS 

8 

350 

ND (Note 1) 

10 

ND (Note 

1 ) 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J906- 

085 

Wet 

DAAMS 

8 

350 

ND (Note 1) 

10 

ND (Note 

1 ) 











Scotch- 

Brite 

None 

J906- 

090 

Dry 

DAAMS 

8 

350 

ND (Note 1) 

10 

ND (Note 

D 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J906- 

090 

Wet 

DAAMS 

8 

350 

ND (Note 1) 

10 

ND (Note 

D 











AC Fabric 

None 

J906- 

094 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

8 

350 

ND (Note 1) 

10 

ND (Note 

1 ) 

AC Fabric 

HFE- 

7200 

J906- 

094 

Wet 

MINICAMS 

8 

350 

ND (Note 1) 

10 

ND (Note 

1 ) 











AC Fabric 

None 

J906- 

100 

Dry/Dry 

MINICAMS 

8 

350 

100 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fabric 

HFE- 

7200 

J906- 

100 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

8 

350 

35 

10 

>99.99 


Note 1 ND = Not Determined. Test Terminated after analysis of sample. Initial HD 
concentration is well above calibration range. 


55 























HD Off-Gasing Curve - J906-100a 
A/C Fiber -Sequential Dry/Dry Wiping 
HD Concentration (TWA) vs Elapsed Time (min) 



Elapsed Time, mm 


Figure 16. HD vapor off-gas cur\c - test J978-026(A). 


1 

HD Off-Gassing Curve - J906-100b 

A/C Fiber - Sequential Wet/Dry Wiping 

HD Concentration (TWA) vs Elapsed Time (mm) 


1 20 - 










0.0 

1 00 ■ 










< 










o 0 80 - 

% 

c 

• 

o 0 60 - 










o 

o 

Q 

X 

n ac \ . 










n 90 - 









n nn - 






► - ♦ — ♦ —„ 

4 - « - ♦ 


U.UU n 

0 

0 

2C 

1.0 4C 

10 6C 

10 80 

Baspsed ' 

i.O 101 

Time, min 

0.0 12i 

0 0 141 

0.0 16l 


Figure 17. HD vapor off-gas curve - test J978-026(B). 


56 


































7.3 


HD Automated Rotary-Wiping Tests on Non-Absorpti\e Aluminum Surfaces 


A series of multiple-wipe tests with HD were conducted with the rotary-wiping device on 
aluminum substrates at ambient temperature and relative humidity to determine the effect of the number 
and type of rotary-wiping cycles, the weight of the wiping mandrel, and the wiping solvent on the 
efficacy of removing HD from aluminum control surfaces. The tests were conducted with the KoTHmex 
AW 1101-activated carbon fabric, KoTHmex AM 1132-aetivated carbon felt, and Scoteh-Brite 2021. 

Tests were conducted with HD on aluminum substrates, using the rotary wipe test apparatus 
and dynamic vapor ofT-gas monitoring for residual agent on the w iped test coupons. The tests were conducted 
at ambient temperature and relative humidity. Most of the tests were conducted using the 350-g aluminum 
rotary-wiping mandrel, with no added weight. How ever, in a few of the tests, lead washers w ere slipped ov er 
the shaft of the rotary-wiping mandrel to increase the total mandrel weight to 1100 g. The tests were 
conducted with either two or three iterations of the G330 rotary-wiping program or three iteration of the G300 
program. 


• The G330 command activates eight sequential eloekwise/eountereloekwise cycles of 
the wiping mandrel. Each rotational cycle consists of one clockwise revolution at a 
rate of 1.0 rev/s, followed by one counterclockwise revolution at 1.0 rev/s. Thus, the 
wiping contact time is 32 s for two iterations, and 48 s for three iterations. 

• The G300 command activates four sequential eloekwise/eountereloekwise cycles of 
the wiping mandrel. Each rotational cycle consists of one clockwise revolution at a 
rate of 1.0 rev/s, followed by one counterclockwise revolution at 1.0 rev/s. Thus, the 
wiping contact time is 24 s for three iterations. 

Both single and multiple wipe sequences were used in this scries of tests: 

• Dry : In each dry-wipe test, a single w ipe sequence with a dry wipe was used. 

• Wet: In each wet-wipe test, a w ipe moistened with HFE-7200 was used for each 
wipe sequence. 

• Dry Dry : In each dry/dry test, two wipe sequences were used, each with a dry 
wipe. 

• Wet Dry . In each vvet/dry test, two wipe sequences were employed—one 
sequence using a wipe moistened with a solvent (either HFE-7200 or HFE-71 
1PA ), followed immediately by a second wipe sequence using a dry wipe 

• Wet 'Wet : In each wet/wet test, two wipe sequences were employed the first 
sequence using a wipe moistened with HFE-7200, followed immediately by a 
second wipe sequence using a wipe moistened with HFE-7200. 

• Wet/Wet Dry : In each wet/wet/dry sequence, three wipe sequences were 
employed—the first sequence using a wipe moistened with HFE-7200, followed 
immediately by a second wipe sequence using a wipe moistened with HFE-7200, 
followed immediately by a third wipe sequence using a dry wipe. 


57 







The purpose of the wet/wet and wet/wet/dry multiple-wipe tests was to determine if 
increased removal of HD from the aluminum test surface (that is, increased decontamination efficacy) 
could be achieved with an additional “wet” wipe sequence, relative to the wet/dry dual wipe sequence, 
with and without a final dry w ipe sequence. 

The wiping materials evaluated in the tests were: 

• Activated carbon fabric - KoTHmex AW 1101 

• Activated carbon felt - KoTHmex AM 1132 

• Non-adsorptivc wipes - 3M Scoteh-Brite™ 201 1 High Performance Cloth 

The sampling and analysis of the wiped coupons for residual agent (HD) off-gassing 
from the wiped test surface was conducted with either a MINICAMS or by the DAAMS method. 

In a given test, the surface of a 1.5 x 1.5 in. square aluminum test coupon was mounted in 
the rotary-wiping device. The coupon was uniformly contaminated w ith 10 mg of neat HD, applied as 1 pL 
droplets from a microliter syringe or as five approximately 2 pL droplets from a micropipettor in a pattern 
similar to the five dots found on a pair of dice, over a center 1 in. square of the test coupon. 

The wiping mandrel with a prcattachcd wipe (dry in some tests and moistened with HFE- 
7200 or HFE-711PA in other tests) was placed on top of the agent-eontaminated surface so that the turning 
pin on the shaft of the stepper motor was positioned in the slotted shaft of the wiping mandrel. Two or three 
iterations of the G330-wiping command or three iterations of the G300 wiping command were then 
sequentially input to the wiping device from the control PC. 

After each wipe sequence, the mandrel was immediately replaced with a new wiping 
mandrel having a preattached dry or wet wipe, and another wipe test sequence was initiated. 

The results of the individual HD-wiping tests arc shown in chronological order in 
Table IX. In Table 18, the wiping material, wipe solvent, test number, wipe sequence, sampling method 
for the determination of residual HD on the test coupon, number of wiping cycles, total mandrel weight, 
cumulative residual HD on the wipe test coupon (from the numerical integration of the vapor off-gas 
curve), the amount of HD initially deposited on the test surface, and the calculated decontamination 
efficacy of the w iping process arc listed for each test. 

The individual results listed in Table 18 arc summarized in Table 19. In Table 19 each set 
of tests conducted under a given set of experimental conditions and parameters is grouped together. In each 
grouped set of tests, the primary experimental variable or parameter that w as changed from the previous set 
of tests is shaded in yellow. The parameters that were varied in the tests w ere: 

• Wiping material 

• AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 

• AC Felt = KoTHmex AM 1132-activatcd carbon felt 

• Scoteh-Brite = 3M Scoteh-Brite 2021 

• Mandrel weight 


58 


350 g 

1100 g 

Wiping solvent 
HFE-7100 
HFE-711PA 

Number of wiping cycles 
o 24 
o 16 
o 12 

Wiping sequence 
Wet/Dry 
Wet/Wet 
Wet/Wet/Dry 


59 



Tabic 18. HD-wiping tests with rotary-wiping device on aluminum surface. 


Wiping 

Material 

Solvent 

Test No. 

Wiping 

Sequence 

Sampling 

Method 

No. of 

Wiping 

Cycles 

Total 

Mandrel 

Weight 

G 

Cumulative 

Off- 

Gassing 

ng 

HD 

Contami¬ 

nation 
Amount 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-104 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

72 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-104 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

40 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-104 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

39 

10 

>99 99 







Average 

50 ±19 


>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J906-106 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

176 

10 

>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J906-106 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

97 

10 

>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J906-106 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

72 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

115± 54 


>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-112 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

93 

10 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-112 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

168 

10 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-112 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

8 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

90 ±80 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-008 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

49 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-008 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

41 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-008 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

24 

10 

>99 99 







Average 

38 ± 13 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-012 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

350 

120 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-012 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

350 

77 

10 

>99,99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-012 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

350 

47 

10 

>9999 







Average 

81 ±37 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-014 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

1100 

210 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-014 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

1100 

113 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-014 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

1100 

79 

10 

>99 99 







Average 

134 ±68 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-016 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

1100 

121 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-016 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

1100 

131 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-016 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

16 

1100 

109 

10 

>99 99 







Average 

120 ± 11 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-022 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

1100 

140 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-022 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

1100 

77 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-022 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

1100 

163 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

127 ±44 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-026 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

12 

350 

307 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-026 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

12 

350 

161 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-026 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

12 

350 

295 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

255 ±81 


>99.99 


60 


















































Table 18. HD-wiping tests with rotary-wiping device on aluminum surface (continued). 


Wiping 

Material 

•4-* 

c 

1 

w 

o 

z 

£ 

Wiping 

Sequence 

Sampling 

Method 

No. of 

Wiping 

Cycles 

Total 

Mandrel 

Weight 

0 

Cumulative 

Off- 

Gassing 

ng 

HD 

Contami¬ 

nation 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-030 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

518 

10 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-030 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

92 

10 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-030 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

198 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

145 + 75 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-046 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

47 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-046 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

37 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-046 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

59 

10 

>99 99 







Average 

49 ± 11 


>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-048 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

15 

10 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-048 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

14 

10 

>9999 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-048 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

36 

10 

>99 99 







Average 

22 + 12 


>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J973-050 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

98 

10 

>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J973-050 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

394 

10 

>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J973-050 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

493 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

328 ± 205 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-052 

Wet/Wet 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

Not 

analyzed 

10 

>99 99 

AC F ber 

HFE-7200 

J973-052 

Wet/Wet 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

16 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-052 

Wet/Wet 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

19 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

17 ± 2 


>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-054 

Wet/Wet 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

9 

10 

>99 99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-054 

Wet/Wet 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

32 

10 

>99 99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-054 

Wet/Wet 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

152 

10 

>99 99 







Average 

20 ± 16* 


>99 99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J973-056 

WetA/Vet 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

121 

10 

>99 99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J973-056 

WetAA/et 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

203 

10 

>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J973-056 

WetAA/et 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

60 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

128 ±72 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-062 

WetAA/et/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

123 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-062 

WetAA/et/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

9 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-062 

Wet/Wet/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

3 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

6 ± 4* 


>99.99 


61 












































Table 18. HD-wiping tests with rotary-wiping device on aluminum surface (continued). 


Wiping 

Material 

** 

c 

© 

> 

o 

CO 

6 

z 

** 

* 

2 

Wiping 

Sequence 

Sampling 

Method 

No. of 

Wiping 

Cycles 

Total 

Mandrel 

Weight 

G 

Cumulative 

Off-Gassing 

ng 

HD 

Contami¬ 

nation 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-058 

Wet/Wet/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

15 

10 

>99 99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-058 

Wet/Wet/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

11 

10 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973-058 

Wet/Wet/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

10 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

12 ± 3 


>99.99 

Scotch- 

Bnte 

HFE-7200 

J973-060 

Wet/Wet/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

52 

10 

>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J973-060 

Wet/Wet/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

156 

10 

>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-7200 

J973-060 

Wet/Wet/ 

Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

90 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

99 ±53 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-070 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

116 

10 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-070 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

97 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-070 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

67 

10 

>99 99 







Average 

94 ±25 


>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-074 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

477 

10 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-074 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

246 

10 

>99 99 

AC Felt 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-074 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

70 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

264 ± 204 


>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-078 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

>197 

10 

>99 99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-078 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

>290 

10 

>99 99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE-71 IPA 

J973-078 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

>179 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

>222 


>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-082 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

148 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-082 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

137 

10 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J973-082 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

121 

10 

>99.99 







Average 

135± 13 


>99.99 


All tests conducted in triplicate 

* = Anomalous high result not included in average 

AC Fiber = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AM 1132-activated carbon felt. 
Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 
Wet = wet with HFE-7200 
Dry = dry wiping material 


62 




































Table 19. Summary of HD-wiping tests with rotary-wiping device on aluminum surface. 


Wiping Material 

Solvent 

Wiping Sequence 

No. of 
Wiping 
Cycles 

Total Mandrel 
Weight 

J 

Cumulative 

Off-Gassing 

ng 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

68 ±43 

AC Fiber 

HFE-71IPA 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

93 ± 25 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

16 

350 

81 ± 37 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

12 

350 

254 ±81 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

24 

1100 

127 ±45 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

16 

1100 

127 ±44 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

WetA/Vet 

24 

350 

18 ± 2 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

6 ± 4 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

127±162 

AC Felt 

HFE-71IPA 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

264 ± 204 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet 

24 

350 

21 ± 16 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

12 ± 3 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

222±178 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-71IPA 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

>222 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet 

24 

350 

128 ±72 

Scotch-Bnte 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

99 ± 53 


Large absolute variabilities were observed in the off-gassing results of replieate 
determinations in most of the tests. However, this is not unexpected at the low levels of agent off-gassing 
that aie being monitored, and the unavoidable uncertainty in the aetual t=0 point in each vapor off-gas 
curve. This is due to the fact that the vapor off-gassing curves exhibit exponential decay, The location of 
the (=0 point of an off-gassing curve has a significant effect on the determination of the cumulative 
amount of agent sampled by the numerical integration of the area under the off-gassing curve. 

In three of the triplicate test sets, two of the test results showed very low residual HD 
amounts on the wiped test surfaces, whereas one of the tests in each set showed significantly higher 
residual HD amounts. 

The measured residual agent amounts on the aluminum control surfaces determined by 
off-gas monitoring were quite variable. The tentative conclusion from the vapor off-gassing tests is that 
the minimum residual agent that can be accurately and reproducibly detected on the wiped control surface 
is about 0.1 pg. 


Unaccountably high residual HD amounts were detected in several of the tests. These 
results appeared to be anomalous and were not reported in the results summary in Table 18 or Table 19. 

In each of the tests the decontamination efficacy for the removal of HD from the non- 
porous aluminum test surface was >99.99%, based on a vapor sampling technique as described in 
Section 7.6.2. These results are not necessarily a comparison to ORD Vapor Hazard Threshold or 
Objective values. Within experimental error, there were no significant differences in measured 
decontamination efficacies attributable to changes in any of the variables or parameters listed above. 


63 
























From the residual amount of HD remaining on the aluminum surfaec in caeh test, 
however, even though the limited test results have large variabilities and mostly statistically inconclusive 
differences in test results comparing various test parameters, several trends in the average amounts of 
residual agent can be noted. 

Trend 1 : Adsorptive carbon wipes remove liquid HD more effectively from non- 
adsorptive aluminum control surfaces than non-adsorptivc wipes. KoTHmex AW 1 101-activated carbon 
fiber appears to be the most effective wipe, followed closely by KoTHmex AM 1132-activatcd carbon 
felt, and then by the 3M Scoteh-Brite 2021 w ipes. In the tests run under the same set of conditions (350 g 
mandrel, 24 wipe cycles, wet/dry wipe sequence, HFE-7200 wipe solvent, and MINICAMS vapor off-gas 
monitoring) the average cumulative HD off-gassing with each of the wipe materials tested was as follows: 


KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fiber 

68 ng 

KoTHmex AM 1132-activated carbon felt 

127 ng 

3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

222 ng 


The tests conducted using DAAMS analysis also show that the 3M Scotch-Britc 2021 
material is somewhat less effective at removing deposited HD from the aluminum test surface (using 
HFE-7200) than either of the two carbon-based fabrics. 

In terms of the wiping materials themselves, the AC fiber and the AC felt materials were 
about equivalent and showed the best decontaminant efficacy results. The 3M Scoteh-Brite 2021 material 
is somewhat less effective at removing deposited HD from the aluminum test surface (using HFE-7200) 
than cither of the earbon-based fabrics. However, the use of Scoteh-Brite 2021 still resulted in 
decontamination efficacies in excess of 99.99%. 

Trend 2 : Increased mandrel weight has no significant effect on the removal of liquid 
agent from the aluminum control surfaces. 


AC Fiber/350 g mandrel/24 wiping cycles 

68 ng residual HD 

AC Fiber/1100 g mandrel/24 wiping cycles 

127 ng residual HD 

AC Fiber/350 g mandrel/16 wiping cycles 

81 ng residual HD 

AC Fiber/1100 g mandrel/16 wiping cycles 

127 ng residual HD 


Trend 3 . Reducing the number of wiping cycles in the rotary-wiping tests with a 350 g 
mandrel resulted in slightly less removal of HD from the aluminum control surfaces. In the tests with a 
100 g mandrel, no change in HD removal was observed. In the wet/dry rotary-wiping tests with HFE- 
7200, activated carbon fiber, 350 g mandrel weight, and MINICAMS vapor off-gas monitoring, reducing 
the number of wipe cycles from 24 to 16 to 12 wipe cycles resulted in an observed increase in residual 
HD on the aluminum control surfaces (as determined from the cumulative HD off-gassing amounts): 


For 350 g mandrel weight: 

For 1100-g mandrel weight 

24 wipe cycles - 68 ng residual HD 

24 wipe cycles - 127 ng residual HD 

16 wipe cycles - 81 ng residual HD 

16 wipe cycles - 127 ng residual HD 

12 wipe cycles - 254 ng residual HD 



64 



















Trend 4 . HFE-71 IPA is no more effective than HFE-7200 as a wipe solvent in removing 
HD from an aluminum control surface. Because of the variability in the determination of the residual 
agent on the test surface by off-gas monitoring, it is difficult to statistically quantify any differences. 
However, the general trend is as follows: 


AC Fiber/HFE-7200 

68 ng residual HD 

AC Fiber/HFE-71 IPA 

93 ng residual HD 

AC Felt/HFE-7200 

127 ng residual HD 

AC Felt/HFE-71 IPA 

264 ng residual HD 

Scotch-Brite/HFE-7200 

222 ng residual HD 

Scotch-Brite/HFE-711PA 

>222 ng residual HD 


Trend 5 . The use of an additional wet wiping sequence increases the removal of HD 
from the aluminum control surface (Table 20). The use of a wet-wet wiping sequence appears to increase 
the decontamination efficacy for each wiping material relative to the wet-dry wiping sequence. The use 
of a wet-wet-dry multiple wipe sequence increases the decontamination efficacy for each wiping material 
somewhat more. Within the error of the experimental method, the wet-wet-dry sequence appears to be 
the maximum decontamination efficacy obtainable from rotary wiping, with a reasonable number of 
wiping sequences. 


Table 20. Summary of effect of additional wet wiping sequences on HD rotary wiping. 


Wiping Material 

Solvent 

Wiping Sequence 

No. of 
Wiping 
Cycles 

Totai Mandrel 
Weight 

9 

Cumulative 

Off-Gassing 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

68 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet 

24 

350 

18 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

6 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

127 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet 

24 

350 

21 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

12 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

222 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet 

24 

350 

128 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-7200 

Wet/Wet/Dry 

24 

350 

99 


Trend 6 . A comparison of DAAMS vs. MINICAMS sampling showed differences. 
DAAMS sampling, and analysis of the of the test coupons that were wiped with the activated carbon 
fabrics (fiber and felt), gave lower residual HD amounts than MINICAMS sampling and analysis, 
especially in the tests with the activated carbon felt wipes. In the tests with the non-adsorptivc wipes, the 
opposite tend was observ ed. Because of the very small amounts of residual agent that arc being detected, 
however, the difference in the trends between the two sampling-and-analysis methods is not considered 
significant. In terms of measured decontamination efficacy, within the accuracy of the tests, there is little 
difference between the sampling and analysis techniques. 

Additional HD rotary-wiping tests were conducted on aluminum control surfaces with 
both higher and lower HD contamination densities than were used in the previous tests discussed above. 
The densities used were 10 g/m 2 (generally considered the standard outdoor threat contamination density) 


65 



























and 1 g/irf (generally considered the standard indoor threat contamination density). On the aluminum test 
coupons these contamination densities corresponded to HD contamination amounts of 14.5 and 1.45 mg, 
respectively. All subsequent tests under the program were conducted at one of these two agent 
contamination densities. 

In addition to sampling and analyzing the coupons, each used wet or dry wipe was also 
sampled and analyzed for absorbed/adsorbed HD after the completion of wiping. 

In the first set of tests, three replicate HD automated rotary-wiping tests were conducted 
on aluminum control surfaces with KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fiber, KoTHmex AM 1132- 
activated carbon felt, and 3M Scotch-Brite 2021. The HD contamination density in each test was 
10 g/nr. Each test was conducted with a wet/dry wiping sequence, with HFE-7200 as the wiping solvent, 
a 350 g rotary mandrel weight, and 24 wiping cycles per wipe sequence. The residual HD remaining on 
each aluminum control surface after wiping was determined by MINICAMS sampling and analysis. The 
amount of absorbed/adsorbed HD in each used wipe was determined by solvent extraction and GC-FPD 
analysis. 


The results of the tests are given in Table 21 below. 

The test results indicate that the HD decontamination efficacy with HFE 7200 and each 
of the three w iping materials remained the same when the HD contamination density was increased from 
7 to 10 g/m . As shown in the table immediately below, there was no statistical difference in the amounts 
of residual HD recovered from the aluminum control surfaces between the earlier tests with a HD 
contamination density of 7 g/irf and the tests in Table 22 with a HD contamination density of 
lOg/m 2 . 


Table 21, Amount of residual HD on post-wiped aluminum control surfaces. 


Wipe Material 

HD Contamination Density 

7 g/m* 

10 g/m* 

AC Fiber 

69 ± 43 ng 

94 ± 16 ng 

AC Felt 

127 ± 162 ng 

167 ± 88 ng 

Scotch-Brite 

222 ± 178 ng 

297 ± 229 ng 


The results of the extraction and GC-FPD analysis of each of the dry and wet w iping 
materials for absorbed/adsorbed HD, showed that approximately 100% of the initially deposited HD was 
recovered from the 3M Scoteh-Britc 2021 wipe, with greater than 95% of the HD recovered from the first 
(wet) w ipe. 


In the tests with the two activated carbon fabrics, 67% of the initially deposited HD was 
recovered from the KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric wipes, and 46% of the initially deposited 
HD w as recovered from the KoTHmex AM 1 132-activated carbon felt w ipes. Almost all of the recovered 
HD came from the first (wet) w ipe. The lower HD recovery from the activated carbon wipes is a measure 
of the adsorptive capacities of the two wiping materials. In the tests with all three wipes, however, the 
results clearly show that most of the initially deposited HD is removed in the first wet wipe sequence. 


66 









Table 22. HD Rotary-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces with wipe analysis (solvent extraction). 


Wiping Material 

Solvent 

Test No. 

Wiping Sequence 

Sampling 

Method 

No. of Wiping 

Cycles 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

Cumulative 

Off-Gassing 

M9 

HD Contamination 

Amount 

mg 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

HD Recovered 

from Wet Wipe 

mg 

HD Recovered 

from Dry Wipe 

mg 

AC 

Fiber 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

088 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0079 

14,5 

>99.99 

8.15 

<1 

AC 

Fiber 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

088 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0 092 

14.5 

>99.99 

11.68 

<1 

AC 

Fiber 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

088 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0.110 

14.5 

>99 99 

9.11 

<1 







Average 

0.094 ± 
0.016 


>99.99 

9.7 ±1.7 

<1 

AC 

Felt 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

096 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0 180 

14.5 

>99 99 

3.72 

0 04 

AC 

Felt 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

096 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0 247 

14.5 

>99 99 

10.22 

0 05 

AC 

Felt 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

096 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0.073 

14.5 

>99.99 

5 04 

0.03 







Average 

0.167 ± 
0.088 


>99.99 

6.6 ± 3.1 

0.04 + 

0 01 

Scotc 

h-Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

104 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0.555 

14.5 

>99.99 

581 

0.04 

Scotc 

h-Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

104 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0 116 

14.5 

>99.99 

15 20 

001 

Scotc 

h-Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

104 

Wet/Dry 

MINICAMS 

24 

350 

0.221 

14.5 

>99.99 

16,09 

0 17 







Average 

0.297 ± 
0.229 


>99,99 

12 4 ± 

5.1 

0.07 ± 

0 07 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AM 1132-activated carbon felt 
Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 
Wet = wet with HFE-7200 
Dry = dry wiping material 


In the second set of tests, three HD automated rotary-wiping tests were conducted on 
aluminum control surfaces using KoTHmex AW 1 101-activated carbon fiber wipes with a HD 
contamination density of 1 g/irf in each test. The first test was conducted with a wipe moistened with 
HFE-7200, the second test with a dry wipe, and the third test with a wet/dry wiping sequence. Each of 
the first two tests w^as conducted with a reduced wiping sequence—eight wiping cycles, referred to as 
cursory wiping. The third test was conducted with 24 wipe cycles for each wet and dry wiping sequence. 
Each test was conducted with HFE-7200 as the wiping solvent and a 350 g rotary' mandrel weight. The 
residual HD remaining on each aluminum control surface after wiping was determined by DAAMS 
sampling and GC-FID analysis. The amount of absorbed/adsorbed HD in each used wipe was also 
determined by DAAMS sampling and Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) 
analysis. The results of the tests are given in Table 23. 

The decontamination efficacy of surface HD removal from a non-absorptivc aluminum 
control surface w^as >99.96% in all three tests. As was expected on the basis of the previous HD rotary¬ 
wiping tests results under the same set of conditions, the decontamination efficacy in the test with 
24 w iping cycles of a wet/dry wiping sequence (denoted as thorough wiping) was superior to the 
decontamination efficacies in the tests with eight wiping cycles. And, as observed nearly consistently 
throughout the test program, the decontamination efficacy with a dry AC Fiber wipe was as cffccti\c as or 
slightly more effective than the decontamination efficacy with a solvent-moistened AC Fiber wipe. 


67 


























Only 90 ng of HD was found to have off-gassed from the HFE-7200-moistened AC Fiber 
wipe after the completion of the wipe sequence in the single wet-wipe test, 226 ng of HD from the dry 
wipe in the single dry-wipe test, 57 ng of HD from the wet wipe in the wet/dry-wipe test, and no 
detectable HD from the dry wipe in the wet/dry-wipe test. Even with a ten times smaller initial HD 
contamination density on the aluminum control surface, the amount of HD recovered from the adsorptive 
wipes by vapor off-gassing was much less than the amount recovered by solvent extraction. In terms of 
the practical use of an adsorptive wipe system, these results are very positive and indicate relatively low 
potential post-wipe HD contamination hazard from the used wipe before it is bagged and scaled for future 
disposal. 

7.4 TGD Rotary-Wiping Tests with V apor Monitoring 

A scries of dual-wipe (that is wet wipe followed by dry wipe, or wet/dry) tests with TGD 
were conducted on non-absorptive aluminum control surfaces at room temperature and ambient relative 
humidity with the automated rotary-wiping device under the same test conditions as the HD wipe tests 
discussed in Section 7.3. Each of the TGD tests was conducted using the 350 g aluminum rotary-wiping 
mandrel with no added weight. In each test, two wipe sequences were employed—one sequence with a 
dry wipe, followed immediately by a second w ipe sequence with a wipe moistened with HFE-7200. Each 
wipe sequence consisted of three iterations of the G330 rotary-wiping program command 
(24 wipe cycles). 

Three tests were conducted with KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric, three tests 
with 3M Scotch-Brite 2021, and three tests with KoTHmex AM 1132-activatcd carbon felt. The residual 
GD remaining on each aluminum control surface after wiping was determined by ACAMS sampling and 
analysis, as described in Section 7.3. 


Table 23. Summary of HD-wiping lests on aluminum control surfaces with rotary wipe test apparatus 
analysis of agent off-gassing from both the test coupons and the activated carbon fabric w ipes. _ 


Test Conditions Either one or three iterations of the G330 wiping program .eight clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions 

to simulate either cursory or thorough wiping 

Wipe Speed - 1 rev/s 

Single aluminum test coupon 

Low (indoor) HD contamination density - 1.0 g/m2 

Comparison of the following three wiping sequences 
-Wet wipe (HFE-7200), cursory wiping 
-Dry wipe (no solvent), cursory wiping 

-Wet wipe (HFE-7200) followed by dry wipe (no solvent), thorough wiping 

Wiping Material 

Wiping 

Solvent 

Test No. 

Wiping Sequence 

Sampling 

Method 

No. of 

Wiping Cycles 

Total 

Mandrei Weight 

g 

Off-Gassing 

From Coupon 

M9 

HD Contamination 
Amount 
mg 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

HD Off-Gassing 
from Wet Wipe 

MS 

HD Off-Gassing 
from Dry Wipe 

M9 

AC Fiber 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073-084 

Wet 

DAAMS 

8 

350 

0.574 

1.45 

99 96 

0.090 

- 

AC Fiber 

None 

J1073-086 

Dry 

DAAMS 

8 

350 

0.136 

1.45 

99.99 

- 

0 226 

AC Fiber 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073-088 

Wet/Dry 

DAAMS 

24 

350 

0.014 

1.45 

>99.99 

0.057 

0.000 


AC Fabnc = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric. 
Wet = Wipe moistened with HFE-7200 
Dry = Dry wiping material 


68 


















In a given test, the surface of a 1.5 x 1.5 in. square aluminum test coupon was mounted in 
the rotary-wiping device. The coupon was uniformly contaminated with 10 mg of TGD, applied as five 
approximately 2 pL droplets from a micropipettor in a pattern similar to the five dots found on a pair of 
dice, over a center 1 in. square of the test coupon. 

The wiping mandrel, with a preattaehed wipe wetted with HFE-7200, was placed on top 
of the agent-contaminated surface so that the turning pin on the shaft of the stepper motor was positioned 
in the slotted shaft of the wiping mandrel. The three iterations of the G330-wiping command were then 
sequentially input to the wiping device from the control PC. The wiping mandrel was then replaced with 
a new wiping mandrel having a preattaehed dry wipe, and a second wipe test sequence with three 
iterations of the G330-w iping command was conducted. 

After the wiping procedure was complete, the wiped test coupon was placed in a glass 
sampling jar with air inlet and outlet fitting in the cap of the jar. Room air was sampled into and through 
the jar into an ACAMS. The collected samples were analyzed directed by the ACAMS. Each jar was 
sampled and analyzed for residual agent vapor for up to 2 h. 

The results for each of the tests are given in Table 24. 


Table 24. Summary of 

preliminary TGD wiping tests with rotary-wi 

ping device on aluminum surface. 

Wiping 

Material 

Solvent 

Test No. 

Wiping 

Sequence 

Sampling 

Method 

No. of 
Wiping 
Cycles 

(i) 

Total 

Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

Cumulative 

Off-Gassing 

ng 

GO 

Contami¬ 

nation 

Amount 

mg (2) 

Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-130 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

110 

9.5 

>99.99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-134a 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

593 

9.5 

>99 99 

AC Fiber 

HFE-7200 

J906-134 b 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

58 

9.5 

>99 99 







Average 

84 ± 37* 


>99.99 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-7200 

J906-142a 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

190 

9.5 

>99.99 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-7200 

J906-142b 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

55 

9.5 

>99.99 

Scotch-Brite 

HFE-7200 

J906-142c 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

117 

9.5 

>99.99 







Average 

121 ± 68 


>99 99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-138a 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

325 

9.5 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-138b 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

66 

9.5 

>99.99 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J906-138c 

Wet/Dry 

ACAMS 

24 

350 

53 

9 5 

>99.99 







Average 

148±153 


>99.99 


Note 1 Each test was conducted with three iterations of the G330 rotary-wiping program for each of the two wipe sequences (wet 


and then dry). 

Note 2. Amount of TGD deposited in each tests was 10 mg Five percent of this amount was thickener. 
* Anomalous high result not included in average 


Although there is significant variability from test to test in the measured cumulative GD 
permeation, as in the HD tests with MINICAMS monitoring, the average residual GD found on the wiped 
aluminum control surfaces in the tests with each of the w ipe materials is roughly the same as the av erage 
residual HD found on the wiped aluminum control surfaces in the corresponding HD rotary-wiping tests 
discussed above: 


69 
























Wipe Material 

Residual HD 

Residual GD 

AC Fiber 

68 ± 83 ng 

84 ± 37 ng 

AC Felt 

127 ± 162 ng 

148 ±153 ng 

Scotch-Brite 

222 ± 178 ng 

121 ±68 ng 


7.5 Comparison of HD and TGD V apor Off-Gas Curves 

A set of representative TGD vapor off-gassing curves is shown in Figure IK through 

Figure 20. 


Figure 18 shows the GD vapor off-gas curve for Test J906-130 (conducted with AC Fiber 
wipes) in terms of absolute GD concentration (in units of ng/L) as a function of elapsed time (in min) and 
in terms of GD hazard level (in concentration units of TWA) as function of elapsed time (in min). 

Figure 19 shows the GD vapor off-gas curve for Test J906-138e (conducted with AC Felt 
wipes) in terms of both absolute GD concentration and GD hazard level as a function of elapsed time. 
For comparison with the previous HD testing. Figure 20 show's a representative HD vapor off-gas curve 
(from Test J973-026b conducted with AC Fiber wipes and discussed earlier in Section 7.2) in terms of 
both absolute HD concentration and HD hazard level as a function of elapsed time. 

In terms of decontamination efficacy, all three of the w ipes evaluated in the TGD rotary¬ 
wiping tests were effective in removing greater than 99.99% of the TGD deposited on the aluminum test 
surfaces, essentially the identical decontamination efficacies that were determined in the HD wipe tests. 

In tenns of vapor off-gas monitoring, a comparison of the absolute GD concentration as a 
function of elapsed time in Figure 18, Figure 19, and Figure 20 show' that the absolute surface remov al and 
residual off-gassing concentrations of GD and HD are nearly the same in the TGD and HD rotary-wiping tests. 

However, a comparison of the vapor off-gas curves in Figure 18, Figure 19, and Figure 20, 
shows that the hazard level of residual GD vapor concentrations, off-gassing from the wiped tests surfaces 
after 120 min, generally ranged from 40 to greater than 200 TWA. This was far in excess of acceptable 
hazard levels. 


The reason for the large observ ed hazard levels of off-gassing GD (relative to the low HD 
hazard lev els observed) is that the allowable exposure level of GD is 100 times lower than the allowable 
exposure level for HD (on the basis of the AELs in AR 385-61)—0.003 mg/m for HD and 0.00003 
mg/m 3 for GD. Otherwise, the wiping removal efficiency of TGD is nearly the same as the removal 
efficiency observed for HD. 

Because the allowable exposure level of VX is another factor of three lower than that of 
GD, the use of agent vapor off-gassing to assess the effectiveness of a Block III sensitive equipment 
decontamination procedure, in tenns of residual agent vapor hazard will be feasible for HD contamination 
only. 


70 









Figure 18 . GD vapor off-gas curves from test J906-130. Upper curve: GD concentration vs. time, 
lower curve: GC off-gassing rate vs. time. 


71 























































TGD Off-Gassing Curve - Test J906-138c 
A/C Felt - Sequential Wet/Dry Wiping 
GD Concentration ng/L vs Elapsed Time 



TGD Off-Gasing Curve - J906-138c 
A/C Felt Cloth - Sequential Wet/Dry Wiping 
GD Concentration (TWA) vs Elapsed Time 



Elapsed Time, min 


Figure 19. GD vapor off-gas curves from test J906-138(C). Upper curve: GD concentration vs. time, 
lower curve: GC off-gassing rate vs. time. 


72 





























HD Off-Gassing Curve - Test J973-026b 

AC Fiber - Sequential Wet/Dry Wiping 

Concentration HD (ng/L) vs Elapsed Time 










A 






J \ 

t \ 







1 



















"O—e- o- 







—O O ( 

5—e—©— 

€> 

0 0 20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 100 0 120 0 140 0 

Elapsed Time, mm 


HD Off-Gasing Curve - J973-026b 

A/C Faber - Sequential Wet/Dry Wiping 

HD Concentration (TWA) vs Elapsed Time 

3 50 

300 

2 50 

< 

^ 2 00 
















L 





Q 

X 

1 50 








1 00 

0 50 

0 00 

0 




—♦ + 

f 

) 

■ — ♦ — ♦ — 

♦ — ♦ — ♦ — ♦ 

0 20 0 40 0 6C0 80 0 100 0 120 0 140 0 

Elapsed Time, min 


Figure 20. HD vapor oft-gas curves from test J906-100(B) Upper curve: GD concentration vs. time 
lower curve: GC off-gassing rate vs. time 


73 
















7.6 


HD Linear-Wiping Tests on Aluminum 


An initial series of 26 HD-wiping tests were conducted on non-absorptive aluminum 
control surfaces, using the automated linear-wiping test apparatus with KoTHmex AW 1101-activated 
carbon fabrie (A/C Fiber), KoTHmex AM 1132-activated earbon felt (A/C Felt), and 3M Scoteh-Brite 
2021 (Scoteh-Brite). 

• Half of the tests were eondueted with the wiping material moistened with HFE- 
7200, and the other half were conducted with dry wiping material (no wiping 
solvent). 

• Fourteen tests were conducted with a wiping sequence consisting of six 
sequential linear wipe passes over the three test coupons in the text fixture (one 
iteration of the G240 linear-wiping program). 

• Nine tests were eondueted with a single linear wipe pass over the test coupons 
(one iteration of the GO program). 

• Three tests were eondueted with four consecutive iterations of the G240 linear- 
wiping program. 

The tests with four iterations of the G240 linear-wiping program generated the same 
"thorough” w ipe contact time as three iterations of the G330 rotary-wiping program (48 s). 

Four additional sets of HD linear-wiping tests were conducted, under different sets of test 
conditions and wiping parameters, on aluminum control surfaces. These four sets used the three primary 
candidates wipe materials—activated carbon fabrie, activated carbon felt, and non-adsorptive micro-fiber 
w ipe. The purpose of the tests was to further compare the three primary candidate wipe materials, and to 
determine the effect of varying the wiping parameters on the decontamination efficacy of the rotary- 
wiping test system and procedures. The test parameters that were varied in this limited set of additional 
tests were: 

• Wipe speed and contact time 

• HD contamination density 

• Wiping solvent 

7.6.1 Test Procedure 

The following test procedure was followed for the linear-wiping tests for HD on 
aluminum coupons: 

(1) Mounting the coupons. 

• Three 1 5 x 1.5 in square aluminum test coupons were placed in the cutout slots 
in the aluminum baseplate of the linear-wiping device, as shown in the diagram 
in Figure 21. 


74 



(2) Attaching the wipe. 

• An 8 x 5 in. swatch of wiping material was then cut out and attached to the 
wiping mandrel. The wiping mandrel was positioned at the far left side of the 
aluminum baseplate, just to the left of the leftmost aluminum test coupon. 

(3) Applying the contaminant. 

• The leftmost aluminum test coupon was then uniformly contaminated with 
14.5 mg of neat HD, in approximately 2 jiL droplets from a microliter syringe, to 
give an approximate contamination density of 10 g/m 2 . 

• The other two coupons were not contaminated. (However, the two 

uncontaminatcd coupons were wiped, sampled, and analyzed after the 
completion of the wiping sequence to measure any agent spread from the 
contaminated coupon by the left to right motion of the wiping block.) 

(4) Preparing the wiping mandrel, 

• After agent contamination, the wiping mandrel was either left in place on the left 
side of the aluminum baseplate (in the dry tests with no wiping solvent) or was 
removed from the baseplate, sprayed with HFE-7200 from a manually air- 
pressurized Misto olive oil sprayer (to wet the wiping material with HFE-7200 
without saturation), and then placed back down on the far left side of the 
aluminum baseplate. The nylon fishing line was then attached to the two eyelets 
on the opposite sides of the wiping mandrel, routed through the pulley, wrapped 
around the motor shaft three times, and tensioned by loosening the wing nut on 
the pulley, moving the pulley away from the motor until the line is taut, and 
tightening the wing nut. 


75 


































































• In three of the tests, one test with each of the three wipe materials, after the 
deposition of the HD droplets on the surfaee of the leftmost aluminum test 
eoupon, HFE-7200 was sprayed directly onto the HD- contaminated aluminum 
surface from a manually air-pressurized Misto olive oil sprayer rather than onto 
the wiping material, and the sprayed, contaminated surfaee was wiped with a dry 
wipe. The amount of HFE-7200 sprayed onto the HD contaminated surfaee was 
not quantified, but was sufficient to visually wet the contaminated surfaee with 
HFE-7200. 

(5) Initiating the wiping sequence. 

• After completing the previous steps, either a single G240 wiping sequence or a 
single GO wiping sequence was initiated from the keyboard of the control 
computer. 

• The G240 linear-wiping program consisted of six sequential linear wipe passes 
over the test coupons: (I) a left-to-right pass, (2) a right-to-lcft return pass, (3) a 
second left-to-right pass, (4) a second right-to-left return pass, (5) a third lcft-to- 
right pass, and (6) a third right-to-left return pass. The duration of each pass was 
2.0 s, and the weight of the wiping mandrel was 631 g (no added weight). 

• The GO linear-wiping program consisted of a single left-to-right pass over the 
three test coupons. The duration of the pass was 0.5 s. (Note: The weight of the 
wiping block was weighed on a calibrated balance and was found to be 631 g.) 

After the wiping procedure was complete, the amount of residual agent on each test 
coupon was determined either by solvent extraction and GC-FPD analysis or by DAAMS agent vapor 
sampling and GC-FID analysis: 

• Using the extraction procedure, after the wiping procedure, each of the three 
aluminum test coupons was removed from the aluminum baseplate and placed in 
a separate jar containing 25 mL of isopropyl alcohol (1PA). Each jar was scaled, 
and the aluminum test eoupon was allowed to soak in the 1PA for 120 min, with 
intermittent swirling, to extract any residual agent on the test coupon into the IPA 
extraction solvent. After the 120 mm extraction period, the IPA extract was 
analyzed for residual HD by GC-FPD. 

• Using the DAAMS procedure, each of the three aluminum test coupons was 
remov ed from the aluminum baseplate and plaecd in a separate glass sampling jar 
fitted with air inlet and outlet fittings in the cap of the jar. Room air was pumped 
into and through the jar then through a 3 mm OD Tenax TA DAAMS transfer 
tube at a flow rate of 50 mL/min for 120 min. The DAAMS transfer tube was 
then thermally desorbed into an HP 5X90 Scries II GC equipped with a DAAMS 
injection port and a flame ionization detector. Prior to the tests, the GC was 
calibrated. The total amount of HD collected on and desorbed from the DAAMS 
tube (in ng) was determined directly from GC response of the desorbed DAAMS 
sample and the HD calibration curve. 


76 


7.6.2 


Test Results 


The results of the initial linear wiping tests with HD arc summarized in Table 25. The 
results of the additional four sets of HD linear-wiping tests arc summarized in Table 26 through Table 29 
described as follows: 

• Table 26. FID Linear-wiping tests on Aluminum Control Surfaces - Single-Pass, 
Fast Wipe Speed, Indoor (Low) Contamination Density 

• Table 27. HD Linear-wiping tests on Aluminum Control Surfaces - Multiple- 
Pass, Slow Wipe Speed, Indoor (Low ) Contamination Density 

• Table 28. HD Linear-wiping tests on Aluminum Control Surfaces - Single-Pass, 
Slow Wipe Speed, Indoor (Low) Contamination Density 

• Table 29. FtD Linear-wiping tests on Aluminum Control Surfaces - Single-Pass, 
Slow Wipe Speed, Outdoor (High) Contamination Density - Wiping Solvent 
Comparison 


77 


Tabic 25. Results of HD-w iping tests w ith automated linear-w iping device on non-absorptivc aluminum 
control surfaces. 


Test Conditions: Total Mandrel Weight - 631 

Single and multiple pass wipes 

Wiping Programs -lx GO, 1 x G240 4 x G240 

Three test coupons arranged left to nght 

Only leftmost coupon contaminated with HD 

HD contamination density - 10 g/m2 

Wiping Material 

Solvent/ 

Decon 

6 

z 

<A 

<D 

1- 

Sampling 

Method 

HD Contamination 

Amount 

mg 

Wipe Contact 

Time 

s 

HD Recovered 

from Left Coupon 

M9 

HD Recovered 

From Center Coupon 

M9 

HD Recovered 

From Right Coupon 

M9 

Total HD Recovery 

M9 

Left Coupon Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

Total Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

HFE-7200 

J973- 

114 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

ND (1) 

8.3 

ND (1) 

*8 3 

99.94 

£99.94 

AC 

Fabnc 

HFE-7200 

J973- 

126 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

93 

72 

ND (2) 

*165 

99.36 

S98.86 

AC 

Fabric 

HFE-7200 

J973- 

156 

DAAMS 

GC-FID 

14.5 

12 

31.6 

3 7 

1.7 

37 

99.78 

99.75 

AC 

Fabric 

None (Dry) 

J973- 

132 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

ND (2) 

ND (2) 

ND (2) 

*10 

£99.93 

£99.93 

AC 

Fabnc 

None (Dry) 

J973- 

120 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

ND (1) 

ND (1) 

ND (1) 

*6 

£99.96 

S99.96 

AC 

Fabric 

None (Dry) 

J973- 

146 

DAAMS 

GC-FID 

14 5 

12 

1.5 

53 

10 

7.8 

99.99 

99.95 

AC 

Fabnc 

HFE-7200 

J973- 

148 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

0.5 

186 

169 

44 

399 

98.72 

97.25 

AC 

Fabnc 

None (Dry) 

J973- 

140 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

0.5 

121 

7.7 

ND (1) 

*129 

99.17 

S99 11 

AC 

Fabnc 

Dry Wipe; 
HFE-7200 
on Coupon 

J1073- 

004 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14 5 

0 5 

1720 

75 

ND (2) 

S1795 

88 14 

£87.62 

AC 

Fabnc 

HFE-7200 

J1073- 
014 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

48 

4.7 

ND (3) 

ND (3) 

*4.7 

99.97 

99.96 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973- 

116 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14 5 

12 

960 

1030 

560 

2550 

93.38 

82.41 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973- 

128 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

249 

259 

94 

673 

98,28 

95.36 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J973- 

152 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14 5 

0.5 

898 

2001 

883 

3782 

93.81 

73 92 

AC Felt 

None (Dry) 

J973- 

122 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

61 

40 

16 

117 

99.58 

98.83 

AC Felt 

None (Dry) 

J973- 

134 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14 5 

12 

57 

38 

32 

127 

99.61 

99 12 

AC Felt 

None (Dry) 

J973- 

142 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

0.5 

463 

1441 

811 

2715 

96 81 

81.28 

AC Felt 

Dry Wipe; 
HFE-7200 
on Coupon 

J1073- 

008 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

0 5 

839 

930 

756 

2525 

94.21 

82 59 

AC Felt 

HFE-7200 

J1073- 

018 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

145 

48 

15 

74 

18 

107 

99 90 

99.26 


78 

































Table 25. Results of HD-wiping tests with automated linear-wiping device on non-absorptive aluminum 
control surfaces (continued). __ 


Wiping Material 

Soivent/Decon 

o’ 

z 

<-» 

© 

Sampling 

Method 

HD Contamination 

Amount 

mg 

Wipe Contact 

Time 

s 

HD Recovered 

from Left Coupon 

uo 

HD Recovered 

From Center Coupon 

M9 

HD Recovered 

From Right Coupon 

M9 

Total HD Recovery 

M9 

Left Coupon Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

Total Decon Efficacy 

% 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

118 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

250 

69 

9 

328 

98.28 

97.74 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

130 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

87 

73 

43 

203 

99 40 

98.60 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J973- 

150 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

0 5 

270 

173 

40 

483 

98.14 

96 67 

Scotch- 

Brite 

None 

(Dry) 

J973- 

124 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

38 

62 

ND (1) 

100 

99.74 

S99.31 

Scotch- 

Brite 

None 

(Dry) 

J973- 

136 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

12 

14 5 

ND (2) 

ND (2) 

£15 

99.90 

£99 89 

Scotch- 

Brite 

None 

(Dry) 

J973- 

144 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

0 5 

150 

142 

16 

308 

98.97 

97.87 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Dry 

Wipe, 

HFE- 

7200 

on 

Coupo 

n 

J1073- 

006 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14 5 

0.5 

60 

14 

ND (2) 

£74 

99 59 

£99 49 

Scotch- 

Bnte 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073- 

016 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

48 

4 1 

ND (3) 

ND (3) 

£4.1 

99.97 

£99.97 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AM 1132-activated carbon felt. 
Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 


Wiping Program - 1 x G240 
Wipe Speed - 2 0 s/pass 
No of Passes - 6 
Wipe Contact Time -12 s 


Wiping Program - 4 x G240 
Wipe Speed - 2 0 s/pass 
No. of Passes - 24 
Wipe Contact Time - 48 s 


Wiping Program - 1 x GO 
Wipe Speed - 0 5 s/pass 
Number of Passes - 1 
Wipe Contact Time - 0.5 s 


(1) ND 

(2) ND 

(3) ND 


None Detected 
None Detected 
None Detected 


(Estimated detection limit 
(Estimated detection limit 
(Estimated detection limit 


= 6 pg HD) 

= 10 pg HD) 
= 4 pg HD) 


79 























Table 26. Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces with linear wipe test apparatus. 


Single-Pass Fast Wipe Speed, Indoor (Low) Contamination Density 

Test Conditions: 

Single pass wipe from left to nght 

Wiping Program - 1 x GO 

Wipe Speed - 0.5 s (fast) 

Three test coupons arranged left to nght 

Only leftmost coupon contaminated with HD 

Low (indoor) HD contamination density - 1 0 g/m2 

Total Mandrel Weight - 631 g 

Comparison of dry wipes with wipes wet with HFE-7200 

Wiping Material 

Solvent/Decon 

6 

z 

<** 

m 

O 

H 

Sampling Method 

HD Contam. Amount 
mg 

Wipe Contact Time 

3 

HD Recovered 

From Left Coupon 

M9 

HD Recovered 

From Center Coupon 

M9 

HD Recovered 

From Right Coupon 

P9 

Total HD Recovery 

M9 

Left Coupon Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

Total Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073 

-022 

DAAMS 

GC-FID 

1.45 

0.5 

129 799 
(outside 
upper 
cal curve 
limit) 

0.351 

0.084 

130 

91.05 

91.03 

AC 

Fabric 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073 

-026 

Extraction 
-GC- 
Coupon 1 
DAAMS- 
FID - 
Coupons 

2 & 3 

1.45 

0.5 

199 

0.348 

0 128 

199 

86,28 

86.28 

AC 

Fabnc 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073 

-028 

Extraction 
-GC- 
Coupon 1 
DAAMS- 
FID - 
Coupons 

2 & 3 

1.45 

0.5 

96.35 

0.173 

0 060 

97 

93.36 

93.3 

Scotch- 

Brite 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073 

-032 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1.45 

0.5 

58 7 

10.5 

ND 

£69 

95.95 

<95.2 

Scotch- 

Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073 

-034 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1.45 

0.5 

41.5 

30.8 

4,4 

77 

97.17 

94 7 

AC Felt 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073 

-038 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1 45 

0.5 

165 

323 

23 

512 

88 62 

647 

AC Felt 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073 

-040 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1 45 

0.5 

200 

345 

6 

552 

86.21 

61.9 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric. 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AM 1132-activated carbon felt. 
Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

ND = None Detected (Estimated detection limit = 2 pg HD) 


80 






















Table 27. Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces with linear wipe test apparatus 
multiple-pass, slow wipe speed, indoor (low) contamination density. _ 


Test Conditions: 

Multiple passes to simulate thorough wiping 

(linear wipe contact time same as “thorough 51 rotary-wiping contact time - 48 s) 

24 forward-followed-by-reverse passes 

Wiping Program - 4 x G240 

Wipe Speed - 2 s per pass (slow) 

Three test coupons arranged left to right 

Only leftmost coupon contaminated with HD 

High (outdoor) HD contamination density - 10 g/m2 

Total Mandrel Weight - 631 g 

Dry wipes only (no HFE-7200) to evaluate comparative wiping ability of the three candidate wipes 

Wiping Material 

Sot vent/Deco n 

Test No. 

Sampling Method 

HD Contam. Amount 
mg 

Wipe Contact Time 

s 

HD Recovered 

From Left Coupon 

Pg 

HD Recovered 

From Center Coupon 

P9 

HD Recovered 

From Right Coupon 

pg 

Total HD Recovery 

pg 

Left 

Coupon Decon Efficacy 

_%_ 

Total Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073- 

042 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

48 

2.9 

2.8 

ND 

£5.7 

99.98 

£99.96 

Scotch- 

Brite 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073- 

044 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14 5 

48 

72 

8 

ND 

280 

99 50 

£99 45 

AC Felt 

None 

(D^) 

J1073- 

046 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

48 

24 

31 

121 

176 

99 83 

98.79 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AM 1132-activated carbon felt. 
Scotch-Bnte = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

ND = None Detected (Estimated detection limit = 2 pg HD) 


81 



















Ta bic 28. Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces ^ith linear wipe test apparatus. 


Single-Pass, Slow Wipe Speed, Indoor (Low) Contamination Density 

Test Conditions. 

Single pass wipe from left to right 

Wiping Program - 1 x G180 

Wipe Speed -20s (slow) 

Three test coupons arranged left to right 

Only leftmost coupon contaminated with HD 

Low (indoor) HD contamination density - 1 0 g/m2 

Total Mandrel Weight - 631 g 

Comparison of dry wipes with wipes wet with HFE-7200 at the slow wipe speed 

Wiping Material 

c 

o 

£ 

S 

c 

§ 

o 

CO 

o 

z 

+■» 

m 

o 

1 — 

Sampling Method 

HD Contam. Amount 
Mg 

Wipe Contact Time 

s 

HD Recovered 

From Left Coupon 

M9 

HD Recovered 

From Center Coupon 

M9 

HD Recovered 

From Right Coupon 

M9 

Total HD Recovery 

M9 

Left Coupon Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

Total Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073 

-048 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1.45 

2 0 

ND 

ND 

ND 

£2 

£99 86 

£99.86 

AC 

Fabric 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073 

-050 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1.45 

2 0 

41 

ND 

ND 

£41 

97.24 

£97.24 

Scotch 

-Brite 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073 

-054 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1.45 

20 

ND 

27 

3 

£30 

£99 86 

£97 93 

Scotch 

-Brite 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073 

-056 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1.45 

2.0 

60 

26 

3 

89 

95.86 

93 86 

AC 

Felt 

None 

(Dry) 

J1073 

-058 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1.45 

2.0 

126 

238 

52 

416 

91.31 

71.31 

AC 

Felt 

HFE- 

7200 

J1073 

-060 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

1 45 

2.0 

172 

409 

52 

633 

88.14 

56 34 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AM 1132-activated carbon felt 
Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

ND = None Detected (Estimated detection limit = 2 pg HD) 


82 





















Tabic 29, Summary of HD-wiping tests on aluminum control surfaces with linear wipe test apparatus. 


Single-Pass, Slow\ 

Test Conditions: 
Single pass wipe fr 
Wiping Program - 
Wipe Speed - 2 0 s 
Wipe Contact Time 
Three test coupons 
Only leftmost coup( 
High (outdoor) HD 
Total Mandrel Weic 

/Vipe Spee 

Dm left to 
x G180 
(slow) 
-2.0 s 
arranged 
:>n contam 
contamina 
ht - 631 g 

id, Indoor (Low) Contamination Density 

ight 

left to right 

nated with HD 

tion density - 10 g/m2 

Wiping Material 

c 

o 

D 

<3 

s 

c 

1 

v> 

6 

z 

<4-» 

(0 

o 

h- 

*o 

o 

.c 

o 

2 

o> 

c 

"q. 

E 

(0 

<0 

c 

3 

o 

1 

a 

0 

c 

o 

o 

Q 

X 

o 

E 

h- 

o 

3 * 
c * 
o 
o 

& 

5 

?! 
o o 
> o 

0£ -» 

O E 

x 2 

LL 

e 

o 

o = 

SS 

O 0) O) 
0 ) c 

OC o 

o 

k. 

11. 

-§ 1 
m O 

8£ 3 

<u O) 

K Q£ 

x E 

1 o 

L. 

LL 

fr 

o 

> 

o 

o 

© 

0£ CD 

o a 

X 

5 

o 

h* 

c 

o 

o 

Is 

II* 

ow 

% 

-1 

8 

E 

UJ 

05? 

o 

a 

<0 

o 

K 

AC 

Fabric 

IPA 

J1073- 

064 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14 5 

2 0 

ND 

ND 

ND 

£4 

£99.97 

*99 97 

AC 

Fabric 

IPA 

J1073- 

066 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14 5 

2.0 

5 

ND 

ND 

£5 

99.97 

£99 97 

AC 

Felt 

IPA 

J1073- 

068 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

2.0 

11 

21 

49 

81 

99 92 

99.44 

AC 

Felt 

IPA 

J1073- 

070 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

2,0 

185 

181 

36 

401 

98.72 

97.23 

AC 

Fabric 

Hexane 

J1073- 

074 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

2.0 

79 

35 

4 

118 

9946 

99.19 

AC 

Fabric 

Hexane 

J1073- 

076 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

2.0 

222 

10 

ND 

£232 

98.47 

S98.40 

AC 

Felt 

Hexane 

J1073- 

078 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

2.0 

308 

89 

22 

419 

97.88 

97.11 

AC 

Felt 

Hexane 

J1073- 

080 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

2.0 

174 

83 

15 

272 

98 80 

98.12 

AC 

Fabric 

HFE- 

7200 

J1190* 
044 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

20 

198 

112 

ND 

£310 

98.63 

£97 86 

AC 

Fabnc 

HFE- 

7200 

J1190- 
045 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

2.0 

124 

ND 

ND 

£124 

99.15 

£99.15 

AC 

Felt 

HFE- 

7200 

J1190- 
042 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

145 

20 

593 

1314 

382 

2289 

95.91 

84 21 

AC 

Felt 

HFE- 

7200 

J1190- 
043 

Extraction 

GC-FPD 

14.5 

2.0 

310 

766 

352 

1428 

97.86 

90.15 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AM 1132-activated carbon felt. 

ND = None Detected (Estimated detection limit in IPA and hexane tests = 4 pg HD) 
ND = None Detected (Estimated detection limit in HFE-7200 tests = 20 Mg HD) 


83 



























7.6.3 


Discussion of Results 


7.6.3.1 Type of Wipe 

As can be seen from the total residual HD recoveries and decontamination efficacies in 
Table 26 through Table 29, and in summary Table 30 below, in the tests with HFE-7200, the KoTHmcx 
AW 1101-activated carbon fabric was the most effective wipe material in removing HD from the 
aluminum control coupon. This was followed by the 3M Scotch-Britc 2021 and then the KoTHmcx AM 
1132-activated carbon felt. The activated carbon felt w^as much less effective in the linear wiping tests 
than it was in the rotary-wiping tests. The reason for the relatively worse performance of the activated 
carbon felt wipes in the linear wiping tests may be related to (1) the shorter contact time between the felt 
and the agent-contaminated surface during the linear tests (relative to the rotary tests), (2) the rate of HD 
adsorption onto the activated carbon felt, and (3) the HD transport into the interior of the felt w'ipc and 
away from the surface of the wipe. 

The HD decontamination efficacies with all three wiping materials were greater with the 
dry wipes than with the wipes that were wet with HFE-7200. While the differences in the wet and dry 
decontamination efficacies were generally not great, the trend was seen in the tests with one iteration of 
the G240 program, one iteration of the GO program, and w ith both DAAMS sampling and analysis and 
with solvent extraction and GC analysis. 


Table 30. Summary of HD Linear-wiping tests (From Data in Tables 24, 26, and 28). 


Wiping 

Material 

HD Contamination 
Density 
g/m 2 

Number 
of Wipe 
Passes 

Wipe Contact 
Time 

s 

Total Decontamination Efficacy% 

HFE-7200 

Dry 

(No Solvent) 

HFE-7200 Spray+ 
Dry Wipe 

AC Fabric 

10 

1 

0.5 

97.25 

99.11 

87 62 

AC Fabric 

10 

1 

2.0 

98.50 

- 

- 

AC Fabric 

10 

6 

12 

99.52 

99.95 

- 

AC Fabric 

10 

24 

48 

99 96 

- 

- 

AC Felt 

10 

1 

0.5 

73.92 

81.28 

82.59 

Ac Felt 

10 

1 

2.0 

87.18 

- 

- 

AC Felt 

10 

6 

12 

88.89 

98.98 

- 

AC Felt 

10 

24 

48 

99.03 

- 

- 

Scotch-Brite 

10 

1 

0.5 

96.67 

97.87 

99.49 

Scotch-Brite 

10 

1 

2.0 

- 

- 

- 

Scotch-Brite 

10 

6 

12 

98.17 

99.60 

- 

Scotch-Brite 

10 

24 

48 

99.71 

- 

- 


7.6.3.2 Number of Wipe PassesAVipe Contact Time 

As shown in Table 30 above, the HD decontamination efficacy for each wipe material 
increases with the number of wipe passes and wipe contact time, whether with wipe is solvent-moistened 
or dry. In very limited single-pass testing, the HD decontamination efficacy increased with a decrease in 
wiping speed (in going from a wipe speed of 2 to 0.5 s/pass). These observations, however, arc based on 
a limited number of replicate tests, and additional testing is needed. 


84 






















7.6.3.3 


Wet Wipe vs. Dry Wipe vs. Spray-and-Wipe 


Three tests were conducted in which HFE-7200 was sprayed directly onto the HD- 
contaminated surface of the leftmost aluminum tests coupon, followed by the wiping of the surface w'ith a 
dry wipe. One test was conducted with each wipe material. The HD decontamination efficacy was 
poorer in the spray and wipe test with activated carbon fabric, than in the tests with cither dry or HFE- 
7200-moistcned AC fabric. In the tests with activated carbon felt, there was no significant difference 
between the HD decontamination efficacy in the spray and wipe test and the efficiencies in the dry or pre- 
moistened wipe tests. And in the tests with Seotch-Brite wipes, the HD removal efficiency was greater in 
the spray and wipe test than in either the dry-wipe or pre-moistened-wipe tests. Since only a single spray 
and wipe test was conducted with each wipe material, however, no firm conclusions about the relative 
efficiencies of spray and w ipe procedure can be drawn from the test results. 

7.6.3.4 Comparison of Wiping Solvents 

The results of the tests detailed in Table 30 were conducted specifically to compare the 
decontamination efficacy of adsorbent wipes moistened with HFE-7200 with the removal efficiencies of 
the same wipe materials moistened with the more-HD-soluble solvents hexane and isopropyl alcohol 
(1PA). As summarized in Table 31, of the three wipe solvents evaluated, IPA was the most effective 
solvent in the surface removal of HD, followed by hexane, and then HFE-7200, with both the activated 
carbon fabric and the activated carbon felt wipe materials. 

• With the AC fabric wipes, the differences in HD surface-removal efficiencies 
among the three solvents were small. 

• With the AC felt wipes, the HD-surfaee-removal efficiency with HFE-7200 was 
significantly less than the corresponding efficiencies with IPA and hexane. The 
reason for this is not readily apparent. 


Table 31. Comparison of wiping solvents. 


Solvent 

Total HD Decontamination Efficacy 

AC Fabric 

AC Felt 

IPA 

99.97 % 

98.34 % 

Hexane 

98.80 % 

97.62 % 

HFE-7200 

98.51 % 

85.68 % 


Using all three solvents, the HD surface-removal efficiencies of the AC carbon fabric 
wipes were greater than those of the AC carbon felt wipes. 

7.6.3.5 Agent Spreading 

Although decontamination of the HD-contaminated coupon (the leftmost coupon) is the 
result of primary interest, the linear-wiping tests with HI) confirmed the ESI findings with agent 
simulants that the linear-wiping procedure spread the agent contamination from the contaminated 
aluminum coupon to the other two aluminum coupons. The extent and distribution of the spreading 
appeared to be highly dependent upon the wiping material and the material's efficiency in removing HD 
from a contaminated surface, especially in the single-pass tests. 


85 









The distribution of HD spreading in the single-pass linear-wiping tests is shown for each 
of the three wiping materials evaluated in the stackcd-column bar charts in Figure . Figure a shows the 
agent spreading results with activated carbon fabric wipes. Figure b the results with activated carbon felt 
wipes, and Figure c the results with Scotch-Brite wipes. 

Each bar in the chart illustrates the fraction of residual HD found on each of the three test 
coupons in a given test. 


• The blue-colored portion of the bar represents the percent of total residual HD 
found on the leftmost (contaminated) coupon. 

• The violet-colored portion of the bar represents the percent of total residual HD 
found on the center coupon. 

• The cream-colored portion of the bar represents the percent of total residual HD 
found on the rightmost coupon. 

Overall, the least amount of agent spreading was seen in the tests with activated carbon 
fabric wipes, and the greatest amount of spreading w as seen in the tests w ith activated carbon felt. 

In the tests with activated carbon fabric wipes and Scotch-Brite wipes, greater than 50% 
of the residual HD was found on the leftmost (contaminated) coupon in all but one of the tests. In most of 
the tests, much greater than 50% of the total residual HD was found on the leftmost coupon. The bulk of 
the agent that had been spread from the contaminated coupon was found on the coupon immediately 
adjacent to the contaminated coupon (i.c., on the center coupon). 

In most of the tests with activated carbon felt w ipes, the residual HD was more uniformly 
distributed over the three coupons, with the bulk of the residual agent found on the center coupon. 
Greater than 50% of the total residual HD was found on the center coupon in all but the spray and wipe 
test, with about 20-30% on the leftmost (contaminated) coupon and 20-30% on the rightmost coupon. 


86 


a. Activated Carbon Fabric Wipes 


3 

© 

u 

e 

© 

□ 

r 


4 ) 

QC 


10 g/m2 HD 
Wet AC Felt 


IO Spreading - Single Pass Linear Wipe 
Activated Carbon Fabric Wipes 



□ Right Coupon 
■ Center Coupon 

□ LeltCoupon 


HO Contaninatlon Dimity and Wlpa 


b. Activated Carbon Felt Wipes 


HD Spreading - Single Pass Linear Wipe 
Activated Carbon Felt Wipes 



1 g/m2 HD 10 HD 1 &m2 HD 


W et AC Feft Dry AC F elt Dry AC FeK 

HD Contamination Density and Wipe 


IQg/m? HD 
Spray * Dry Felt 


O Right Coupon 
■Center Coupon 
O LeftCoupon 


Figure 22. HD-spreading bar charts (a) AC' fabric, (b) AC felt, and (c) non-adsorpme fabric wipes 


87 
























































































































































c. Non-Adsorptive Fabric Wipes 


HD Spreading - Single-Pass Linear Wipe 
Scotch Brite Wipes 


100% 

90% 
. 80% 

o 70% 

a 

3 

a 60% 

§ 

O 50% 

| 40% 

s 

* 30% 

20 % 
10 % 
0 % 






□ Right Coupon 
■ Center Coupon 
D LeftCoupon 


10g/m2 HD 
Wet Scotch Bnte 


1 g/m2 HD 


10 g/m2 HD 


Wet Scotch Bnte Dry Scotch Bnte 

HD Contamination Density and Wipe 


1 g/m2 HD 
Dry Scotch Bnte 


10g.'m2 HD 
Spray + Dry SB 


Figure 22. HD-spreading bar charts (a) AC fabric, (b) AC felt, and (c) non-adsorptive fabric wipes (continued). 


7.7 HI) Rotary and Linear-Wiping Tests on Absorptive Test Surfaces 

Automated HD rotary- and linear-wiping tests were conducted on a set of absorptive test 
surfaces—CARC-painted and alkyd-paintcd stainless steel test coupons provided by the Government, and 
polycarbonate and high-dcnsity-polycthylenc (HDPE) coupons that were purchased commercially. 

The dimensions of the CARC- and alkyd-paintcd panels (2x2 in. square x 0.125 in. 
thick) were different from the dimensions of the aluminum test coupons that had been used in all of the 
previous tests (1.5. x 1.5 in. square x 0.25 in. thick). The HDPE and polycarbonate test coupons were 
custom cut to the same dimensions as the CARC- and alkyd-paintcd panels. 

As described previously, in order to conduct the tests with the 2x2 in. square x 0.125 in. 
thick test coupons, an additional set of baseplates (one for the rotary-wiping test apparatus and one for the 
linear wipe test apparatus) were designed and fabricated. The baseplates were needed to accommodate 
the thinner, larger-footprint test coupons. Each of the additional baseplates was fabricated with a single 
cutout (instead of the three cutouts in the baseplate of the linear-wiping test apparatus). 

7.7.1 HD Rotary-Wiping Tests on CARC and Alkyd Test Surfaces with Activated Carbon 

Fabric and Felt Wipes Using HFE-7200 Solvent 

The initial tests that were conducted on CARC- and alkyd-paintcd test surfaces were 
automated HD rotary-wiping tests with activated carbon fabric and activated carbon felt wipes. All but 
two of the tests were conducted with activated carbon fabric wipes. A preliminary set of HD rotary¬ 
wiping tests on non-absorptivc aluminum control surfaces were also conducted for comparison. Some of 
the tests were conducted with a dry wipe, some with a wipe moistened with HFE-7200, and some with an 
HFE-7200 spray onto the contaminated surface, followed by a dry w ipc. 


88 











































































The tests were conducted at room temperature and ambient relative humidity with the 
automated rotary-wiping device using the general test procedures described in Section 7.2. Each of the 
HD tests was conducted using the 350 g aluminum rotary-wiping mandrel with no added weight. In each 
test a single wipe sequence was employed—three iterations of the G330 rotary-wiping program command 
(24 wipe cycles), giving a total wipe contact time of 48 s. 

The following test procedure was followed for the rotary-wiping tests using HD on 
CARC- and alkyd-paintcd test coupons: 

(1) Mounting the coupons. 

• A 1.5 x 1.5 in. square aluminum test coupon or a 2 x 2 in. square x 0.125 in. thick 
painted stainless steel panel was mounted in the rotary-wiping device. 

(2) Applying the contaminant. 

• The coupon surface was then uniformly contaminated with either 14.5 mg (in the 
tests with aluminum surfaces) or 2.6 mg (in the tests with painted surfaces) HD 
to give a contamination density of 10 g/irf in the tests with the aluminum 
surfaces and 1.0 g/in in the tests with the painted surfaces. (Comparison tests on 
aluminum control surfaces at a HD contamination density of 1.0 g/nrT were 
inadvertently not conducted.) The agent was applied over the coupon surface as 
approximately 1 pL droplets from a micropipettor. 

(3) Attaching the wipe. 

• A dry wipe or a wipe wetted with HFE-7200 was attached to the wiping mandrel. 
Then the mandrel with the wipe was placed on top of the agent-contaminated 
surface so that the turning pin on the shaft of the stepper motor was positioned in 
the slotted shaft of the w iping mandrel. 

(4) Preparing the wipe. 

• In several of the tests, after the HD droplets were deposited on the surface of the 
test coupon, HFE-7200 was sprayed directly onto the HD- contaminated 
aluminum surface from a manually air-pressurized Misto olive oil sprayer. The 
sprayed, contaminated surface was then wiped with either a dry wipe or a wipe 
moistened with HFE-7200. The amount of HFE-7200 sprayed onto the HD- 
eontaminated surface was not quantified, but was sufficient to \isually wet the 
contaminated surface. 

(4) Initiating the wiping sequence. 

• Three iterations of the G330-wiping command were then sequentially input to the 
wiping device from the control PC to simulate thorough w'iping (48 s wipe 
contact time). 

After the wiping procedure was complete, the residual HD on each aluminum control surface 
was determined by either MINICAMS sampling and analysis, DAAMS GC-MD sampling and analysis, or 
solvent extraction and GC-FPD analysis of the solvent extract, as described in Section 7.5. 


89 


Using the extraction procedure, after completing the wiping procedure, the test coupon 
was removed from the aluminum baseplate and placed in a separate jar containing 25 mL of isopropyl 
alcohol (in the tests with aluminum coupons) or 50 mL of I PA (in the tests with painted coupons). The jar 
was sealed, and the test coupon was allowed to soak in the 1PA for 120 min with intermittent swirling to 
extract any residual agent on the test coupon into the IPA extraction solvent. After the 120 min extraction 
period, the IPA extract was analyzed for residual HD by GC-FPD. 

Using the DAAMS procedure, each of the three aluminum test coupons were removed from 
the aluminum baseplate and placed in a separate glass sampling jar fitted with air inlet and outlet fittings in the 
cap of the jar. Room air was pumped into and through the jar and then through a 3 mm OD Tenax TA 
DAAMS transfer tube at a flow rate of 200 mL/min for the following time periods, replacing the DAAMS 
tube after each time period: 

1. First tube 15 min sample period. 

2. Second tube 15 min sample period. 

3. Third tube 30 min sample period. 

4. Fourth tube 30 min sample period. 

5. Fifth tube final 30 min sample period. 

Five DAAMS tubes were used to sample sequentially at 200 mL/min for a total of 120 min (a 
total sample volume of 24 L). Prior to the tests the GC was calibrated. The total amount of HD collected on 
and desorbed from each DAAMS tube (in ng) was determined directly from GC response of the desorbed 
DAAMS sample and the HD calibration curve. 

Using the MINICAMS procedure after the wiping procedure was complete; the wiped 
test coupon was placed in a glass sampling jar w ith air inlet and outlet fitting in the cap of the jar. Room 
air was sampled into and through the jar into a M1N1CAMS unit. The collected MINICAMS samples 
were analyzed directed by the MINICAMS. Each jar was sampled and analyzed for residual agent vapor 
for up to 2 h. 

7.7.1.1 Results 

The results of the HD rotary-wiping tests with CARC- and alkyl-painted surfaces arc 
summarized in Table 32. Note that the decontamination efficacy results in the right-most column of the 
table arc expressed as room-temperature decontamination efficacies. As discussed in the next section, 
there is a significant temperature dependence on the recovery of agent from absorptive surfaces by agent- 
vapor off-gas monitoring techniques. 

On the basis of the total residual HD recovered from the test surfaces at room temperature 
after agent contamination and subsequent wiping, all of the tests with activated carbon fabric with either a dry 
wipe, an HFE-7200-moistcned wipe, or using a spray-and-wipe technique indicated very good HD 
decontamination efficiencies from the aluminum control surfaces and CARC-painted stainless steel panels, 
regardless of the type of analysis used for determining the amount of residual agent: 

• >99.9% HD removal efficiency from aluminum control surfaces (extraction, 
MINICAMS. DAAMS) 

• >99.9% HD removal efficiency from CARC surface (MINICAMS, DAAMS) 


90 


Approximately 99.4% HD removal efficiency from CARC surface (solvent 
extraction) 


Table 32. Summary of HD rotary-wiping tests with CARC- and alkyl-painted surfaces. 


Test Conditions* 

Three iterations of the G330 wiping program - 8 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions to simulate thorough wiping 

Wipe Speed - 1 rev/s 

Single coupon per test 

Both high (outdoor) and low (indoor) HD contamination densities - 10 g/rrf and 1 0 g/m 2 

Three types of sampling and analysis methods evaluated - 
MINICAMS, extraction and GC-FPD analysis, and DAAMS GC-FID 

Wiping Material 

Test Surface 

Wipe Method 

Solvent/Decon 

Test No. 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

S 

HD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

c 

o 

I* 

III 

si 

o 

o 

X 

Wipe Contact Time, 

s 

HD Recovered 

from Coupon 

M9 

Room Temp. Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC Fabric 
AW HOI 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

090 

MINICAMS 

350 

10 

14.5 

48 

1.12 

99 99 

AC Fabric 
AW1101 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

092 

MINICAMS 

350 

10 

14.5 

48 

1.12 

99 99 

AC Fabric 
AWIiOl 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

104 

Extraction/GC- 

FPD 

350 

10 

14.5 

48 

341 

99 98 

AC Fabnc 
AW1 *>01 

CARC 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

110 

MINICAMS 

350 

1 

2.6 

48 

1 39 

99.95* 

AC Fabric 
AW 1101 

CARC 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

114 

MINICAMS 

350 

1 

26 

48 

Peaks 

off 

scale 

Not 

quantifi 

able 

AC Fabric 
AW1101 

CARC 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

096 

Extraction/GC- 

FPD 

350 

10 

2.6 

48 

192 

99 26 

AC Fabric 
AW1101 

CARC 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

098 

Extraction/GC- 

FPD 

350 

0- 

Control 

0 

48 

0 000 

NA 

AC Fabric 
AW1101 

CARC 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 
108 

Extraction/GC- 

FPD 

350 

1 

2.6 

48 

15.3 

99 42 

AC Fabric 
AW 1101 

CARC 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

122 

DAAMS/GC- 

FID 

350 

1 

2.6 

48 

2 25 

99.91* 

AC Fabnc 
AW 1101 

CARC 

Rotary 

Dry wipe 

J1073- 

126 

DAAMS/GC- 

FID 

350 

1 

2.6 

48 

2.09 

99.92* 

AC Fabric 
AW 1101 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE-7200 
spray + 

Wet wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 
120 

DAAMS/GC- 

FID 

350 

1 

26 

48 

0 938 

99.96* 

AC Fabnc 
AW 1101 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE-7200 
spray + 

Dry wipe 

J1073- 

124 

DAAMS/GC- 

FID 

350 

1 

2.6 

48 

1 70 

99.94* 

AC Fabric 
AW1101 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

100 

Extraction/GC- 

FPD 

350 

0 - 

Control 

0 

48 

0.000 

NA 

AC Fabric 
AW1101 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1073- 

102 

Extraction/GC- 

FPD 

350 

10 

26 

48 

4459 

82 87 

AC Fabric 
AW1101 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

Dry wipe 

J1190- 

004 

DAAMS/GC- 

FID 

350 

1 0 

26 

48 

112 

95.68* 

AC Fabric 
AW1101 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1190- 

005 

DAAMS/GC- 

FID 

350 

1 0 

26 

48 

133 

94 89* 

AC Felt 
AM1132 

CARC 

Rotary 

Dry wipe 

J1190- 

010 

DAAMS/GC- 

FID 

350 

1.0 

2.6 

48 

2 02 

99 92* 

AC Felt 
AM1132 

CARC 

Rotary 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE-7200) 

J1190- 
011 

DAAMS/GC- 

FID 

350 

1.0 

2.6 

48 

123 

95.26* 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 or AW 1103 activated carbon fabric 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AMI 132-activated carbon felt 


91 

































As expected, in the tests with alkyl-painted stainless steel coupons, the room-temperature 
HD decontamination efficacies were lower than in the tests with CARC-painted coupons because of the 
greater absorption of agent into the alkyd paint. The amount of recovered HD, and the corresponding 
room-temperature decontamination efficacy, was dependent on the sampling and analysis method used to 
determine the residual amount of agent on and in the alkyd paint: 

• Approximately 95% HD removal efficiency from alkyd surface, as determined 
by DAAMS GC-FPD sampling and analysis (Test J1190-005) 

• Approximately 83% HD removal efficiency from alkyd surface, as determined 
by solvent extraction and GC-FPD analysis (Test J1073-102). 

The DAAMS-FID room temperature vapor off-gas monitoring determined that 133 pg of 
post-wipe residual HD was recovered from the alkyd-painted test coupon in test number J1190-005. 
Nearly 4500 pg of residual HD was recovered in test number J1073-102, conducted under the same set of 
conditions as test J1073-102, except for the use of solvent extraction and GC-FPD analysis to determine 
the residual HD on the alkyd-painted test coupon. The extraction solvent was able to extract a large 
amount of HD that was absorbed in the alkyd paint, resulting in lower total room-temperature 
decontamination efficacies. 

In the tests with CARC-painted coupons, in which HD absorption is relatively small, the 
relative difference in post-wipe HD recovery between vapor off-gas monitoring and solvent 
cxtraction/GC-FPD analysis is less significant than in the tests with alkyd-painted coupons, but is still 
evident from a comparison of the total HD recoveries. 

In the limited tests conducted, the activated carbon fabric, whether dry or HFE-7200- 
moistened, was more generally more effective in removing HD from contaminated CARC-painted 
stainless steel coupons than the activated carbon felt. 

Consistently throughout this set of tests, dry wipes, whether fabric or felt, were as 
effective as or more effective than HFE-7200-moistened wipes. 

7.7.1.2 Temperature Dependence of Off-Gas Monitoring 

When MINICAMS sampling and analysis were used to determine the amount of residual 
HD on the w iped test coupons, test results showed a significant temperature dependence on the recovery 
of agent from absorptive surfaces by agent-vapor off-gas monitoring techniques. 

At room temperature, the HL) off-gassing curve from CARC (as shown below in Figure 24 
for Test J1073-110 and in Figure 25 for Test J1073-114) is almost is almost identical to the HD off-gassing 
curve from aluminum (as shown in Figure 23 for Test J1073-092) run under identical conditions. However, 
as shown in Figure 25, when the off-gassing temperature was increased from ambient (approximately 
25 °C) to 50 °C after off-gas monitoring at room temperature for 250 min, a large, but unquantifiablc 
amount of additional HD desorbed and off-gassed from the CARC panel. 

Because of time and schedule constraints in the test program, further evaluation and 
development of a quantitative MINICAMS sampling-and-analysis method for the determination of 
residual agent off-gassing at elevated temperatures was not able to be conducted. 


92 


tt) Off-Gas ing Curve -J1073-092 
Moistened A/C Fiber Wipe - Alum inun Surface 
ID Con tarn matron Density - 10 gAn* 

Am blent Tern perature Monitoring 



Figure 23. HD \apor off-gas curve from test J1073-092. 


tt) Off-Gas Ing Curve - J1073-110 
Moistened A/C Fiber Wipe - CARC Surface 
l€)Contamination Density -1 g/m 1 
Am blent Tem perature 



Figure 24. HD vapor off-gas curve from test J 1073-110. 


93 




















































With the introduction of absorptive test surfaces into the test matrix, the decision was 
made at this point to suspend MINICAMS vapor sampling and analysis for the reasons discussed in the 
following paragraphs. 

At the start of this program, vapor off-gas monitoring was the method of choice for the 
determination of residual agent on wiped surfaces. The goal was to determine the remaining agent vapor 
hazard present in an enclosed environment, such as the interior of an aircraft, after the decontamination 
procedure. This information could be used to determine the level of protection that must be used by the 
crew. Ideally, the sensitive-equipment decontamination procedure would be able to reduce the agent vapor 
concentration in an enclosed environment to less than I TWA. 

MINICAMS vapor off-gas monitoring met this goal for HD contamination on non- 
absorptivc aluminum control surfaces. However, as discussed in Section 7.5, because allowable exposure 
levels for CD and VX arc two times lower than those for HD, M1N1CAMS vapor-off-gas monitoring 
would not meet the desired near-real-time monitoring goal for CD or VX contamination, even on non- 
absorptive aluminum control surfaces. 

These findings, coupled with incomplete and temperature-dependent agent recoveries 
from absorptive surfaces by the MINICAMS, led to the decision to discontinue the use of MINICAMS to 
determine the decontamination efficacies (or w iping efficiencies) of w iping systems and methods. 


94 


































7.7.2 HD Linear-Wiping Tests on CARC and Alkyd Test Surfaces with Activated Carbon 

Fabric and Felt Wipes Using HFE-7200 Solvent 

The following test procedure was followed for the linear-wiping tests using HD on 
CARC- and alkyd-painted test coupons: 

(1) Mounting the coupons. 

• A 2 x 2 in. square x 0.125 in thick CARC- or alkyd-painted test coupon was 
placed in the cutout slot in the aluminum baseplate of the linear-wiping device. 

(2) Attaching the wipe. 

• An 8 x 5 in. swatch of wiping material was then cut out and attached to the 
wiping mandrel. The wiping mandrel was positioned at the far left side of the 
aluminum baseplate, just to the left of the leftmost aluminum test coupon. 

(3) Applying the contaminant. 

• The leftmost aluminum test coupon was then uniformly contaminated with 
2.6 mg of neat HD, in approximately 1 pL droplets from a microliter syringe, to 
give an approximate contamination density of 1.0 g/nr. 

(4) Preparing the wiping mandrel. 

• After agent contamination, the wiping mandrel was either left in place on the left 
side of the aluminum baseplate (in the dry tests with no wiping solvent) or was 
removed from the baseplate, sprayed with HFE-7200 from a manually air- 
pressurized Misto olive oil sprayer (to wet the wiping material with HFE-7200 
without saturation), and then placed back down on the far left side of the 
aluminum baseplate. The nylon fishing line was then attached to the two eyelets 
on the opposite sides of the wiping mandrel, routed through the pulley, wrapped 
around the motor shaft three times, and tensioned by loosening the wing nut on 
the pulley, moving the pulley away from the motor until the line is taut, and 
tightening the wing nut. 

• In several of the tests, after the deposition of the HD droplets on the surface of 
the test coupon, HFE-7200 was sprayed directly onto the HD-contaminated 
aluminum surface from a manually air-pressurized Misto olive oil sprayer rather 
than onto the wiping material. The sprayed, contaminated surface was then 
wiped with either a dry wipe or a wipe moistened with HFE-7200. The amount 
of HFE-7200 sprayed onto the HD-eontaminated surface was not quantified, but 
was sufficient to visually wet the contaminated surface with HFE-7200. 

(5) Initiating the wiping sequence. 

• After completing the previous steps, a single G240 wiping sequence wiping 
sequence was initiated from the control computer. The G240 linear-wiping 
program consisted of six sequential linear wipe passes over the test coupons: (1) 
a left-to-right pass, (2) a right-to-left return pass, (3) a second left-to-right pass, 
(4) a second right-to-lcft return pass, (5) a third left-to-right pass, and (6) a third 
right-to-lcft return pass. 


95 


• The duration of each pass was 2.0 s, to give a total wipe contact time of 12 s, and 
the weight of the wiping mandrel was 63 lg (no added weight). 

After the wiping procedure was complete, the amount of residual agent on each test 
coupon was determined by DAAMS agent vapor sampling and GC-F1D analysis. 

Using the DAAMS procedure, each of the three aluminum test coupons was remov ed from 
the aluminum baseplate and placed in a separate glass sampling jar fitted with air inlet and outlet fittings in 
the cap of the jar. Room air was pumped into and through the jar and then through a 3 mm OD Tenax TA 
DAAMS transfer tube at a flow rate of 200 mL/min for the following time periods, replacing the DAAMS 
tube after each time period: 

1. First tube 15 min sample period. 

2. Second tube 15 min sample period. 

3. Third tube 30 min sample period. 

4. Fourth tube 30 min sample period. 

5. Fifth tube final 30 min sample period. 

Five DAAMS tubes were used to sample sequentially at 200 mL/min for a total of 120 min 
(a total sample volume of 24 L). Prior to the tests the GC was calibrated. The total amount of HD collected 
on and desorbed from each DAAMS tube (in ng) was determined directly from GC response of the desorbed 
DAAMS sample and the HD calibration curve. 

The results for each of the tests arc given below in Table 33. 

As discussed in the previous section, because the post-wiping amount of residual agent 
remaining on each test coupon was determined by room temperature, agent-vapor, off-gas sampling and 
analysis, the decontamination efficacy results in the right-most column of the table are expressed as room 
temperature decontamination efficacies. As discussed in the previous section, there is a significant 
temperature dependence on the recovery of agent from absorptive surfaces by agent-vapor, off-gas 
monitoring techniques. 

The results of the linear-wiping tests on absorptive surfaces were very similar to the 
results of the rotary-w iping tests discussed in the prev ious section. With activated carbon fabric wipes, 
the HD removal efficiency from CARC-painted surfaces was >99,9%, whether using a dry wipe, an HFE- 
700-moistcncd wipe, or a spray-and-wipc technique. 

In a limited set of tests with dry and HFE-7200-moistcned activated carbon felt wipes, 
the room temperature HD removal efficiencies from CARC-painted surfaces were somewhat less 
(approximately 95%) than the corresponding efficiencies with activated carbon fabric (>99.9%). 


96 


Table 33, Summary of HP linear wiping tests with CARC- and alkyl-painted surfaces. 


Test Conditions. 

One iteration of the G240 wiping program - 
Wipe Speed - 2 rev/s 

Single coupon per test 

Low (indoor) HD contamination density - 1.0 
DAAMS GC-FID sampling and analysis of wi 

3 sets of one forward pass followed by one return pass 

g/m 2 

ped test coupon 

Wiping Material 

Test Surface 

Wipe Method 

Soivent/Decon 

Test No. 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel Weight 

9 

HD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wipe Contact Time 

s 

HD Recovered 

From Coupon 

P9 

Room Temp. Decon 

Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabnc 

AW1101 

CARC 

Linear 

Dry wipe 

J1190- 
016 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1.0 

12 

1.60 

99.94* 

AC 

Fabric 

AW1101 

CARC 

Linear 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE- 
7200) 

J1190- 
017 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1 0 

12 

1.83 

99.93* 

AC 

Fabric 

AW1101 

CARC 

Linear 

HFE- 

7200 

spray 

+ 

Dry wipe 

J1190- 
022 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

10 

12 

3.62 

99.86* 

AC 

Fabric 

AW1101 

CARC 

Linear 

HFE- 

7200 

spray 

+ 

Wet wipe 
(HFE- 
7200) 

J1190- 
023 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1.0 

12 

2.03 

99 92* 

AC Felt 
AM1132 

CARC 

Linear 

Dry wipe 

J1190- 
026 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1.0 

12 

128 

95 09* 

AC Felt 
AM1132 

CARC 

Linear 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE- 
7200) 

J1190- 
027 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

10 

12 

135 

94.81* 

AC 

Fabnc 
AW 1103 

CARC 

Linear 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE- 
7200) 

J1190- 
030 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

10 

12 

1.19 

99,95* 

AC 
Fabnc 
AW 1103 

CARC 

Linear 

Dry wipe 

J1190- 
031 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1 0 

12 

2 89 

99 89* 

AC 

Fabric 

AW1101 

Alkyd 

Linear 

HFE- 

7200 

spray 

+ 

Wet wipe 
(HFE- 
7200) 

J1190- 
034 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

10 

12 

256 

90.15* 

AC 

Fabric 

AW1101 

Alkyd 

Linear 

HFE- 

7200 

spray 

+ 

Dry wipe 

J1190- 
035 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1 0 

12 

228 

91.24* 

AC 

Fabric 

AW1101 

Alkyd 

Linear 

Dry wipe 

J1190- 
038 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1.0 

12 

268 

89.70* 

AC 

Fabric 

AW1101 

Alkyd 

Linear 

Wet Wipe 
(HFE- 
7200) 

J1190- 
039 

DAAMS/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1 0 

12 

262 

89 92* 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 or AW 1103-activated carbon fabnc 
AC Felt = KoTHmex AMI 132-activated carbon felt 


97 



























As with the rotary-wiping tests, because of the agent absorption into the alkyd paint, 
the room temperature HD decontamination efficacies from alkyd-painted coupons with activated 
carbon fabric wipes were significantly lower (approximately 90%) than in the corresponding tests 
with CARC-paintcd coupons. As in the corresponding tests with CARC-paintcd coupons, the HD 
removal efficiencies from alkyd-painted surfaces were the same, whether using a dry wipe, an HFE- 
7200-moistcncd wipe, or using a spray-and-wipc technique. 

For the same general reasons discussed in Section 7.7.1.2, because of the temperature 
dependence of vapor off-gas monitoring, after the completion of the preliminary linear-wiping tests, 
the decision was made to stop using vapor off-gas monitoring to determine post-wipe residual agent 
remaining on test surfaces. In all subsequent tests, solvent extraction and GC analysis was used. 

7.7.3 Tests on Polyethylene and Polycarbonate Test Surfaces with Activated Carbon 

Fabric and Felt Wipes, Using HFE-7200 and Isopropyl Alcohol Solvents, 

M295/M100 Sorbent Powder, and MgO Nanoparticle Powder 

A brief evaluation of two additional absorptive test surfaces—polycarbonate and 
high-dcnsity-polyethylenc (HDPE) plastics—was also conducted. At the same time, the Government 
requested that the surface-modified activated-alumina reactive sorbent powder (A-200-SiC-1005S), 
used as the adsorbent resin in the M295 Individual Equipment Decontamination Kit and in the Ml00 
Sorbent Decontamination System, be incorporated into the test matrix to serve as a reference 
decontaminant. A nanoparticlc powder, a potential next-generation reactive sorbent decontaminant, 
was also incorporated into the text matrix for comparison with the decontamination wipe system. 

A magnesium oxide (MgO) nanoparticlc powder (NanoActivc Magnesium Oxide 
Plus) was used in the tests. This material is a high speeific-surfaec-arca nanoparticlc powder 
(> 600 m7g) that has small crystallite size, high porosity, and high chemical reactivity at room and 
elevated temperatures. 

Both reactive sorbent powders were prov ided for the tests by ECBC through Entropie 

Systems, Ine. 


HD linear-wiping tests were conducted on polycarbonate and high density 
polyethylene (HDPE) surfaces with dry activated carbon fabric wipes and activated carbon fabric 
wipes moistened with HFE-7200. HD rotary-wiping tests were conducted on polycarbonate and 
HDPE surfaces with dry Scoteh-Bntc 2021 w ipes, w ith M295/M100 sorbent powder, and with MgO 
nanoparticlc powder. In the tests with sorbent powder and nanoparticlc powder, the powdered 
contaminated surfaces were wiped with Scotch-Brite 2021 to simulate the material of the car-wash 
type applieator mitt of the M100 Sorbent Decontamination System. 

An HD recovery test was conducted with each of the two types of plastic coupons. In 
each recovery test, the surface of the test coupon was contaminated with HD droplets at a 
contamination density of 1.0 g/m~. After the coupon was contaminated, it was immediately placed 
into a sample jar with 50 mL of IPA extraction solvent. The jar was allowed to sit with occasional 
swirling for 2 h, and then the extraction solvent was analyzed for extracted HD by GC-F'ID. 

The procedures for the HD linear-wiping tests were the same as those described 
prev iously in this report 


NanoActivc Magnesium Oxide Plus is a registered trademark of NanoScalc Materials, Inc., Manhaitan, KS 66502. 


98 


The procedures for the automated rotary-wiping tests with M295/M100 sorbent 
powder and with MgO nanoparticle particle powder were similar to the procedures described 
previously in this report for the automated rotary-wiping tests with dry or solvent-moistened wipe 
materials. The exception was that decontaimnant powder was deposited onto the upper surface of the 
test panel after contamination of the surface with agent and the powder was removed from the 
decontaminated surface after the test. 

Prior to the start of a test, a predetermined amount of sorbent powder or nanoparticlc 
powder was weighed out on an analytical balance directly into a glass screw' top vial. 

The test substrate/panel was then mounted in the automated rotary wipe test 
apparatus, an appropriate wiping material was attached to the rotary wiping mandrel, the PC 
connection to the rotary-w iping stepper motor was checked and verified, and the upper surface of the 
test coupon was contaminated with agent. 

Immediately after the agent contamination of the exposed surface of the test panel, 
the decontaminant powder was uniformly deposited over the contaminated surface. This was 
accomplished by positioning a stainless steel screen holder over the test coupon so that the screen w as 
directly above the coupon. The powder from the glass vial was then poured onto the surface of the 
screen, being careful to distribute the powder as evenly as possible over the area of the screen directly 
above the coupon. Then a flux brush, with bristles trimmed to approximately 3/16 in., was used to 
brush any residual powder through the screen The screen was then removed and the rotary-wiping 
procedure was initiated. 

After the wiping sequence was completed, and the wiping apparatus was 
disassembled and removed, a glass pipette connected to a vacuum (with filter trap) was used in 
conjunction with a trimmed flux brush to remove the residual contaminated powder from the surface 
of the test coupon. 

The results of the tests are summarized in Table 34. 

In the linear-wiping tests, with both dry and HFE-7200-moistened activated carbon 
fabric, the HD removal efficiencies from contaminated high density polyethylene surfaces were very 
high—greater than 99.7% and >99.9% with dry and HFE-7200-moistened activated carbon fabric, 
respectively. The corresponding HD removal efficiencies from contaminated polycarbonate surfaces, 
however, were only 53-54%, with neat HD extensively absorbing into and dissolving the 
polycarbonate surfaces. 


99 


Tabic 34. Summary of HD rotary and linear w iping tests on polycarbonate and high density polyethylene 
surfaces with M100 reactive sorbent powder and MgO nanoparticlc powder. _ 


Rotary G330 wiping program - 8 clockwise/counterclockwise re 
Linear G180 wiping program - 1 forward pass at 2 s/pass 
Single coupon per test 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density -1.0 g/rrP 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD anal} 

volutions at 1.0 rev/s (to simulate thorough wiping) 

/sis or DAAMS GC-FID 

Wiping Material 

© 

o 

3 

(/) 

« 

£ 

T3 

o 

£ 

© 

5 

6 

5 

c 

o 

u 

2 

5 

c 

© 

> 

o 

(/) 

o 

z 

10 

£ 

© 

© 

Q 

■o 

o 

£ 

© 

S 

TO 

c 

Q. 

£ 

ra 

t/> 

** 

£ 

TO 

© 

5 

© 

■O TO 

C 

© 

5 

5 

o 

H 

£ 

3 

c 

2 

c 

o 

£ N 

s 4 

E 

5 

c 

o 

o 

o 

X 

E 

© 

TO 

2 

CL 

TO 

C 

CL 

5 

c 

o 

CL 

3 

O 

o 

E 

o 

“■ TO 

tj a. 

2 

© 

> 

o 

o 

© 

X 

O 

X 

>* 

o 

8 

E 

UJ j! 

C 

AC 

Fabric 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Linear 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
062 

4/16/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

631 

1.0 

(Note 1) 

1 x 
G180 

1189 

54 27 

AC 

Fabnc 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Linear 

HFE- 

7200 

J1190- 
063 

4/16/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

631 

1.0 

(Note 1) 

1 X 

G180 

1228 

52,77 

AC 

Fabric 

HDPE 

Linear 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
072 

4/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

631 

1.0 

1 X 

G180 

8 

99.71 

AC 

Fabric 

HDPE 

Linear 

HFE- 

7200 

J1190- 
073 

4/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

631 

1.0 

1 X 

G180 

ND 

>99 99 

AC 

Fabric 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

None 

None 

J1190- 
074 

4/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1.0 

None 

2307 

89% 

re¬ 

covery 

AC 

Fabric 

HDPE 

None 

None 

J1190- 
075 

4/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FID 

631 

1.0 

None 

2780 

107% 

re¬ 

covery 

Scotch 

-Brite 

HDPE 

Rotary 

M100 

J1190- 
100 

5/12/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

(Note 2) 

3 x 
G330 

102 

96 08 

Scotch 

-Brite 

HDPE 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
101 

5/12/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

(Note 2) 

3 x 
G330 

181 

93.03 

Scotch 

-Brite 

HDPE 

Rotary 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
102 

5/12/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

3 x 
G330 

26 

9900 

Scotch 

-Bnte 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Rotary 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
103 

5/12/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

(note 1) 

3 x 
G330 

561 

78.42 

Scotch 

-Brite 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Rotary 

M100 

J1190- 
104 

5/12/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

(Note 1) 

3 x 
G330 

1081 

58 44 

Scotch 

-Bnte 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
105 

5/12/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

(Note 1) 

3 x 
G330 

824 

6830 


Note 1 HD appears to dissolve into and pit surface of polycarbonate 
Note 2 MgO and Ml00 powders appear to abrade surface of HDPE 

AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 

Scotch-Brite - 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

HDPE = High Density Polyethylene 

Ml00 = Reactive Sorbent Powder 

MgO = Nanoparticle Powder 

ND = No Residual Agent Detected. The estimated limit of detection was 9 pg 


100 



























In the rotary-wiping tests with dry Scotch-Britc wipes using M295/M100 sorbent 
powder and MgO nanoparticlc powder, the results were similar with 93-99% HD removal efficiency 
from HD-contaminated HDPE surfaces, but only 58-78% HD removal efficiency from HD- 
contaminatcd polycarbonate surfaces. 

In the HD recovery tests, 89% of the HD deposited on the polycarbonate surface was 
recovered by 1PA solvent extraction and GC-FPD analysis, and >100% of the HD deposited on the 
HDPE surface was recovered. 

In the tests with both the polycarbonate test coupons and the HDPE test coupons, the 
HD decontamination efficacies of the dry Scotch-Britc wipes were somewhat greater than the 
corresponding efficiencies with the M295/M100 sorbent powder or the MgO nanoparticle powder. 
The decontamination efficacies with the M295/M100 sorbent powder were greater than the 
corresponding efficiencies with the MgO nanoparticle powder 

Visual examination of the test surfaces after the completion of the tests indicated that 
both the M295/M100 sorbent powder and the MgO nanoparticlc powder appeared to scratch the 
surfaces of the HDPE coupons. 

7.7.4 Abrasion Tests with M295/M100 Sorbent Powder and MgO Nanoparticlc 

Powder 

On the basis of the visual observation of apparent surface scratching of the HDPE 
surfaces by M295/M100 sorbent powder and MgO nanoparticlc powder in the previous set of tests 
discussed in Section 7.7.3, a brief set of cursory abrasion tests was conducted with the powders. 
Polycarbonate test coupons and small first-surface mirrors were used in the abrasion tests to 
determine if the powders would scratch the surfaces of materials that could be used in the fabrication 
of sensitive electronic and optical devices. 

The tests were conducted with the automated rotary test apparatus. A test coupon was 
mounted in the test apparatus, the surface of the coupon was manually coated with sorbent powder or 
nanoparticlc powder, and the pow der-coated surface was wiped with three iterations of the G330 rotary- 
wiping program (for a total wipe contact time of 48 s). In about half of the tests the surfaces were wiped 
with Scotch-Britc" 2021 to simulate the material of the car-wash-type applicator mitt of the M100 
Sorbent Decontamination System. In the remainder of the tests the surfaces were wiped with 
KoTHmcx AW 1101-activated carbon fabric. Control tests were conducted on both surfaces with each 
of the tw o wipe materials and no sorbent powder. 

After each wipe test was completed, and the powder was vacuumed from the surface of 
the test coupon (if applicable), the coupon was removed from the rotary test apparatus and visually 
examined by eye and under a low-power stereo microscope for any signs of surface scratches. 

The results of the tests arc summarized in Table 35. No surfaces scratches were 
observed in any of the tests with polycarbonate or mirrored surfaces. However, in one test conducted 
with activated carbon fabric and no powder, on an HDPE surface, the surface of the HDPE did seem 
to be dulled by the dry fabric wiping, although no surface scratches were observed. Because of the 
Government’s request to focus on aluminum, CARC and alkyl-painted surfaces, and nylon webbing, 
and eliminate the plastic surfaces from the remainder of the test program, this observ ation of HDPE 
surface dulling was not examined any further. 


101 


Table 35. Summary of HD abrasion tests with polycarbonate, polyethylene, and mirrored surfaces with M100 
reactive sorbent powder and MgQ nanopartiele powder, _ 


Wiping Material 

Test Surface 

Wipe Method 

Soivent/Decon 

Test No. 

Date 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel Weight 

9 

HD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

Wipe Contact Time 

s 

Observations 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

J1190- 
096 

5/07/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

No 

surface 

scratches 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
097 

5/07/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

No 

surface 

scratches 

Scotch- 

Bnte 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Rotary 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
098 

5/08/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

No 

surface 

scratches 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Mirror 

Rotary 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
108 

5/14/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

No 

surface 

scratches 

AC 

Fabnc 

Mirror 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

J1190- 
109 

5/14/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

No 

surface 

scratches 

Scotch- 

Bnte 

Mirror 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
HO 

5/14/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

No 

surface 

scratches 

AC 

Fabric 

Poly¬ 

carbonate 

Rotary 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
111 

5/14/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

No 

surface 

scratches 

AC 

Fabnc 

HDPE 

Rotary 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
112 

5/14/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

Surface 
appeared 
dulled by 
wiping 

AC 

Fabric 

Mirror 

Rotary 

Dry 

Wipe 

J1190- 
113 

5/14/03 

None 

350 

No 

Agent 

3 x 
G330 

48 

No 

surface 

scratches 


102 























7.7.5 Tests on Aluminum, CARC, and Alkvd Test Surfaces with Activated Carbon 

Fabric and Felt Wipes Using HFE-7200 and Isopropyl Alcohol Solvents, 

M295/M100 Sorbent Powder, and MgO Nanoparticle Powder 

A series of automated HD rotary-wiping tests were conducted on CARC- and alkyd- 
painted surfaces, and (for comparison) aluminum control surfaces, with activated carbon fabric and 
felt wipes, HFE-7200 and isopropyl alcohol solvents, using M295/M100 sorbent powder as a 
reference control and MgO nanopartielc powder for comparison 

The HD contamination density for all of the tests was the indoor contamination 
density of 1.0 g/m 2 . All tests were conducted with three iterations of the G330 rotary-wiping program 
to give a w ipe contact time of 48 s in each test. The residual agent on each test coupon after the 
completion of the wipe/decontamination procedure was determined by solvent extraction (in IPA) and 
GC-FPD analysis. 

The automated rotary-wiping tests were conducted according to the procedures 
described in Sections 6,2 and 6.3. These procedures were the same as those described in Sections 7.7.1 
and 7.7.3, except for the elimination of the stainless steel screen for powder deposition in the tests with 
M295/M100 sorbent powder and MgO nanopartielc powder. In this set of tests and in all subsequent 
tests with M295/M100 sorbent powder and MgO nanopartielc powder, after the agent contamination of 
the exposed surface of the test coupon, a pre-weighed amount of decontaminant powder was uniformly 
deposited directly from a vial of powder over the contaminated surface of the test panel. A single 
researcher deposited the powder on the contaminated test surface in a careful, uniform, and reproducible 
manner in all of the tests. 

The results of the tests are summarized in Table 36. 

Regardless of the wiping or decontamination method used in the tests, as observed in 
the previous tests discussed in this report, the HD decontamination efficacy was greatest from the 
non-absorptivc aluminum test coupons (>99% in all of the tests), slightly less from the CARC-painted 
test panels (an overall average of approximately 98%), and significantly less from the alkyd-painted 
test panels (an overall average of approximately 51%). 

Comparing the various w ipe and decontamination systems in this limited set of tests, 
within the variability and spread of the test results there was relatively little difference in the HD 
decontamination efficacies between the dry wipes (whether Scoteh-Brite or activated carbon fabric), 
solvent-moistened wipes (HFE-7200 or IPA solvents), M295/M100 powder, or MgO nanopartielc 
powder. 


A more extensive set of comparison tests between the various methods, agents, and 
test surfaces was conducted to conclude this program. These tests arc discussed in the next section of 
this report (Section 7.8). 

In the tests with sorbent powder and nanopartielc powder, three different materials 
were compared as sorbent applicators for the M295/M100 powder and the MgO nanoparticle 
powder Scoteh-Brite 2021, a commercial chamois cloth, and KoTHmcx AW 1 101 -activated 
carbon fabric. Within the variability of the test results there appeared to be no significant difference 
between the three materials as sorbent applicators. 


103 


Table 36. Summary of HD rotary-w iping tests with CARC- and alkyd-painted panels and with 
Ml00 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanoparticle powder, HFE720Q, and IPA. _ 


Rotary G330 wiping program - 8 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s (to simulate thorough wiping) 

Single coupon per test, Indoor (low) HD contamination density - 1 0 g/m 2 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

© 

o 

t! 

3 

CO 

3 

© 

I- 

■o 

o 

JZ 

s 

© 

S 

© 

Q. 

5 

c 

o 

o 

2 

5 

c 

© 

> 

o 

(0 

o 

Z 

© 

© 

© 

•++ 

(0 

a 

o>_ 

c - 

E © 

n 5 

c/> 

£ 

sfo 

-2 

c 

o 

© £ 
p 

x E C ■§ 

*? Q I 

o 

o 

s 

2 

3 I <0 

1 

*5 c 

2 g 
$ 1 
o O n> 
2 

a. E 
a S 
x u- 

o 

s 

£ 

Ul S? 

C 

o 

o 

2 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

J1190- 
114 

5/20/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

ND 

>99 99 

AC 

Fabric 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

j 1190- 
iie 

5/20/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

48 

18 

98.77 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
117 

5/20/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

ND 

>99.99 

AC 

Fabric 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
115 

5/20/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

ND 

>99.99 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

None 

J1190- 
118 

5/20/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1,0 

48 

13 

99.09 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

None 

J1190- 
129 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

20 

99 2 

Scotch- 

Brite 

CARC 

Rotary 

None 

J1190- 
128 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

48 

26 

99.0 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

J1190- 
130 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

31 

98.8 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

IPA 

jii go- 

131 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1,0 

48 

50 

98.1 

Chamoi 

s 

CARC 

Rotary 

M100 

J1190- 
132 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

48 

66 

97.5 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

J1190- 
126 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

78 

97.0 

Scotch- 

Brite 

CARC 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

J1190- 
124 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

35 

98.6 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 

125 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

59 

97.7 

Scotch- 

Brite 

CARC 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
127 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

105 

96.0 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

None 

J1190- 
138 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

48 

879 

66.2 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

None 

J1190- 
137 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

1533 

41.1 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

J1190- 
139 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

1033 

60 3 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

IPA 

J1190- 

140 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

48 

503 

80 7 

Chamoi 

s 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

J1190- 
141 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

1318 

49.3 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

M100 

J1190- 
135 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

1640 

36 9 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

M100 

J1190- 
133 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

1720 

33.9 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
134 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

1807 

30.5 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

MgO 

J1190- 
136 

6/18/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

48 

2426 

6 68 
(?) 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric 


Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

HDPE = High Density Polyethylene 

Ml 00 = 25 ± 1 Reactive Sorbent Powder (SDS) 

MgO = 25 ± 1 Nanoparticle Powder 
ND = No Residual Agent Detected. 

Note - There was a visible discoloration left on the surface of the Alkyd panels after the wiping process. This was observed in all 
the Alkyd tests above There was no such discoloration on the CARC panels 


104 






































7.8 


Comparative Rotary-Wiping Tests with Activated Carbon Fabric 


The final set of agent tests was a series of comparative rotary-wiping tests. The tests 
were designed to compare the rotary-wiping decontamination effieacy/surfaec-rcmoval efficiency of the 
activ ated carbon fabric wipe. The activated carbon fabrie wipe was judged to be the most effective wipe 
material for the removal of HD, TGD, and VX from a range of test surfaces, with a variety of candidate 
and control solvents or decontaminants, on the basis of the previous agent testing, conducted under 
identical rotary-wiping test conditions. 

The variables in the comparative rotary-wiping tests were: 

• Agent: HD, TGD, and VX 

• Test Surface: Aluminum, CARC-painted stainless steel panel, alkyd-painted 
stainless steel panel, and nylon webbing 

• Solvent or Decontaminant: None (dry' wipe), HFE-7200, isopropanol, 

M295/M100 sorbent powder, and MgO nanoparticle particle powder 

In all of the HD tests, except those with nylon webbing, the most effective non-adsorptive 
wipe material (Scotch-Brite™ 2021) was also included in the test set. 

Nylon webbing (MIL-C-72I9F), commonly used in the interior of military transport 
aircraft, was provided for incorporation into the comparative-test set. The nylon webbing was a 
potentially agent-absorptive material that would complete the range of test surfaces from non-absorptive 
(aluminum), to slightly absorptive (CARC-painted panels), to moderately absorptive (alkyd-painted 
panels), to very absorptive (nylon webbing). As the comparative w ipe test results subsequently indicated, 
however, the nylon webbing showed little agent absoiption. 

All of the tests were conducted under the same set of rotary-wiping test parameters and 

conditions: 


• Ambient temperature and relative humidity 

• One iteration of the G300 rotary-wiping program (8 s wipe contact time) 

• 350 g total rotary-wiping mandrel weight 

• 1.0 g/m agent contamination density 

• Extraction/GC-FPD analysis of post-wipe residual agent on test surface 

An 8 s rotary-wiping program for this set of comparative-wipe tests was selected over the 
48 s thorough wipe contact time used in most of the prev ious rotary-wiping tests. The shorter wupe time 
more closely simulated manual wiping and provided a less than thorough wiping, which would potentially 
differentiate between the various wipe test variables. 

Time and budget constraints prevented the performance of an identical set of comparative 
linear-wiping tests. 


105 


7.8.1 


Test Procedures 


7.8.1.1 Automated Rotarv-Wiping Procedures for Dry and Solvent-Moistened Wipes 

The automated rotary-wiping device tests were conducted at room temperature and 
ambient relative humidity using the test procedures described in Sections 6.2 and 6.3. Each test was 
conducted using the 350 g aluminum rotary-wiping mandrel with no added weight. In each test a single 
wipe sequence was employed—one iteration of the G300 rotary-wiping program command, consisting of 
four successive clockwisc/countereloekwisc rotations at a wiping speed of 1.0 rev/s, giving a total wipe 
contact time of 8 s. This 8 s wiping sequence was selected in the comparative tests to represent a more 
realistic wiping procedure (in terms of wipe contact time) than four iterations of the G330 “thorough” 
wipe program (48 s wipe contact time). 

In a given test, the surface of a 1.5 x 1.5 in. square aluminum test coupon or a 2 x 2 x 
0.125 in. CARC- or alkyd-painted stainless steel panel was mounted in the rotary-wiping device. In the 
tests with the nylon w ebbing, a 2 in. square swatch of the webbing was mounted on an aluminum test 
coupon with the edges of the nylon swatch extending beyond each of the four edges of the aluminum test 
coupon. The extended edges of the nylon webbing were folded down around the edges of the aluminum 
test coupon, and the aluminum coupon was pushed up through the underside of the template opening of 
the baseplate until the surface of the nylon webbing w r as flush w ith the upper (wiping) surface of the 
aluminum baseplate. 

Each test surface was then uniformly contaminated with either 1.45 mg of agent (in the 
tests with aluminum and nylon webbing) or 2.6 mg (in the tests with painted surfaces) to give an agent 
contamination density of 1.0 g/m in each of the tests. Neat agent was deposited as approximately I pL 
droplets from a 10 pL syringe to generate the indoor (low) threat agent contamination density. Thickened 
GD was deposited as approximately 2 pL droplets from a mieropipettor. The agent was generally 
deposited over the center 1 in. square of each test coupon. 

The wiping mandrel with a preattaehed dry wipe or a wipe moistened with HFE-7200 or 
I PA w as then placed on top of the agent-contaminated surface so that the turning pin on the shaft of the 
stepper motor was positioned in the slotted shaft of the wiping mandrel. The single iteration of the G300 
w iping command was then input to the wiping device from the keyboard of the control PC. 

After the wiping procedure was complete, the residual agent on the test surface after 
wiping was determined by GC-FPD analysis of the solvent extract, as described in Section 6.5. 

Using the extraction procedure, after the completion of the wipe portion of the test, the 
test coupon was removed from the aluminum baseplate and placed in a separate jar containing 25 mL of 
isopropyl alcohol (in the tests with aluminum coupons or nylon webbing) or 50 mL (in the tests with 
painted coupons). The jar was sealed, and the test coupon was allowed to soak in the IPA for 120 min 
with intermittent swirling to extract any residual agent on the test coupon into the IPA extraction solvent. 
After the 120 min extraction period, the IPA extract was analyzed for residual HD by GC-FPD. 

7.8.1.2 Automated Rotary-Wiping Procedures for Sorbent Powder Decontaminant 

The proeedures for the automated rotary-wiping tests with M295/M100 sorbent powder 
and with MgO nanopartiele particle powder were identical to the proeedures used in the automated rotary¬ 
wiping tests with dry or solvent-moistened wipe materials described in Section 7.8.1.1, with one 
exception. The deposition of the decontaminant powder onto the upper surface of the test panel after the 
contamination with agent, and the removal of the powder from the decontaminated surface after the test 
was different. 


106 


Prior to the start of a test, a predetermined amount of sorbent powder or nanopartiele 
powder was weighed out on an analytical balance directly into a glass screw top vial. 

The test substrate/pancl was then mounted in the automated rotary wipe test apparatus, an 
appropriate wiping material was attached to the rotary-wiping mandrel, the PC connection to the rotary- 
wiping stepper motor was checked and verified, and the upper surface of the test coupon was 
contaminated with agent. 

Immediately contaminating the test panel surface, the decontaminant powder was 
manually and uniformly deposited over the contaminated surface by gently shaking the powder out of the 
screw' top vial onto the surface. 

After the wiping sequence was completed, and the wiping apparatus was disassembled 
and removed, a glass pipette connected to a vacuum (with filter trap) was used in conjunction with a 
trimmed flux brush to remove the residual contaminated powder from the surface of the test coupon. 

In the tests with sorbent powder and nanopartiele powder discussed in Section 7.7.5, 
three different materials were compared as sorbent applicators for the M295/M100 powder and the MgO 
nanopartiele powder—Scotch-Britc 2021, a commercial chamois cloth, and KoTHmex AW 1101- 
activatcd carbon fabric. Within the variability of the test results there appeared to be no significant 
difference in the three materials as sorbent applicators. 

In the HD comparative-wipe tests with aluminum test coupons, CARC-painted panels, 
and alkyd-paintcd panels, both activated carbon fabric and Scotch-Britc 2021 were used as 
applicatorsAvipcs with the M295/M100 sorbent powder and the MgO nanopartiele pow'der. Again, w ithin 
the variability of the test results, there appeared to be no significant difference in the two materials as 
sorbent applicators, and activated carbon fabric was used as the powder applicator in the remaining rotary 
comparative-wipe tests. 

7.8.2 Results 

The detailed results of the comparative rotary-wiping tests arc given in Table 38 through 
Table 51. A key to the test results is given in Table 37. 

The results of the comparative rotary-wiping tests are summarized in Table 52 and are 
presented graphically in bar-chart format in Figure 26 through Figure 29. Each bar chart shows a sidc-by- 
sidc comparison of the measured decontamination efficacy of each wipc/solvcnt/dccontaminant 
combination for a given agent, on each of the test surfaces that were contaminated and then wiped or 
decontaminated. 

• Figure 26 displays the results of the HD rotary-wiping tests w ith activated carbon 
fabric. 

• Figure 27 displays the results of the VX rotary-wiping tests with activated carbon 
fabric. 

• Figure 28 displays the results of the TGD rotary-wiping tests with activated 
carbon fabric. 

• Figure 29 displays the results of the HD rotary-wiping tests with Scotch-Britc™. 


107 


Table 37. Key to the detailed test results in Tables 37 through 51. 


Table 

Number 

Agent 

Test 

Surface 

Wiping 

Material 

Solvent or Decon 

34 

HD 

Aluminum 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, M100, MgO 




Scotch-Brite 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, M100, MgO 

35 

HD 

CARC 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, M100, MgO 

36 

HD 

Alkyd 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, Ml00, MgO 

37 

HD 

CARC 

Scotch-Brite 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, Ml00, MgO 

38 

HD 

Alkyd 

Scotch-Brite 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, M100, MgO 

39 

HD 

Nylon 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, M100, MgO 

40 

VX 

Aluminum 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, Ml00, MgO 

41 

VX 

CARC 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, M100, MgO 

42 

VX 

Alkyd 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, Ml00, MgO 

43 

VX 

Nylon 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, Ml00, MgO 

44 

TGD 

Aluminum 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, Ml00, MgO 

45 

TGD 

CARC 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, Ml 00, MgO 

46 

TGD 

Alkyd 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, M100, MgO 

47 

TGD 

Nylon 

AC Fabric 

None, HFE-7200, IPA, M100, MgO 


108 






















Table 38. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on aluminum coupons with no powder, M100 reactive sorbent powder, 
MgO nanoparticle powder, HFE-7200, and I PA. _ 


Activated carbon fabric and Scotch-Brite™ 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s 

Single coupon per test 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density - 1.0 g/rrr 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

Test Surface 

Wipe Method 

Solvent/Decon 

6 

z 

(A 

© 

h* 

e 

« 

ro 

Q 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

HD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

HD Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

006 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

2 

99.9 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

011 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

103 

92.9 

AC 

Fabric 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

009 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

<1 

>99 9 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

014 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1 

99.9 

AC 

Fabric 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

010 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1 

99.9 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

015 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

<1 

>99.9 

AC 

Fabric 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

007 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 
G300 

11 

99.3 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

012 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

2 

99.8 

AC 

Fabnc 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

008 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

1 

99.9 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Aluminum 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

013 

6/24/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

1 

99.9 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

M100 = 25 ± 1 mg M100 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 MgO Nanoparticle Powder 

ND = No Residual Agent Detected 


109 

























Table 39. Results of HI) rotary-wiping tests on CARC-painted stainless steel coupons with M100 reactive sorbent 
xnvdcr, MgO nanoparticlc powder, HFE-7200. and 1PA. _ 


Activated carbon fabric 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s 

Single coupon per test, test done in duplicate 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density - 1.0 g/m 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

© 

6 

€ 

□ 

<0 

to 

0 

1- 

S 

f 

% 

z 

2 

5 

c 

o 

o 

& 

s 

c 

© 

> 

o 

<0 

6 

z 

■—» 

to 

© 

t- 

0 

0 

Q 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel Weight 

9 

HD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

HD Recovered 

From Coupon 

M 9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

(Note 1) 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

022A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

25 

99.0 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 
022B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

10 

99.6 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

023A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

48 

98 1 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

023B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

17 

99.3 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

024A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

45 

98.3 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

024B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

53 

98 0 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

025A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

69 

97 4 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

025B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

39 

98.5 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

026A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

29 

98.9 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

026B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

23 

99.1 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

Ml00 = 25 ± 1 mg Ml00 Powder 

MgO = 25 ±11 MgO Nanoparticle Powder 


Note 1 There was a visible discoloration left on the surface of the Alkyd panels after the wiping process This was 
observed in all the Alkyd tests above There was no such discoloration on the CARC panels 


110 

























Table 40. Results of HL) rotary-wiping tests on alkyd-painted stainless steel coupons with M100 reactive sorbent 
powder, Mg() nanoparticle powder, HFE-72QQ, and 1PA. _ 


Activated carbon fabric 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s 

Single coupon per test, test done in duplicate 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density - 1 0 g/m 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

o 

5 

€ 

3 

</) 

** 

u 

o 

1- 

o 

£ 

2 

s. 

$ 

c 

o 

1 

5 

c 

© 

> 

o 

<0 

o 

z 

** 

1 

o 

& 

m 

a 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel Weight 

9 

HD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

HD Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

(Note 1) 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

027A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1345 

48 3 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

027B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

982 

62 3 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

028A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

656 

74.8 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

028B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

1130 

56.4 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

029A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

569 

78.1 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

029B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 
G300 

578 

77.8 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 

030A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1097 

57.8 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

030B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1198 

53.9 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

031A 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

VO 

1 X 

G300 

1375 

47.1 

AC 

Fabric 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 
031B 

7/02/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1719 

33 9 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric. 

M100 = 25 ± 1 mg M100 Powder 
MgO = 25 ±11 MgO Nanoparticle Powder 

Note 1: There was a visible discoloration left on the surface of the Alkyd panels after the wiping process This was 
observed in all the Alkyd tests above There was no such discoloration on the CARC panels. 

























Table 41. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on CARC-painted stainless steel coupons with Ml00 reactive sorbent powder, 
MgO nanoparticle powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA. _ 


3M Scotch-Brite™ 2021 White 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s 

Single coupon per test, test done in duplicate 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density - 1.0 g/m 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

© 

o 

1 

3 

CO 

8 

0> 

H 

*o 

o 

£ 

0 

s 

8. 

I 

c 

o 

o 

o 

Q 

5 

c 

© 

> 

o 

CO 

6 

z 

4-» 

8 

o 

H 

B 

n 

O 

■D 

O 

£ 

© 

£ 

3) 

C 

a 

E 

n 

s 

! £ 

l 5 

o 

(- 

c 

o 

8 

f &. 

1st 

gs 1 * 

u 

o 

X 

E 

2 

OJ 

o 

u 

0. 

O) 

c 

Q. 

$ 

|! 

> = 
b o o, 

£ E 
o 2 

X U. 

>* 

o 

IQ 

O 

E 

UJ 55 
c 
o 
e 

s 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

032A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

164 

93.7 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

032B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

178 

93.2 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

033A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

381 

85.4 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

033B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

69 

97.3 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

034A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

67 

97.4 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 
034B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

90 

97.3 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

035A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

18 

99.3 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 

035B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

15 

99 4 

Scotch 

-Bnte 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

036A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1,0 

1 X 

G300 

109 

95 8 

Scotch 

-Brite 

CAR 

C 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

036B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

30 

98 8 


Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

Ml00 = 25 ± 1 mg Ml00 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 mg MgO Nanoparticle Powder 


112 

























Table 42. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on alkyd-painted stainless steel coupons with Ml 00 reactive sorbent powder, 
MgO nanoparticle powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA. _ 


3M Scotc 
Rotary G 
Single cc 
Indoor (Ic 
Samphnc 

:h-Brite ™ 
300 wipinc 
upon per 
>w) HD co 
and anah 

2021 White 

3 program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s 

lest, test done in duplicate 

ntamination density - 1 0 g/m 

/sis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

© 

I 

1 

3 

</> 

++ 

i 

© 

H 

■c 

O 

SZ 

• 

s 

& 

5 

c 

o 

o 

£ 

S 

c 

© 

> 

o 

</> 

6 

z 

© 

£ 

© 

ra 

a 

T3 

O 

£ 

© 

s 

Ofe 

c 

Q. 

E 

© 

CO 

n 

O 

© 

5 

*© 

T3 09 

c 

« 

S 

3 

o 

I- 

c 

o 

s 

ra 

ls| 

§£^ 

O 

O 

X 

E 

12 

O 

O 

k 

CL 

o> 

c 

Q. 

5 

7, c 

2 a 

> 3 
o O o, 

DC E 

Q 2 

X u- 

>s 

1 

15 

E 

UJ j? 

C 

o 

o 

£ 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

037A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

2447 

5.9 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

037B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

2380 

85 

Scotch- 

Bnte 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

038A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

2217 

14.7 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

HFE 

7200 

K023- 

038B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1996 

23.2 

Scotch- 

Bnte 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

039A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

898 

65,5 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

039B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1377 

47.1 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 

040A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

1222 

53.0 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 

040B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1446 

44 4 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

041A 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

2123 

183 

Scotch- 

Brite 

Alkyd 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

041B 

7/09/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

2384 

8.3 


Scotch-Brite = 3M Scotch-Brite 2021 

M100 = 25 ± 1 mg M100 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 mg MgO Nanoparticle Powder 


1 13 

























Table 43. Results of HD rotary-wiping tests on nylon webbing samples with Ml 00 reactive sorbent powder, MgO 
nanopartiele pow der, HFE-7200, and I PA. _ 


Activated carbon fabric 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s 

Single coupon per test, test done in duplicate 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density -1.0 g/m^ 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

o 

5 

•S 

3 

(0 

n 

o 

H 

o 

0) 

S 

2. 

1 

c 

o 

o 

2 

5 

c 

I 

w 

o 

z 

« 

0> 

o 

1 

Q 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

HD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

HD Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

(notes 1, 2) 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

056A 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

14 

99 1 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

056B 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

13 

99 1 

AC 

Fabnc 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

057A 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

58 

96.0 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

057B 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

65 

95 5 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

058A 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

235 

83.8 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

058B 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

82 

94.3 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 
059A 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

69 

95 3 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

059B 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

120 

91 7 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

060A 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

34 

97 7 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

060B 

8/04/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

73 

94.9 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric. 

Ml00 = 25 ± 1 mg MIOOPowder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 mg MgO Nanoparticle Powder 

Note 1 The agent droplets tended to bead up when placed onto the surface of the fabric as opposed to spreading when 
placed onto the metal and plastic coupons 

Note 2: It was difficult to remove the powder decontaminants from the surface of the fabric. Some of the observed recovery is 
probably attributable to agent carried to the extraction solvent in the powder 

























Table 44. Results of VX rotary-wiping tests on aluminum eoupons with M 100 reactive sorbent powder, MgO nanoparticlc 


xnvdcr, HFE-7200, and IPA. 


Using Activated Charcoal Fabric only, and Fabric 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1.0 rev/s 

Single coupon per test, test done in duplicate 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density - 1 0 g/m 2 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

Test Surface 

Wipe Method 

Soivent/Decon 

6 

z 

M 

0 

0 

(0 

O 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

VX Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

VX Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

062A 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

50 

96 6 

AC Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

062B 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 x 
G300 

67 

954 

AC Fabric 
Double 
Layer 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

086A 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

137 

90.6 

AC Fabric 
Double 
Layer 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

086B 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

50 

96.6 

AC Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

063A 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 x 
G300 

9 

96.4 

AC Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

063B 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 x 
G300 

11 

95.2 

AC Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

064A 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 x 
G300 

42 

97.1 

AC Fabnc 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 
064B 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 x 
G300 

13 

99 1 

AC Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

065A 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

28 

98.1 

AC Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

065B 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 x 
G300 

48 

96 7 

AC Fabnc 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

066A 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

24 

98.3 

AC Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

066B 

8/19/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

23 

983 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

M100 = 25 ± 1 mg M100 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 mg MgO Nanoparticle Powder 



























Tabic 45. Results of VX rotary-wiping tests on CARC-painted stainless steel coupons with M100 reactive sorbent powder, 
MgO nanopartielc pow der, HFE-7200, and I PA. _ 


Activated Charcoal Fabric 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise re 
Single coupon per test, test done in duplicate 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density -1.0 g/m 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD anah 

volutions at 1.0 rev/s 

/sis 

Wiping Material 

o 

o 

€ 

3 

</) 

** 

s 

o 

l- 

TJ 

O 

JC 

9 

O 

5 

6 

5 

c 

o 

8 

Q 

5 

c 

e 

> 

o 

<0 

o 

z 

** 

(A 

O 

H 

o 

n 

Q 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

g 

VX Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

VX Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 
074A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

800 

69.2 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

074B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

521 

80 0 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 
075A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

244 

90.6 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

075B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

214 

91.8 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

076A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

285 

890 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

076B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

246 

90.5 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 

077A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

384 

85 3 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 

077B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

217 

91 7 

AC 

Fabnc 

CARC 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 
078A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

417 

83.4 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

078B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

408 

84.3 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

M100 = 25 ± 1 mg M100 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 mg MgO Nanoparticle Powder 


116 

























Tabic 46. Results of VX rotary-wiping tests on alkyd-painted stainless steel coupons with Ml00 reactive sorbent powder, 
MgO nanoparticle powder. HFE-7200, and 1PA. _ 


Activated 
Rotary G 
Single cc 
Indoor (Ic 
Samplinc 

carbon fabric 

300 wiping program -4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1.0 rev/s 
upon per test, test done in duplicate 
)w) HD contamination density - 1 0 g/m 
and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

Q> 

Q 

€ 

3 

</) 

W 

Q> 

H 

T3 

O 

5 

0) 

5 

6 

5 

c 

o 

& 

5 

c 

1 

(/) 

d 

z 

to 

o 

H 

o 

to 

D 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

VX Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

VX Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

080A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1079 

58.5 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

080B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1085 

58.3 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

081A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

762 

70.7 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 
081B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1227 

52 8 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

082A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

597 

77.0 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

082B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

697 

73.2 

AC 

Fabnc 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

083A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1257 

51.7 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

083B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1106 

57.5 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 
084A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

818 

68,5 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 
084 B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1330 

48.9 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

M100 = 25 ± 1 mg M100 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± mg MgO Nanoparticle Powder 


1 17 

























Table 47. Results of VX rotary-wiping tests on nylon webbing samples with M100 reactive sorbent powder, MgO 
nanopartiele powder, HFE7200, and 1PA. _ 


Activated carbon fabric 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s 

Single coupon per test, test done in duplicate 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density -1.0 g/nT 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

8 

•t 

3 

«0 

s 

o> 

H 

2 

JZ 

% 

2 

8. 

£ 

c 

§ 

c 

l 

£ 

o 

z 

+* 

m 

£ 

• 

re 

O 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

VX 

Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

VX Recovered 

From Coupon 

MS 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

No 

Powder 

K023- 

068A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 x 
G300 

67 

95.4 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

No 

Powder 

K023- 

068B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

46 

96.9 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

069A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

213 

85.3 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

069B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

259 

82 1 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

070A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

225 

84.5 

AC 

Fabnc 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

070B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

135 

90.7 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 
071A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

130 

91.1 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 
071B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

70 

95 2 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

072A 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

41 

97.2 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

072B 

8/22/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

53 

96.3 

3 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 
Ml00 = Reactive Sorbent Powder 
MgO = Nanopartiele Powder 


























Table 48. Results of TGD rotary-wiping tests with aluminum coupons with Ml00 reactive sorbent powder, MgO 
nanopartiele powder, HFE-7200, and IPA. _ 


Activated carbon fabric 

Rotary G300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1.0 rev/s 

Single coupon per test, test done in duplicate 

Indoor (low) HD contamination density -1,0 g/m 2 

Sampling and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

© 

o 

# 

a 

<0 

HI 

.2 

o 

JZ 

© 

2 

& 

5 

c 

o 

o 

3 

S 

c 

1 

5 

6 

z 

M 

© 

1— 

© 

(0 

Q 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

TGD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

GD 

Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

088A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

130 

906 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 
088B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

114 

91.7 

AC 

Fabric 

Double 

Layer 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

093A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 x 
G300 

96 

93.0 

AC 

Fabric 

Double 

Layer 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

093B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

60 

95.7 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

089A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

3 

99,8 

AC 

Fabnc 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

089B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

4 

99.7 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

090A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

2 

99 9 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

090B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

7 

99 5 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 
091A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

13 

99.0 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 
091B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

5 

99.7 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

092A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

3 

99 8 

AC 

Fabric 

ALUMINUM 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 
092B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

4 

99.7 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

Ml00 = 25 ± 1 mg M100 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 mg MgO Nanopartiele Powder 




























Table 49. Results of TGD rotary-wiping tests on CARC-painted stainless steel coupons with Ml00 reactive sorbent powder, 
MgQ nanoparticlc powder, HFE-7200, and 1 PA. _ 


Using Activated car 
Rotary G300 wipinc 
Single coupon per 
Indoor (low) HD co 
Sampling and anal\ 

*bon fabric 

3 program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1.0 rev/s 

lest, test done in duplicate 

ntamination density - 1 0 g/m 2 

/sis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

© 

Q 

£ 

D 

CO 

ts 

© 

*o 

o 

.c 

© 

5 

6 

5 

Soivent/Decon 

6 

z 

B 

© 

© 

«■ 

n 

Q 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel Weight 

9 

TGD Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

GD Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

101A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

95 

96.2 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

101B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

10 

1 X 

G300 

89 

96.4 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

102A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

78 

96.8 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

102B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

71 

97.1 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

103A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

46 

98,1 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

103B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

61 

97.5 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 
104 A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

46 

98.1 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

104B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

50 

98.0 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

105A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

46 

98.1 

AC 

Fabric 

CARC 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

105B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

24 

99.0 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

Ml00 = 25 ± 1 mg Ml00 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 mg MgO Nanoparticle Powder 


120 

























Table 50. Results of TGI) rotary-wiping tests on alkyd-painted stainless steel coupons with M100 reactive sorbent powder, 
MgO nanopartielc powder, HFE-7200, and 1PA. __ 


Activated 
Rotary G 
Single cc 
Indoor (Ic 
Samplinc 

carbon fabric 

300 wiping program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1 0 rev/s 
upon per test, test done in duplicate 
)w) HD contamination density - 1.0 g/irr 
and analysis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

© 

o 

■S 

□ 

in 

m 

© 

1- 

■o 

o 

£ 

© 

s 

8. 

5 

Solvent/Decon 

6 

z 

■*-* 

© 

© 

i- 

© 

© 

o 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

9 

TGD 

Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

TGD Recovered 

From Coupon 

N9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

107A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

307 

87.6 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

107B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 
G300 

339 

86.3 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

108A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

308 

87.6 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 
108B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

398 

839 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

109A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

149 

94.0 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

109B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

159 

93.6 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 
110A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 
G300 

184 

92.6 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 

110B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 
G300 

165 

93.3 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 
111A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

139 

94.4 

AC 

Fabric 

ALKYD 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 
111B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

298 

88.0 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

Ml00 = 25 ± 1 mg Ml00 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 MgO Nanoparticle Powder 

























Tabic 51. Results of TGD rotary-wiping tests on nylon webbing samples with M100 reaetive sorbent powder, MgO 
nanoparticle powder, HFE-7200, and IP A. _ 


Activated 
Rotary G 
Single cc 
Indoor (Ic 
Samplinc 

carbon fa 
300 wipinc 
upon per 
>w) HD co 
and anah 

brie 

3 program - 4 clockwise/counterclockwise revolutions at 1.0 rev/s 

test, test done in duplicate 

ntamination density -1.0 g/m 

/sis methods - extraction and GC-FPD analysis 

Wiping Material 

o 

o 

€ 

3 

0) 

+■• 

1 

d> 

h* 

*o 

o 

£ 

s 

0) 

S 

8. 

i 

c 

o 

u 

0) 

Q 

5 

c 

1 

6 

o 

z 

+■• 

m 

(to 

h* 

B 

1 

a 

Sampling Method 

Total Mandrel 

Weight 

g 

TGD 

Contamination 

Density 

g/m 2 

Wiping Program 

TGD Recovered 

From Coupon 

M9 

Decon Efficacy 

% 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

095A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

130 

90.6 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

None 

K023- 

095B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

142 

89.7 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 

096A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

1100 

20.1 (?) 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

HFE- 

7200 

K023- 
096B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

385 

72.0 

AC 

Fabnc 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 
097A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

432 

68 6 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

IPA 

K023- 

097B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

222 

83 9 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

M100 

K023- 

098A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

152 

88 9 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

Ml 00 

K023- 
098B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1 0 

1 X 

G300 

103 

92.6 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

099A 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

181 

86.9 

AC 

Fabric 

NYLON 

WEB 

Rotary 

MgO 

K023- 

099B 

8/28/03 

Extraction/ 

GC-FPD 

350 

1.0 

1 X 

G300 

272 

80.3 


AC Fabric = KoTHmex AW 1101 activated carbon fabric 

Ml00 = 25 ± 1 mg Ml00 Powder 

MgO = 25 ± 1 mg MgO Nanoparticle Powder 


122 

























Table 52. Summary of comparative rotary-vvi 

pinjz tests. 

Agent 

Wipe 

or 

Decon 

Agent Decontamination Efficacy, % 

Surface 

Aluminum 

CARC 

Alkyd 

Nylon 

HD 

Dry AC Fabric 

99.9 

99.3 

55.3 

99.1 

AC Fabric + HFE-7200 

>99.9 

98 7 

656 

95.8 

AC Fabric + IPA 

99.9 

98.2 

78 0 

89.1 

M295/M100 

99.3 

980 

559 

93.5 

MgO 

99.9 

99.0 

40.5 

96.3 

Dry Scotch-Brite 

92.9 

93.4 

7.2 

- 

Scotch-Brite + HFE-7200 

999 

91.4 

190 

- 

Scotch-Brite + IPA 

>99.9 

97.4 

56.3 

- 

M295/M100 

99.8 

99,4 

48 7 

- 

MgO 

99.9 

97.3 

13.3 

- 

VX 

Dry AC Fabric 

96.0 

74.6 

58.4 

96.1 

AC Fabric + HFE-7200 

95.8 

91.2 

61.8 

83.7 

AC Fabric + IPA 

98.1 

898 

75.1 

87.6 

M295/M100 

97 4 

88.5 

54.6 

93.1 

MgO 

98 3 

83 9 

58.7 

96.7 

TGD 

Dry AC Fabric 

91.2 

96 3 

86 9 

90.1 

AC Fabric + HFE-7200 

99.8 

97.0 

857 

72.0 

AC Fabric + IPA 

99.7 

97 8 

93 8 

76.3 

M295/M100 

99.3 

98.0 

92.9 

90 7 

MgO 

99.7 

98.6 

91.2 

83.6 


123 































BAC Fabric-Dry 
BAC Fabnc+HFE 
■ AC Fabnc+IPA 


Figure 26. Comparative HD decontamination efficacy test results activated carbon fabric. 


100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

850 

# 0.0 

& 

s 750 

^ 70.0 

.& 

£65 0 

1 

360.0 

c 

o 

«55 0 

D 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 



■ AC Fabne-Dry 

■ AC Fabric+HFE 

■ AC Fabric+IPA 


Aluminum CARC Alkyd Nylon Webbing 

Contaminated Surface 


Figure 27. Comparative VX decontamination efficacy test results activated carbon fabric. 


124 


































































Figure 28. Comparative TGD decontamination efficacy test results activated carbon fabric. 



Figure 29. Comparative HO decontamination efficacy test results Scotch-Britc 2021 


125 






















































































































7.8.3 


Discussion of Test Results 


Major conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the comparative rotary-wiping 
tests arc as follows: 

• Either dry and/or solvent-moistened, activated carbon fiber wipes were found to 
effectively remove: 

o >99% of the HD or TGD agent contamination and >98% of the VX 
contamination from the non-absorptivc aluminum test coupons. 

o >97% of the HD or TGD agent contamination and >91% of the VX 
contamination from the low-agent-absorptivc CARC-painted test panels 

o >96% of the HD or VX agent contamination and >90% of the TGD 
contamination from the relatively low-agent-absorptive Nylon test 
material. 

o >93% of the TGD agent contamination from the agent-absorptive, alkyd- 
painted test panels. 

• HD and VX decontamination efficacies were generally poor in the tests with 
alkyd-paintcd test panels- ranging from 40 to 78%. 

• Within the variability of the test results, HFE-7200 essentially matched the 
effeetivity of isopropyl alcohol (1PA) as a wipe solvent for removing all three of 
the agents tested from the non-absorptive surface (aluminum) and lovv-agcnt- 
absoiptivc surfaces (CARC and Nylon). IP A was more effective as a w ipe 
solvent than HFE-7200 in removing each of three agents tested from the agent- 
absorptive surface (alkyd). 

• With all three agents and on all four test surfaces, the agent decontamination 
efficacies of the dry and/or solvent-moistened, activated carbon fiber wipes were 
equivalent to that of the M295/M100 sorbent powder or the MgO nanoparticlc 
powder. 

• With all three agents and on all four test surfaces, the agent decontamination 
efficacies of the MgO nanoparticlc powder were equivalent to that of the 
M 295/M 100 sorbent powder. 

• Within the wipe parameters of the comparative rotary-wiping tests with HD, and 
the variability of the test results, the non-adsorptivc Seotch-Brite wipes were as 
effective as the adsorptive, aetivatcd-earbon-fabric wipes, especially on the non- 
absorptivc aluminum surface and the low-agent absorptive CARC surface. 

• For all three agents, the greatest agent decontamination efficacies were observed 
on the non-absorptivc aluminum surfaces. 

• The relative agent decontamination efficacies on the three absorptive surfaces 
appeared to be agent-dependent. The approximate overall ordering of the 
absorptive test surfaces (from higher to lower agent decontamination efficacies) 
by agent were: 


126 


o HD: CARC slightly > Nylon » Alkyd 
o VX: CARC s Nylon > Alkyd 
o TGD: CARC slightly >Alkyd > Nylon 

In the VX and TGD comparative rotary-wiping tests on non-absorpti\e aluminum 
surfaces, a dry two-ply activatcd-carbon-fabric was inserted into the test matrix to compare with the dry 
single-ply activated-carbon-fabric wipe. Little difference in decontamination efficacies were observed 
c between a single-ply and a two-ply wipe: 

• VX decontamination efficacy: Single Ply - 96%, Two-Ply - 94% 

• TGD decontamination efficacy: Single Ply - 91%, Two-Ply - 94% 

7.8.4 Robustness and Shedding of Wipes 

In the comparative rotary-wiping tests, as in all of the earlier agent wipe tests under this 
program (but not yet noted in this report), both the activated carbon fabric wipes and the Scotch-Brite™ 
wipes shed some fibers onto the test surfaces during wiping. The fibers that were shed appeared to come 
from the unseamed edges of the wipes, which became frayed when the wipe swatches were cut to size 
from larger swatches of the fabrics with a pair of scissors. The extent of shedding was much greater for 
the activated carbon fabric wipes than it was for the Scotch-Brite™ wipes, which actually shed very little 
and only periodically. The shredding occurred whether the wipes were dry or solvent moistened. 

The activated carbon felt wipes (which were not carried forward for evaluation in the 
comparative rotary-wiping tests), shed much more extensively on the test surfaces than the activated 
carbon fabric wipes. The activated carbon felt wipes appeared to leave activated carbon dust or powder 
on the test surfaces after wiping. In addition, it was observed that the activated-earbon-fclt wipes were 
prone to tearing easily when they were being mounted on the rotary wiping mandrel or linear wiping 
block. 


8. CONCLUSIONS 

Single-ply, carbon-based adsorptive wipes, either dry or moistened with solvent are 
effective in the surface removal of the CA agents HD, TGD, and VX from non-absorptive aluminum 
coupons, CARC-paintcd panels, and nylon webbing. The wipes are much less effective in the surface 
removal of CA agents from absorptive surfaces, such as alkyd-paintcd panels or agent-absorbing plastics, 
or polycarbonate in the ease of HD. 

Either dry and/or solvent-moistened, activated carbon fiber wipes were found to 
effectively remove: 

• >99% of the HD or TGD agent contamination and >98% of the VX 

contamination from the non-absorptive aluminum test coupons 

• >97% of the HD or TGD agent contamination and >91% of the VX 

contamination from the low-agent-absorptivc CARC-painted test panels. 

• >96% of the HD or VX agent contamination and >90% of the TGD 

contamination from the relatively low-agent-absorptivc nylon test material 


127 


• >93% of the TGD agent contamination from the agent-absorptive alkyd-painted 

test panels. 

HD and VX decontamination efficacies were generally poor in the tests with alkyd- 
painted test panels—ranging from 40 to 78%. 

Enhanced agent decontamination was achieved by the application of multiple wipe 
sequences, the most basic of which was a solvent-moistened wipe followed by a dry wipe. 

On non-absorptive and low-agent-absorptive surfaces, HFE-7200 was nearly as effective j 

as a wipe solvent as isopropyl alcohol (IP A). Because HFE-7200 is nonflammable, essentially nontoxie, 
and generally non-hazardous to personnel, it has a low environmental impact and is compatible with a 
w ide range of metals, plasties, and elastomers. HFE-7200 would be the solvent of choice in a sensitive- * 

equipment decontamination wipe system. 

After completion of a wipe test, agent vapor off-gas monitoring of the used wipes was 
done before the contaminated wipe was bagged and scaled for future disposal. This monitoring indicated 
a relatively low potential for post-wipe agent-vapor contamination hazard from the used wipe. 

HD vapor concentrations over a HD-eontaminated, non-absorptive aluminum surface can 
be reduced to near or below' 1.0 TWA (the allowable exposure limit at the time the of the test program) 
after wiping. 


GD vapor concentrations over a TGD-eontaminated non-absorptive aluminum surface 
can be reduced to the same absolute concentration levels (in terms of mass per unit volume, mg/m*) as 
HD. However, because the allowable exposure level of GD is 100 times lower than the allowable 
exposure level for HD, (on the basis of the then-applicable AELs in AR 385-61) 0.003 mg/m 3 for HD and 
0.00003 mg/m for GD, surface wiping cannot reduce the GD vapor concentration over a wiped surface to 
non-hazardous levels. And because the allowable exposure level of VX is another factor of three lower 
than that of GD, the use of agent vapor off-gassing to assess the effectiveness of a Block 111 sensitive 
equipment decontamination procedure, in terms of residual agent vapor hazard, will be feasible among the 
common threat agents for HD contamination only. 

In control tests, activated carbon fiber wipes were equivalent to agent decontamination 
efficacies obtained with the current M295/M100 reactive sorbent powder or with MgO nanopailiele 
powder on most of the test surfaces and agents that were evaluated. 

In a limited set of abrasion tests, neither the M295/M100 reactiv e sorbent powder nor the 
MgO nanopartiele powder showed any visible evidence of gross surface scratching of either 
polycarbonate or first surface mirrors. However, the possibility still exists for surface miero-seratehing of 
sensitive optoelectronic equipment by the powders, as well as the potential for powder particulates to 
migrate into and contaminate the interiors of some items of sensitive electronic equipment. Thus, for the 
decontamination of sensitive optoelectronic equipment, a solvent-wipe decontamination system would ^ 

seem to be inherently superior to a sorbent-based decontamination system. 

The major disadvantages of the activated carbon fabric wipes, relative to some other 
types of wiping materials such as 3M's Scotch-Britc™ 2021, were that the ACF fabric wipes were 
somewhat less robust and tended to shed (though not severely) ehemieal-agcnt-eontaminated fibers during 
the wiping process—an undesirable and potentially dangerous problem. Effective deeontaminant wipes 
will need good mechanical properties and remain intact without shredding or tearing during potentially 
severe mechanical handling. 


128 


9 . 


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 


Recommendations for future work include the following: 

• Repeat the comparative rotary wipe test study with additional replicates and a 
wider range of test surfaces to confirm. Expand the results of the current study 
and reduee the variability of the test results. 

• Conduct an identical set of comparative linear-wiping tests with the same 
extended range of wipe materials and reference decontaminants, CA agents, and 
test surfaces as in the repeat comparative rotary-wiping tests. 

• Conduct a more extensive set of linear and/or rotary-wiping tests with CA agents 
to optimize the solvent loading on the wipes, wipe speed, wipe contact time, and 
number of wipes. 

• Conduct a more detailed set of abrasion tests on a wider range of materials with 
the candidate wipe materials, reactive sorbent powder, and nanoparticle powder. 

• Conduct comparative CA-agent wipe tests with both the conventional GC-based 
residual-agent determination techniques described above in this report (Volume 
I) and with the fluoreseent-dye photographic imaging techniques used with the 
VX simulant diethylphthalatc (DEP) described in Volume 11 of this report. 
Correlate the two techniques. The accurate quantitative determination of agent 
surface removal efficiency by the fluorcsccnt-dy c/photographic imaging 
technique would significantly reduee the time and expense to perform a wipe test 
and would greatly increase the number of tests that can be conducted 
concurrently, resulting in a tremendous increase in test throughput. 


i 




129 


Blank 


130 


ACRONYMS 


ACAMS 

Automatic Continuous Air-Monitoring System 

ACF 

Area Cost Factor or Activated Carbon Fiber 

AEL 

Airborne Exposure Limit 

CA 

Chemical Agent 

CARC 

Chemical Agent Resistant Coating 

CDD 

Capability Development Document 

COTS 

Commercial Off the Shelf 

DAAMS 

Depot Area Air-Monitoring System 

DEP 

Fluorescent diethyl phthalatc 

ECBC 

U.S. Army Edgcwood Chemical Biological Center 

ESI 

Entropie Systems, Inc. 

GC-PID 

Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detector 

GC-FPD 

Gas Chromatography- Flame Photometric Detector 

GD 

Soman, non-persistent agent 

HD 

Distilled mustard agent 

HDPF 

high density polyethylene 

HFE 

hydrofluoroether 

IPA 

Isopropyl alcohol 

JMDS 

Joint Material Decontamination System 

JPID 

Joint Platform Interior Decontamination 

JPM 

Joint Program Management 

JS 

Joint Service 

JSSED 

Joint Service Sensitive Equipment Decontamination 

JSTO 

Joint Science and Technology Office 

KPP 

Key Performance Parameters 

MINICAMS 

Miniature Continuous Air-Monitoring System 

MOA 

Memorandum of Agreement 

NRT 

Near Real Time 

ORD 

Operational Requirements Documents 

PC 

Personal Computer 

PD VI 

Portable Dccontaminant for Vehicle Interiors 

SRI 

Southern Research Institute 

TIM 

Toxic Industrial Material 

TTA 

Technology Transition Agreement 

TWA 

Time Weighted Average 

VX 

Methylphophonothioic acid, persistent nerve agent 


131 



Blank 


132 


APPENDIX A 


DETERMINATION OF WEIGHT OF HFE-7200 SPRAYED 
ONTO WIPES IN ROTARY-WIPING TESTS 


Determination of W eight of HFE-7200 Sprayed onto W ipes in Rotary-Wiping Tests 


The weight of HFE-7200 sprayed onto eaeh of the three wipes used in the wiping tests 
was determined. Ten separate measurements of the weight of HFE-7200 sprayed onto 3M Scotch Brite 
2021 fabric wipes, KoTHmex AW 1101-activated carbon fabric wipes, and KoTHmcx AM 1132- 
activatcd-carbon-felt wipes were determined gravimetrically for eaeh material. In each measurement, a 
pre-cut 4.5 x 4.5 in. swatch of wipe material was weighed on an analytical balance. The wipe was 
attached to the rotary-wiping mandrel as in an actual test, the exposed bottom surface of the mandrel- 
mounted wipe was sprayed with HFE-7200 from an aerosol can of the solvent in the same manner as in 
an actual test, and then the wipe was removed from the mandrel and re-weighed. The spraying procedure 
consists of spraying the exposed bottom surface of the mandrel-mounted wipe from the spray can in a 
single clockwise rotation over a period of about 2 s from a distance of about 3 in. until all of the exposed 
wipe surface was moistened (“wet”) with solvent (but not dripping), as determined by visual observation 

The measured weight of HFE-7200 retained by each wiping swatch is show n below .* 


Material 

Weight 

Scotch Brite 2001 

7 1 ± 0.8 g 

KoTHmex AW 101 Activated Carbon Fabric 

4 6 ± 0.4 g 

KoTHmex AM 1132-activated Carbon Felt 

6.9 ± 0.5 g 


The retained weight of HFE-7200 on the activated carbon fabric is lower than the 
retained weight on each of the other two materials because of the weight and open weave of the fabric. 


* 


* 


133 









Blank 


* 




134 


APPENDIX B 


SEMI-QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF MANUAL WIPING FORCE 


B.l Semi-Quantitative Determination of Manual Wiping Force 


A semi-quantitative determination was made of the force applied by an individual during 
a manual wiping procedure. The tests were conducted with 4.5 x 4.5 in. swatches of 3M Seoteh-Brite™ 
2001 w iping cloths (the dimensions of the w ipes used in the tests w ith the rotary-wiping test apparatus). 

In the tests two different laboratory staff personnel simulated the manual wiping of a 
spilled liquid on the balance pan of a 70 lb capacity Friden Model 8710 Computing scale. The manual 
weight applied to the surface of the balance pan during the simulated wiping procedure was monitored 
and recorded to simulate the force that a human would use to wipe a surface. Wipes one and two were 
placed on the scale, and the scale was then zeroed. With the scale zeroed, the person conducting the 
simulated w iping then placed his right hand on the scale and began wiping the surface of the scale while a 
second person recorded the force (weight) the person used to wipe the surfaee. Three weights were 
recorded during each simulated wiping trial. Two wipes with slightly differing weights were used to 
account for any differences in the weight of the material and the amount of pressure used. 

The average pooled applied wiping weight over 24 separate determinations was 
2.4 ± 0.8 lbs (1.1 ± 0.4 kg). On the basis of this experiment, lead sheeting was purchased to punch out 
circular “washers” to slip over the shaft of the rotary wiping mandrel to increase the weight of the 
mandrel up to about 1 1 kg for future wipe testing. 

• Wipe Material: 3M Seoteh-Brite™ 2001 

• Dimensions: 4.5 x 4.5 in. 

• Weight of Wipe 1: 3.7510 g 

• Weight of Wipe 2: 4.0320 g 

Trial 1 - With wiping personnel looking at the scale as they wiped the scale surfaee: 


Applied Force 

Person 1 

Person 2 

Wipe 1 

Wipe 2 

Wipe 1 

Wipe 2 

2 lbs. 4.5 oz 

2 lbs. 7.0 oz 

1 lb. 5.0 oz 

2 lbs. 5.5 oz 

2 lbs. 9.0 oz 

2 lbs. 13 oz 

1 lb. 8.0 oz 

2 lbs. 4.0 oz 

2 lbs. 5.0 oz 

2 lbs. 15 oz 

1 lb. 9.0 oz 

2 lbs. 7.5 oz 


135 











Trial 2 - With wiping personnel unable to see the weight display on the scale (the second 
person covered the scale from the “wiper” and recorded the weight): 


Applied Force 

Person 1 

Person 2 

Wipe 1 

Wipe 2 

Wipe 1 

Wipe 2 

1 lb. 14 oz 

3 lb. 5.0 oz 

2 lb. 5 0 oz 

2 lbs. 8.0 oz 

2 lb 4.5 oz 

4 lb. 2.0 oz 

2 lb. 6.0 oz 

2 lbs. 9 0 oz 

1 lb. 8.5 oz 

4 lb. 6.0 oz 

21b. 10 oz 

2 lbs. 8.0 oz 


Pooled Average 2.5 ± 0.7 lb (1.1 ±0.3 kg) 


APPENDIX B 


136