### Summary of Findings

It is assumed that the app lication of Sporicidin will be done by occupational handlers (i.e. duct cleaning contractors) because it requires spec ialized expertise and equipment; therefore, residential handler exposures ar e not anticipated. The mixing /loading portion of the handler exposure consists only of pouring Sporicidin from its container into th e tank that serves the application equipment and this exposure is sim ilar to that evaluated pr eviously for the other occupational handler scenario s involving phenol. The applic ator portion of the handler exposures, however, is unlike those evalua ted previously and will vary depending upon application method used by a particular company at a particular jobsite. If the applications are made using probes inserted into the ductwork, th en exposures will be limited to dermal contact with the probe and can be mitigated with the use of protective gloves. If the applications are made by an operator in the duct or plenum, such as might occur during large scale commercial jobs, then both significant dermal and inhalati on exposures could occur. In this case, more

extensive PPE is needed which would include ch emical resistant gloves, full body coveralls and respiratory protection.

Post application inhalation expos ures are anticipated following th e application of Sporicidin to HVAC ductwork as the phenol evaporates fr om the duct surface and mixes with air flowing through the duct. Both residen tial and occupational post appli cation exposures are anticipated. These exposures were assessed using the IAQX Model and a submitted chamber emissions study

and the Antimicrobial Version of the EPA Risk M odel. The results of these assessments are

summarized in Table 1. For the residential scen ario, the estimated MOEs are greater than the target MOE of 300, which means that the risks are not of concern, if re-entry is delayed for 16 or 24 hours after application, depending upon which m odel is used. For the commercial scenario, the MOEs are greater than 300 if re-e ntry is delayed for 0 or 3 hours.

Table 1 – Post Application Risk Summary

Scenario Model Used Air Exchange

Rate Waiting Time Before Re-entry Inhalation MOE (Target MOE = 300) IAQX None

24 hours 47

300 Residential Building

Anti-Microbial Risk 0.30 air changes per hour

None

16 hours 5.6

390 IAQX None 320 Commercial Building Anti-Microbial Risk 1.3 air changes per

hour None

3 hours 26

500



### There are uncertainties with this risk assessment that include the extremely limited label instructions, lack of model validation for this specific use pattern and limitations regarding the submitted chamber emission study. The study limitations include the fact that the chamber was maintained at an elevated temperature of 38 C (i.e. 100 F) and that the first samples were not collected until four hours after application. Give n these conditions, it is lik ely that a substantial amount of phenol was emitted before the first sample was collected. It is recommended that additional data be collected to quantify phenol emissions and exposures. This data should

include chamber studies to determ ine the emission rate of phenol under the conditions of use and whole building studies to determine how these conditions affect real world phenol exposures.

Page 2 of 9

### 1.0 - Use Pattern Information

This assessment is for the duct cleaning use of phenol that is listed on the Sporicidin Disinfectant Solution Label (EPA 8383-3). This use is listed under the heading: “TO CLEAN

AIR DUCTS” and the label instructions are limite d to the following statement: “Apply to hard, non-porous surfaces”. The Spor icidin Application Guide ( www.sporicidin.com/mold-generalapplication-guide.htm ) also includes use directions fo r Deodorizing HVAC Systems and Air Duct Cleaning. The directions for Deodorizi ng HVAC systems are: “Vacate area and fog or spray Sporicidin into HVAC system intakes wh ile the system fan is operating and allow enough spray time to allow Sporicidin to contact intern al HVAC air duct surfaces.” The directions for Air Duct Cleaning are similar to those given for deodorization.

2.0 - Summary of Toxicological Endpoints:

On March 9, 2004, the Antimicrobials Divisi on Toxicology Endpoint Selection Committee (ADTC) reviewed the available toxicology data for phenol and discussed endpoint selection for use as appropriate in risk assessments. The conc lusions drawn at this meeting are presented in the ADTC report of March 20, 2004 and the endpoints selected that are relevant for occupational and residential exposures are summarized in Tabl e 1. The hazard based uncertainty factors and target MOEs are also listed in Table 1. For dermal exposures, only the standard uncertainty factors of 10X for inter-species extrapolation and 10X for intra- species variation are required. An additional factor of 3X to is required for short/intermediate term inhalation exposures to

account for the use of a LOAEL and an additional 10X factor is required fo r long term inhalation exposures to account for the for the lack of a chronic study. However, no chronic exposure scenarios are expected for this HVAC use. There are no concerns regard ing special sensitivity,

therefore a data base uncertain ty factor is not required.

Table 2- Toxicological Doses for Phenol O ccupational/Residential Exposure Assessment

Exposure

Scenario Dose Used in Risk

Assessment Hazard Based Uncertainty Factors Study and Toxicological Effects

Dermal A

Short and intermediateterm NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day Target MOE = 100 B Developmental toxicity study in rats (NTP, 1983). Based on significant reductions from the control in mean fetal body weight/litter at 120 mg/kg/day.

Inhalation

All durations LOAEL = 0.1 mg/L
(100 mg/m 3 ) E Target MOE = 300 C

(ST, IT)

MOE = 1000 D

(LT) Dalin and Kristofferson: Ph ysiological Effects of

a Sub-lethal Concentration of Inhaled Phenol on the Rat. Ann. Zool. Fennici 11: 193-199, 1974 LOAEL of 0.1 mg/L, based on alterations in sliding angle from tilting plane test, and significant increases in liver enzymes

Cancer data inadequate for assessment of human carcinogenic potential (USEPA, 2002)



### Page 3 of 9Notes for Table 2

A A dermal absorption factor of 50% is used since an oral endpoint was selected. Dermal abso rption data were available from the IRIS Toxicological profile for phenol . From the available data, dermal abso rption percentages of 20-50% have been

observed from in vivo and in vitro studies . The ADTC selected the 50% dermal absorption value for phenol for use in risk

assessments as a conservative valu e. This value also takes into account the ir ritant properties of ph enol which may increase its dermal absorption. B. Includes the standard uncertainty factors of 10X for inte r-species extrapolation and 10X for intra-species variation.

C. Includes the standard uncertain ty factors and an additional factor of 3X to account for the use of a LOAEL. D. Includes the standard uncertainty factors and an additi onal factor of 10X to account for lack of a chronic study. E. 1000 liters equals 1 m 3 , therefore 0.1 mg/liter *1000 liters/m 3 = 100 mg/m 3



### 3.0 - Handler Exposures

Although the Sporicidin label do es not prohibit HVAC applicatio ns by residential handlers (i.e. homeowners) it is assumed that these applications will only be done by occupational handlers (i.e. duct cleaning cont ractors) because they require specialized expertise and equipment. The mixing/loading portion of the handler exposure consists only of pouring Sporicidin from its container into the tank that serves the applica tion equipment. This exposure is similar to that evaluated previously for th e other occupational handl er scenarios involving phenol.

The applicator portion of the handler expos ure, however, is unlike those evaluated previously and will vary dependi ng upon application method used by a particular company at a particular jobsite. If the applications are made using probes inserted into the ductwork, such as might occur during residential and smaller scale commercial jobs, then exposures will be limited to dermal contact with the probe and can be mitigated with the use of protective gloves. If the applications are made by an operator in the duc t or plenum, such as might occur during large scale commercial jobs, then both significant derm al and inhalation exposures could occur. In this case, more extensive PPE is needed whic h would include chemical resistant gloves, full body coveralls and respiratory prot ection. The level of respirat ory protection needed depends upon the inhalation exposures and would range from a half mask air pur ifying respirator if exposures exceed the level of concern by a factor of less than 10 to full face airline respirators if exposures exceed the level of concern by a factor of 1000 or greater. If the exposures are unknown and/or the duct treated is a confined space, then full face airline re spirators with escape bottles would be required.

4.0 – Post Application Exposure Assessment

Post application inhalation expos ures are anticipated following th e application of Sporicidin to HVAC ductwork. This exposure occurs as th e phenol evaporates from the duct surface and mixs with air flowing through the duct. Both residential and occupa tional post application exposures are anticipated because the label does no t restrict the use of Sporicidin to occupational use sites and because the Sporicidin website indi cates that Sporicidin is used in residential

HVAC ductwork.

Page 4 of 9

### Submitted Data:

MRID 455569-01 is a chamber study that measur ed the emissions of chemicals including phenol from Sporicidin applied to metal pl ates. This study was conducted by Air Quality Sciences, Inc. (AQS) and followed the ASTM D 5116 guidance. Sporicidin was applied undiluted to the plates using a sprayer until beads formed and the average rate of application for

the three trials was 27.6 + 9.9 grams of product per m 2 

### which is equivalent to a coverage rate of

1480 ft 2 

### per gallon. Air samples were collected at 4, 8, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours. The plate area

was 0.094 m 2 

### and the chamber volume was 0.094 m 3 

### which yields a product loading of 1 m 2 

### /m 3



### . The chamber was ventilated at the rate of 1 air change per hour. The incoming air was maintained at a relative humidity of 50 + 5% RH and a temperature of 38 ± 2.0°C. The results were reported by AQS as emission factors and we re back calculated to the respective air

concentrations as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 - Chamber Test Results for Phenol from Sporicidin Applied to Metal Plates

Elapsed Exposure

Hour Phenol Emission

Factor A (mg/m 2 /hr) Area

Treated B Phenol Emission

Rate C

(mg/hr) Chamber

Ventilation Rate D Phenol in

Air E (mg/m 3 )

4 7.289 0.685 7.289

8 2.135 0.201 2.135

24 0.777 0.073 0.777

48 0.072 0.007 0.072

72 0.050 0.005 0.050

96 0.071 0.094 m 2

0.007 0.094 m 3 /hr

0.071 A. As reported in Table 6 of the AQS report and converted to mg from ug.
B. Estimated from the product loading factor of 1 m 2 /m 3 given in the AQS report.
C. Phenol Emission rate (mg/hr) = Measured Phenol Emission Factor (mg/m 2 /hr) * Treated Area (m 2 )

D. Based on the chamber volume of 0.094 m 3 and the ventilation rate of one air change per hour.
E. Phenol in Air (mg/m 3 ) = Phenol Emission Rate (mg/hr) /Ventilation Rate (m 3 /hr)



### The following uncertainties/limitations of the study should be noted:

• The first samples were not collected until f our hours after applica tion. Given that the chamber was maintained at an elevated temperature of 38 C (i.e. 100 degrees F), it is likely that a substantial amount of phenol was emitted duri ng the first four hours before the first sample was collected.

• Many details of the study me thodology and analytical techniques were not reported. These include the sampling collection vol umes and amount of analyte detected.

• Although the report indicated that applications were made to three metal plate samples it

is not clear if a chamber test run was conduc ted with each sample since only one set of emission factors was reported for the study.

Page 5 of 9

### 4.1 Post Application Exposure Asse ssment Using the IAQX Model

Post application inhalation exposure to phenol vapor from Sporicidin fogging applications was assessed using the submitted chamber da ta with the EPA IAQX Model 21. The IAQX

model is available at the website: http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/iemb/iaqx.htm . Model 21 is a source model within IAQX and it is based on a se mi-log regression (i.e. first order decay). Regression calculations to determine the decay ra te of the phenol emission factor were done to derive the input parameters for the model. A summary of the regressi on calculations and input parameters is included in Table 4 and more deta iled information is contained in Appendix A.

Table 4 – Summary of Regression Calculations and Input Parameters

Data

Considered Regression Type Regression

Formula R2 Model 21 E0 (mg/m 2 /hr) Model 21 k factor

4 to 96 hours Semilog Y = -0.051x + 1.18 0.80 e 1.18 = 3.2 0.051

4 to 48 hours Semilog Y = -0.097x + 1.99 0.97 e 1.99 = 7.3 0.097



### Assumptions Used

The assumptions that were used in the IAQX Model are listed below.

• The application time simulation was set to none.

• For the residential scenario, th e treated room volume is 300 m 3 

### , the treated area is 74 m 2


### and the air exchange rate is 0.3 air changes pe r hour. These assumptions were taken from

the Antimicrobial Version of the EPA Risk Model.

• For the commercial scenario, the building volume is 16,055 m 3 

### , the treated area is 2415

m 2 

### and the air exchange rate is 1.3 ACH. These assumptions were taken from the

Antimicrobial Version of the EPA Risk Model.

• The initial emission rate E0 is 7.3 mg/m 2 

### /hr and the k value is 0.097 based on the semilog regression of the chamber test data for time 4 to 48 hours. The regression for the entire data set (i.e. 4 to 96 hours) was not us ed because it yielded a significantly lower R 2



### value as shown in Table 4.

Risk Summary

The results of the model runs are included in Appendix A and are summarized in Table 5. The average air concentrations were calculate d using an averaging time of 24 hours for the

residential scenario and 9 hours for the commerci al scenario. The MOEs were calculated using the LOAEL of 0.1 mg/liter (i.e. 100 mg/m 3 

### ) from the inhalation toxicity study. The target MOE is 300 and includes the standard safety factors of 10 for interspecies extrapolation, 10 for interspecies variation and 3 for the use of a LOAEL. For the resi dential scenario, the MOE is 47 if the exposure begins immediately after application and is of conc ern because it is less than the target MOE of 300. If the exposure does not begi n until 24 hours after application; however, the

MOE is above 300 which is not of concern. For the residential scenario, the MOE is 320 if the exposure begins immediately after a pplication and is not of concern because it is above the target

MOE of 300.

Page 6 of 9

### Table 5 – Post Application Risk Summary Based on Chamber Data and the IAQX Model

Scenario Air Exchange

Rate Spray Coverage

(ft 2 /ga) Averaging

Time Waiting Time Before Re-entry Average Phenol Air

Concentration
(mg/m 3 ) MOE

None 2.1 47 Residential 0.30 air changes per

hour 1500 24 hours

24 hours 0.33 300

Commercial 1.3 Air Changes per

Hour 1500 9 Hours None 0.31 320



### 4.2 Post Application Exposure Asse ssment Using the EPA Risk Model

During the emissions study, the chamber was ventilat ed at the rate of one air change per hour and the incoming air temperature was maintained at 38 C. This is a much lower ventilation rate and a much higher temperature than would occu r inside a ventilati on duct. Given these uncertainties a comparative assessment was done using the Antimicrobial Version of the EPA Risk Model and is presented below. This approach was also used previously in an assessment of the HVAC use of ABDAC (D323861 of June 30, 2006).

The Antimicrobial version of the EPA Risk M odel was designed specifically to assess the inhalation exposures that occur when biocides are used to treat HVAC ductwork. It is a

modified version of the EPA Risk Model that us es a gas-phase-limited mass transfer model. The basic theoretical assumptions of this model ar e: (1) the antimicrobial agents are uniformly distributed on the surface of the ductwork, (2 ) emissions are contro lled by gas-phase mass transfer, and (3) emissions during the application and carrier evaporation phase are insignificant.

Assumptions Used

The input assumptions that were used in th e Risk Model are listed below. The building specific assumptions were taken from the Residential and Commercial Building Scenarios as defined on page 31 of the Antimicr obial Version Documentation.

Building Specific Assumptions

• The residential scenario volume is 12,900 ft 3 

### (300 m 3 

### ) based upon EPA’s IAQ research

house in North Carolina which is a typical ranch style thre e bedroom house built in the

1970s. This house has an area of 1300 ft 2 

### (118 m 2 

### ) and ceiling height of 10 ft.

• The internal surface area of the residential scenario ductwork is 74 m 2 

### based on the

EPA’s research house.

• The air exchange rate of the residential scenario is 0.30 air ch anges per hour (ACH)

based on the EPA’s research house.

• The commercial scenario building volume is 567,000 ft 3 

### (16,055 m 3 

### ) based upon a typical three story commercial building as sp ecified in Rowe (1988). This building has a

total area of 56700 ft 2 

### (5267 m 2 

### ).

• The internal surface area of the commercial building ductwork is 26,000 ft 2 

### (2415 m 2 

### ).

Page 7 of 9

### • The air exchange rate of the commercial building is 1.3 ACH based on a mechanical ventilation rate 9,345 ft 3 

### /min (0.99 ACH) and a non-mechani cal infiltration rate of 0.30

ACH.

Chemical Specific Assumptions

• The phenol concentration in the product is 15,600 ppm based on the fact that Sporidicin contains 1.56 percent phenol by weight and is applied undiluted.

• The spray coverage is assumed to be 1500 ft 2 

### per gallon. This assumption is based on coverage observed during the Sporicidin Em issions study when undiluted Sporicidin was sprayed onto metal plates.

• The molecular weight of phenol is 94.1.

• The vapor pressure of phenol is 0.35 mm Hg at 25 C as listed in the ACGIH TLV

Documentation for Phenol.

• The saturation concentration is 1771 mg/m 3 

### based upon the above vapor pressure.

• The molecular diffusivity is 0.028 m 2 

### /hr as calculated using FSG Method 1 in the EPA

PARAMS Model.

• The Unitless Henry’s Law Coefficient (HLC) is less than 0.001 base d on the fact the

HLC in terms of atm-m 3 

### /mol is 0.00000033. (Note the exact number requires an extremely difficult unit conversion and is likel y less than 0.001 and sensitivity testing in

the Risk model indicated that the results did not change when the HLC ranged from 0.1

to 0.0000001.

Risk Summary

The results of the Risk mode l runs are included in Appendix A and are summarized in Table 6. For the residential scenario, the estimated MO E is 6 if the exposure begins immediately after application and is of concern because it is less than the target MOE of 300. If the exposure does not begin until 16 hours after application; howev er, the MOE is above 300 which is not of concern. In a similar manner, the MOE is of concern for the commercia l scenario if exposure begins immediately after application and is not of concern if exposure is postponed for 3 hours.

Table 6 – Post Application Risk Summary Based on the Antimicrobial Risk Model

Scenario Air Exchange

Rate Spray Coverage

(ft 2 /ga) Averaging

Time Waiting Time Before Re-entry Average Phenol Air

Concentration
(mg/m 3 ) MOE

None 17.8 6 Residential 0.30 air changes per hour 1500 24 hours

16 hours 0.26 390

None 3.9 26 Commercial 1.3 air changes per Hour 1500 9 Hours

3 hours 0.20 500



### Page 8 of 9

### 5.0 Risk Characterization

There are many uncertainties with this risk a ssessment. These uncer tainties include the following:

• It is not known exactly how the Sporicidin is applied to ductw ork because the label directions are extremely limited. Of particular concern is th e spray coverage rate which is not specified either on the label or on th e Directions for Use posted on the Sporicidin website. It is also unclear how good covera ge of the ductwork could be achieved by fogging Sporicidin into the ductwork with the HVAC system in operation as listed in the

directions for use.

• The study that was submitted for Sporicidin ha s serious limitations which include the fact

that the chamber was maintained at an elevat ed temperature of 38 C (i.e. 100 F) and that the first samples were not collected until f our hours after application. Given these conditions, it is likely that a substantial amount of phenol was emitted before the first sample was collected.

• The Antimicrobial Risk Model has not been adequately validated for duct treatment

scenarios. The main concern is that mode l was derived from the Risk Model which had been developed and validated for emissions from surfaces such as painted walls that have

much lower surface air velocities than ventilation ductwork.

Given the above uncertainties it is recommended that additional data be collected to quantify phenol emissions and exposures. This data s hould include chamber studies to determine the emission rate of phenol under conditions of use and whole building studies to determine how

these conditions affect real world phenol exposures.

References

ACGIH (2001) Documentation of the Phenol TLV.

Rowe III, W.H. (1988) HVAC Design Criteria, Op tions, Selection, R.S. Means Company, Inc. Kingston, MA.

Page 9 of 9Appendix A - Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment for the Duct Cleaning Use of Phenol (Sporicidin)Spreadsheet 1 - Test Chamber Emission Data for Phenol from Sporicidine Applied to Metal PlatesElapsedExposureHourPhenolEmissionFactor(mg/m2/hr)LN ofPhenolEmissionFactorAreaTreated(m2)PhenolEmissionRate(mg/hr)ChamberVolume(m3)ChamberLoading(m2/m3)ChamberVentilationRate (ACH)ChamberVentilationRate(m3/hr)Phenol inAir (mg/m3)47.289 1.9860.094 0.685 0.094 1.000 1 0.094 7.28982.135 0.7580.094 0.201 0.094 1.000 1 0.094 2.135240.777 -0.2520.094 0.073 0.094 1.000 1 0.094 0.777480.072 -2.6350.094 0.007 0.094 1.000 1 0.094 0.072720.050 -2.9960.094 0.005 0.094 1.000 1 0.094 0.050960.071 -2.6420.094 0.007 0.094 1.000 1 0.094 0.071FormulasPhenol Emission rate (mg/hr) = Measured Phenol Emission Factor (mg/m2/hr) * Treated Area (m2)Phenol Air Concentration (mg/m3) = Phenol Emission Rate (mg/hr) /Ventilation Rate (m3/hr)Study ConditionsProduct Loading 27.6 g/m2 2.57 g/ft2 Product Application Rate 28 gm/m3Coverage per Gallon: 1478 ft2/ga Product Application Rate 26 oz/1000 ft3Amount Product Applied 2.59 gm Ai Application Rate 431 mg/m3Semilog Regression of Phenol Emission Factor(All Timepoints Included)y = -0.0509x + 1.1756R2= 0.8019-4-3-2-101230 24 48 72 96Elapsed Time in Hours

Ln of Phenol Emission FactorSemilog Regression of Phenol Emission Factor(First 48 Hours Timepoints Included)y = -0.0966x + 1.993R2= 0.9685-3-2-101230 8 16 24 32 40 48Elapsed Time in Hours

Ln of Phenol Emission FactorAppendix A - Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment for the Duct Cleaning Use of Phenol (Sporicidin)Spreadsheet 2 - Residential Building Phenol Air Concentration Following Duct Treatment (Estimated with IAQX Model 21)Time (h)Phenol(mg/m3)ReentryDelay(Hours)24 HourAvg(mg/m3) MOEAssumptions: Value: Source:0 0.00 0 2.14 47 Application Time 01 1.48 1 2.18 46 House Volume 300 m3 Antimicrobial Risk Model2 2.43 2 2.15 47 Air Exchange Rate 0.30 ACH Antimicrobial Risk Model3 3.01 3 2.07 48 Treated Area 74 m2 Antimicrobial Risk Model4 3.33 4 1.97 51 Application Phase None5 3.46 5 1.86 54 Model 21 E0 7.3 Semilog Regession of Phenol Data Time 0 to 48 hours6 3.46 6 1.73 58 Mode 21 k 0.097 Semilog Regession of Phenol Data Time 0 to 48 hours7 3.37 7 1.61 628 3.24 8 1.49 679 3.06 9 1.37 7310 2.87 10 1.25 8011 2.67 11 1.15 8712 2.47 12 1.05 9613 2.28 13 0.95 10514 2.09 14 0.87 11515 1.92 15 0.79 12716 1.75 16 0.72 13917 1.60 17 0.65 15418 1.46 18 0.59 16919 1.32 19 0.54 18720 1.20 20 0.49 20621 1.09 21 0.44 22722 0.99 22 0.40 25123 0.90 23 0.36 27724 0.82 24 0.33 30525 0.7426 0.6727 0.6128 0.5529 0.5030 0.4531 0.4132 0.3733 0.3434 0.3035 0.2736 0.2537 0.2338 0.2039 0.1840 0.1741 0.1542 0.1443 0.1244 0.1145 0.1046 0.09247 0.08348 0.075Residential Building Phenol Air ConcentrationsEstimated Using IAQX0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34Elapsed Time in Hours

Phenol (mg/m3)Appendix A - Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment for the Duct Cleaning Use of Phenol (Sporicidin)Spreadsheet 3 - Commercial Building Phenol Air Concentration Following Duct Treatment (Estimated with IAQX Model 21)Time (h)Phenol(mg/m3)ReentryDelay(Hours)24 HourAvg(mg/m3) MOEAssumptions: Value: Source:0 0.00 0 0.31 320 Application Time 01 0.58 1 0.32 316 Building Volume 16055 m3 Antimicrobial Risk Model2 0.68 2 0.30 339 Air Exchange Rate 1.3 ACH Antimicrobial Risk Model3 0.66 3 0.27 371 Treated Area 2415 M2 Antimicrobial Risk Model4 0.61 Application Phase None5 0.55 Model 21 E0 7.3 Semilog Regession of Phenol Data Time 0 to 48 hours6 0.50 Mode 21 k 0.097 Semilog Regession of Phenol Data Time 0 to 48 hours7 0.468 0.419 0.3710 0.3411 0.3112 0.2813 0.2514 0.2315 0.2116 0.1917 0.1718 0.1519 0.1420 0.1221 0.1122 0.1023 0.0924 0.0825 0.0826 0.0727 0.0628 0.0629 0.0530 0.0531 0.04Commercial Building Phenol Air ConcentrationsEsimated Using IAQX0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32Elapsed Time in Hours

Phenol (mg/m3)Appendix A - Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment for the Duct Cleaning Use of Phenol (Sporicidin)Spreadsheet 4 - Residential Building Phenol Air Concentration Following Duct Treatment (Estimated with the Antimicrobial Risk Model)Time hrsHouseavg(mg/m3)RentryDelay(hours)24 HourTWA MOE0 35 0 17.8 5.6Mass emitted46,670 mg1 96 1 16.3 6.12 73 2 12.3 8.1Inputs:3 54 3 9.3 11 Phenol Concentration 15600 ppm4 41 4 7.0 14 Coverage 1500 square feet per gallon5 30 5 5.3 19 Molecular Weight 94.16 24 6 4.1 25 Vapor Pressure 0.357 18 7 3.1 33 Saturation Concentration 1771 mm Hg8 14 8 2.3 43 Molecular Diffusivity 0.028 mg/m39 10.1 9 1.8 56 Henry's Law Constant 0.00001 m2/hr10 7.9 10 1.4 7411 5.9 11 1.0 9712 4.5 12 0.78 12813 3.3 13 0.60 16714 2.7 14 0.46 21815 2.0 15 0.35 28916 1.5 16 0.26 38217 1.218 0.9219 0.6820 0.5022 0.3323 0.2524 0.2025 0.1526 0.1227 0.0928 0.0729 0.0630 0.0431 0.0332 0.0333 0.0234 0.0235 0.0136 0.0137 0.0138 0.0139 0.0140 0.00Residential Building Phenol Air Concentrations Estimated Using theAntimicrobial Risk Model0204060801001200 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24Time (hours)

Phenol (mg/m3)Appendix A - Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment for the Duct Cleaning Use of Phenol (Sporicidin)Spreadsheet 5 - Commercial Building Phenol Air Concentration Following Duct Treatment (Estimated with the Antimicrobial Risk Model)Time hrsBldgAVG(mg/m3)1 HourTWAReentyDelay(hours)9 HourTWA MOE0.01 14 0 3.9 26Mass emitted1024600 mg0.03 24 1 2.1 480.05 30 2 0.8 131Inputs:0.07 34 3 0.2 420 Phenol Concentration in Product 15600 ppm0.09 37 Coverage 1500 square feet per gallon0.11 38 Molecular Weight 94.10.2 39 Vapor Pressure 0.35 mm Hg0.31 36 Saturation Concentration 1771 mg/m30.41 32 Molecular Diffusivity 0.028 m2/hr0.51 29 Henry's Law Constant 0.00001 unitless0.61 260.71 240.79 220.89 200.99 181.0 17 162.0 6.5 122.9 2.4 4.53.9 0.91 1.54.9 0.32 0.566.0 0.11 0.196.9 0.043 0.0668.0 0.014 0.0258.9 0.0058 0.008910.0 0.0019 0.003411.0 0.0007 0.001111.8 0.0003 0.000412.9 0.0001 0.0002Commercial Building Phenol Air Concentrations Estimated Using theAntimicrobial Risk Model0510152025303540450 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Time (hours)

Phenol (mg/m3)