## 3 Results and Discussion
### Simulated Foot Traffic Experiments
#### 3.2.1 Percent Removal from Contaminated Surfaces for Straight-Line Walking  
Figure 13 shows the average %R of Sr-85 contaminated particles from the NSCs and the surfaces stabilized with CaCl2, Phos-Chek MVP-Fx, and Soil2O treated paves. Table 8 shows the \(p\)-values from the \(t\)-tests performed on the data. The \(p\)-values indicate the probability that the groupings of data were from the same population, i.e., statistically similar.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test Surface** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Stabilizaiton** \\ **Technology** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Initial CPS** \\ **(Average)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Removal** \\ **(%R)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Transferred** \\ **(%T)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Residual** \\ **(%R)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Asphalt} & Control & 1918 & \(4\pm 1\) & \(1\pm 0.6\) & \(2\pm 0.3\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & CaCl2 & 1283 & \(1\pm 1\) & ND & \(0.8\pm 0.7\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & MVP-Fx & 1671 & ND & ND & ND \\ \cline{2-6}  & Soil2O & 1688 & \(2\pm 1\) & \(0.2\pm 0.2\) & \(0.2\pm 0.2\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Concrete} & Control & 1869 & \(2\pm 1\) & \(1\pm 0.1\) & \(1\pm 0.4\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & CaCl2 & 1794 & \(1\pm 1\) & ND & ND \\ \cline{2-6}  & MVP-Fx & 1685 & \(3\pm 1\) & \(0.9\pm 0.2\) & \(0.4\pm 0.2\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Soil2O & 1575 & \(2\pm 1\) & \(1\pm 0.2\) & \(0.6\pm 0.1\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Sand} & Control & 3401 & \(40\pm 4\) & \(8\pm 2\) & \(3.0\pm 0.4\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & CaCl2 & 2683 & \(38.0\pm 0.4\) & \(0.6\pm 0.6\) & \(3\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & MVP-Fx & 2544 & \(14.0\pm 0.2\) & \(2.0\pm 0.2\) & \(0\pm 0\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Soil2O & 2968 & \(24.0\pm 0.9\) & \(0.8\pm 0.2\) & \(2\pm 0\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Efficacy of stabilization technologies for simulated foot traffic experiments, expressed as average \(\pm\) standard deviation.  
The potential for %R appears to be highest for the sand surfaces, followed by asphalt and concrete, as indicated by the control %R values. However, the sand results were determined from the 5 min continuous walking experiment, so the results are not exactly comparable. Interpreting the efficacy values in the figure in combination with the \(p\)-values from the table reveals the following for specific surfaces.  
_Asphalt_. CaCl\({}_{2}\) (1 \(\pm\) 1 %R), Soil\({}_{2}\)O (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R) and MVP-Fx (Not Detected [ND]) resulted in significantly decreased %R compared to the NSC (4 \(\pm\) 1 %R). MVP-Fx (ND) demonstrated significantly lower %R than Soil\({}_{2}\)O (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R) and CaCl\({}_{2}\) (1 \(\pm\) 1 %R). CaCl\({}_{2}\) (1 \(\pm\) 1 %R) and Soil\({}_{2}\)O (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R) had %R values not significantly different from one another.  
_Concrete_. Only CaCl\({}_{2}\) (1 \(\pm\) 1 %R) resulted in significantly decreased %R compared to the NSC (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R) while MVP-Fx (3 \(\pm\) 1 %R) and Soil\({}_{2}\)O (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R) did not. CaCl\({}_{2}\) (1 \(\pm\) 1 %R) demonstrated significantly lower %R than MVP-Fx (3 \(\pm\) 1 %R). CaCl\({}_{2}\) (1 \(\pm\) 1 %R) did not demonstrate significantly different %R from Soil\({}_{2}\)O (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R). MVP-Fx (3 \(\pm\) 1 %R) did not demonstrate significantly different %R from Soil\({}_{2}\)O (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R).  
_Sand_. Note: There was a single experiment for each stabilization technology, and the SD was based on the right and left sides of the path [N = 2], so no \(p\)-values were calculated. MVP-Fx (14 \(\pm\) 0.2 %R) and Soil\({}_{2}\)O (24 \(\pm\) 0.9 %R) resulted in decreased %R compared to the NSC (40 \(\pm\) 4 %R), while CaCl\({}_{2}\) (38 \(\pm\) 0.4 %R) did not. MVP-Fx (14 \(\pm\) 0.2 %R) generated the lowest %R.