## 3 Results and Discussion
### Simulated Vehicle Experiments
#### 3.1.1 Percent Removal from Contaminated Surfaces  
Figure 10 shows the average %R of Sr-85 contaminated particles from the NSCs and the surfaces stabilized with CaCl\({}_{2}\), Phos-Chek MVP-Fx, and Soil\({}_{2}\)O treated pavers. Table 4 lists the \(p\)-values from the \(t\)-tests performed. The \(p\)-values indicate the probability that the groupings of data were from the same population, i.e., statistically similar at the 95% level.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Test Surface**} & **Stabilizaiton** & **Initial CPS** & **Removal** & **Transferred** & **Residual** \\  & **Technology** & **(Average)** & **(\%R)** & **(\%T)** & **(\%R)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Asphalt} & Control & 1497 & \(15\pm 1\) & \(8\pm 1\) & \(9\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & CaCl\({}_{2}\) & 1089 & \(5\pm 4\) & \(1\pm 1\) & \(4\pm 2\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & MVP-Fx & 1292 & \(2\pm 1\) & \(0.2\pm 0.6\) & \(0.5\pm 0.4\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Soil\({}_{2}\)O & 1210 & \(10\pm 5\) & \(5\pm 2\) & \(9\pm 7\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Concrete} & Control & 1773 & \(7\pm 3\) & \(5\pm 2\) & \(3\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & CaCl\({}_{2}\) & 1219 & \(0.9\pm 0.7\) & \(1\pm 1\) & \(0.8\pm 0.9\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & MVP-Fx & 1346 & \(3\pm 1\) & \(1\pm 1\) & \(2\pm 1\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Soil\({}_{2}\)O & 1382 & \(5\pm 1\) & \(4\pm 1\) & \(2\pm 1\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Sand} & Control & 1363 & \(41\pm 8\) & \(9\pm 3\) & \(20\pm 2\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & CaCl2 & 1303 & \(17\pm 4\) & \(3\pm 2\) & \(5\pm 3\) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & MVP-Fx & 1312 & \(16\pm 6\) & \(3\pm 1\) & \(2\pm 1\) \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Soil\({}_{2}\)O & 1325 & \(25\pm 2\) & \(6\pm 2\) & \(11\pm 4\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Efficacy of stabilization technologies during simulated vehicle experiments, expressed as average \(\pm\) standard deviation.  
Generally, the potential for removal, indicated by the control %R, was highest for the sand surface, followed by asphalt and concrete. Interpreting the efficacy values in the figure in combination with the \(p\)-values reveals the following for specific surfaces.  
_Asphal surfaces._ CaCl\({}_{2}\) (5 \(\pm\) 4 %R) and MVP-Fx (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R) resulted in significantly decreased %R compared to the NSC (15 \(\pm\) 1 %R), while Soil\({}_{2}\)O (10 \(\pm\) 5 %R) did not. MVP-Fx (2 \(\pm\) 1 %R) demonstrated significantly lower %R than Soil\({}_{2}\)O (10 \(\pm\) 5 %R), but no significant difference from CaCl\({}_{2}\) (5 \(\pm\) 4 %R). CaCl\({}_{2}\) (5 \(\pm\) 4 %R) and Soil\({}_{2}\)O (10 \(\pm\) 5 %R) generated %R values that were not significantly different from one another.  
_Concrete surfaces._ CaCl\({}_{2}\) (0.9 \(\pm\) 0.7 %R) and MVP-Fx (3 \(\pm\) 1 %R) resulted in significantly decreased %R compared to the NSC (8 \(\pm\) 2 %R), while Soil\({}_{2}\)O (5 \(\pm\) 1 %R) did not. CaCl\({}_{2}\) (0.9 \(\pm\) 0.7 %R) demonstrated significantly lower %R than MVP-Fx (3 \(\pm\) 1 %R) and Soil\({}_{2}\)O (5 \(\pm\) 1 %R). MVP-Fx (3 \(\pm\) 1 %R) demonstrated significantly lower %R than Soil\({}_{2}\)O (5 \(\pm\) 1 %R), but significantly higher than CaCl\({}_{2}\) (0.9 \(\pm\) 0.7 %R). Soil\({}_{2}\)O (5 \(\pm\) 1 %R) demonstrated %R values that were significantly higher than CaCl\({}_{2}\) (0.9 \(\pm\) 0.7 %R) and MVP-Fx (3 \(\pm\) 1 %R).  
_Sand surfaces._ CaCl\({}_{2}\) (17 \(\pm\) 4 %R), MVP-Fx (16 \(\pm\) 6 %R), and Soil\({}_{2}\)O (25 \(\pm\) 2 %R) resulted in significantly decreased %R compared to the NSC (41 \(\pm\) 8 %R). CaCl\({}_{2}\) (17 \(\pm\) 4 %R) and MVP-Fx (16 \(\pm\) 6 %R) generated %R values that were not significantly different from one another. Soil\({}_{2}\)O (25 \(\pm\) 2 %R) generated %R values that were significantly higher than CaCl\({}_{2}\) (17 \(\pm\) 4 %R) and MVP-Fx (16 \(\pm\) 6 %R).