Jump to main content.


Research Highlights

Fumigant Technologies Used to Inactivate Biological Agents on Indoor Materials

This document does not constitute nor should be construed as an EPA endorsement of any particular product, service, or technology.

In 2001, the anthrax mailings not only caused loss of life, but also interrupted the daily functioning of the United States government when affected buildings had to be taken out of service until decontamination and restoration efforts were complete. Because of these events and their consequences, EPA has evaluated the performance of several decontamination technologies designed specifically to inactivate biological agents. Table 1 lists four fumigant technologies used for this purpose.

EPA tested each fumigant technology’s ability to decontaminate indoor materials spiked with biological agent spores. Qualitative factors, such as ease of use and surface damage from physical degradation of the materials, were also evaluated.

Table 1. Fumigant Decontamination Technologies
Vendor Technology Model Name Mode of Decontamination (Fumigant)
BIOQUELL Inc. (BQ) CLARUS® C Generator Hydrogen Peroxide Gas
CDG Research Corporation (CDG) Bench-Scale Chlorine Dioxide Gas: Solid Generator Chlorine Dioxide
CERTEK® Inc. (CT) 1414 Formaldehyde Generator/Neutralizer Formaldehyde
Sabre Technical Services (ST) Bench-Scale Chlorine Dioxide Gas Generator Chlorine Dioxide

Test Design

The four technologies were applied to seven types of porous and non-porous indoor surfaces:

Figure 1. Surface Coupons
Figure 1. Surface Coupons

Test surface coupons (shown in Figure 1) were contaminated with the following biological agents at challenge levels of approximately 1 x 108 viable biological spores per coupon:

B. subtilis and G. stearothermophilus are surrogates for B. anthracis.

The quantitative effectiveness of each decontamination technology was evaluated by comparing the number of viable spores after decontamination to the number of viable spores from a control surface that had not been subjected to the decontamination technology.

Performance and Results

Because of the large difference in the number of spores on the control surfaces compared to the number on the decontaminated coupons, the efficacy was reported as the log of the ratio of these two numbers. For example, a 1,000‑fold reduction in spores after treatment was reported as a log reduction of 3 (the log of 1,000). Table 2 summarizes the decontamination efficacy for each technology, surface, and biological agent/surrogate combinations. 

Table 2. Decontamination Efficacy Based on Spore Reduction (Log Reduction)a
Indoor Surfaces B. anthracis B. subtilis G. stearothermophilus
BQb CDGb CTb STb BQb CDGb CTb STb BQb CDGb CTb STb
Porous Industrial-Grade Carpet 3.01 4.62 7.00c 7.72c 1.63 4.44 8.04c 6.91c 0.81 3.22 5.68 7.33c
Painted Concrete 6.36 7.25 7.15 7.77c 6.09 4.74 6.02 7.29c 4.09 5.79 6.20 6.63c
Bare Wood 3.70 4.33 7.61c 7.14c 2.18 4.48 6.58 6.77c 4.09 3.78 6.82c 6.25c
Non-porous Glass 7.92 5.70 7.71c 7.75c 7.57 5.23 7.79c 7.13c 4.68 3.87 7.24c 7.07c
Decorative Laminate 7.85 4.57 6.47 7.89c 7.66 5.14 7.29 7.39c 3.75 4.44 7.12c 6.75c
Painted Wallboard Paper 6.92 7.68c 5.17c 7.62c 7.52 4.62 7.68c 6.73c 5.98 5.62 7.19c 6.58c
Galvanized Metal Ductwork 7.54 7.79c 7.86c 7.84c 6.44 5.57 6.24 7.08c 1.97 3.43 7.64c 7.48c

a Results are based on the average of three replicates.
b Refer to Table 1 for vendor abbreviations.
c No viable spores were detected.

BQ, Clarus C Generator

CDG, Bench-Scale Chlorine Dioxide Gas: Solid Generator

CT, 1414 Formaldehyde Generator/Neutralizer

ST, Bench-Scale Chlorine Dioxide Gas Generator

For each technology tested, the decontamination efficacy for each of the surrogates (B. subtilis and G. steorothermophilus) differed from decontamination efficacy for B. anthracis.

Subsequent to decontamination, test coupons were examined for visible surface damage. With the exception of the industrial-grade carpet being bleached by the two chlorine dioxide technologies (CDG, Bench-Scale Chlorine Dioxide Gas: Solid Generator and ST, Bench-Scale Chlorine Dioxide Gas Generator), there was no observed damage to any other test surface.

The operational assessment indicated that each technology could be set up and programmed for use within minutes. The only maintenance required was adding new decontamination reagents at the beginning of each run. Unused reagents and waste water needed to be disposed of properly at the end of each use. In most cases, the automation of these technologies left little room for operator error. 

For more information about biological agent decontamination using fumigation, see these reports.


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.