Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.

117 Fourth Avenue Needham, MA

02494-2725

TEL 800-825-5343 781-247-4300

FAX 781-247-4305

www.eheinc.com

Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. | 21629 | www.eheinc.com 1

September 8, 2017 Mr. Peter Schneider, CEP Director of Environmental Health and Safety University of Massachusetts Boston 100 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125-3393 RE: IEQ Assessment – College of Nursing and Health Sciences (EH&E 21629) Dear Mr. Schneider: Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. (EH&E) provides this report to the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMass Boston) outlining the findings from our indoor environmental quality (IEQ) assessment in the College of Nursing and Health Sciences (CNHS) space (the Space) located on the second and third floor of the Science Center on the UMass Boston campus at 100 Morrissey Boulevard in Boston, Massachusetts. The objectives of EH&E’s evaluation were to document IEQ conditions in the Space and investigate sources or conditions that may adversely impact IEQ. EH&E’s assessment was undertaken at the request of UMass Boston in July and August 2017 in response to concerns expressed by CNHS staff about IEQ and included: • Indoor environmental investigation, including an assessment of the Space and components of

its heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system to identify sources or conditions that could negatively impact IEQ.

• Indoor environmental monitoring, including measuring a series of parameters to

quantitatively evaluate IEQ conditions in the Space, including carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), temperature, relative humidity, airborne particles, total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs), and airborne mold spores.

• Providing CNHS staff with air samplers they used to collect air samples during three odor

events in the Space on August 14 and 15, 2017. The samplers were deployed twice when staff reported diesel-like odors and once when electrical odors were reported. The air samples were analyzed for a wide range of individual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and volatile sulfur-containing compounds (VSCs) to assess chemicals present in the air at the time of the events.

Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. | 21629 | www.eheinc.com 2

• Assisting the UMass Boston Office of Environmental Health and Safety (OEHS) with ongoing communications with occupants of the Space, including participating in CNHS meetings and reviewing Weekly Updates.

Findings and recommendations from EH&E’s evaluation are outlined in the following paragraphs. Please note that this report is subject to the limitations in Appendix A. Appendix B provides detailed information on the evaluation criteria and monitoring methods used, and IEQ monitoring results are included in Appendix C. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EH&E’s evaluation in July and August 2017 has indicated acceptable IEQ conditions in the Space, consistent with those expected in typical non-complaint offices, based on observations and monitoring results summarized below. IEQ monitoring results were all within health-based guidelines and generally consistent with recommended guidelines for occupant comfort: • EH&E did not identify evidence of sources or conditions considered likely to impact IEQ in

the Space during inspection of the area and its HVAC system. All areas inspected appeared clean, well maintained, free of visible mold growth and wet materials, and typical of non-complaint offices. No unusual odors were noted. Inspection of the air handling unit (AHU-5) serving the Space indicated that it was in good overall condition relative to upkeep and cleanliness.

• EH&E identified a few minor issues and recommends they be addressed proactively:

− A dry ceiling tile with water stains around the sprinkler head was present near the mail boxes on the second floor. EH&E recommends replacing this ceiling tile and inspecting all areas of the Space to identify and replace other stained ceiling tiles.

− Dust accumulation and a very small (1-2 square inches) area of mold growth was observed on the surface of a supply air diffuser in the second floor kitchenette (see Table C.1). This condition is not unusual and likely related to accumulation of particles, in conjunction with condensation that may occur at times on the surface of the diffuser. This diffuser was cleaned. Supply diffusers in the kitchen should be inspected periodically for dust build-up and/or evidence of surface condensation. Periodic cleaning should be considered if dust build-up continues. As discussed below, air sampling results for mold spores did not indicate an impact to IEQ.

− An abandoned pipe penetration was observed through the floor in the second floor kitchenette and there is an abandoned elevator shaft in the Space. EH&E recommends sealing these openings.

Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. | 21629 | www.eheinc.com 3

− Although IEQ monitoring results, including air samples during reported odor events, were within expected levels, UMass Boston should consult with their filter vendor and evaluate adding activated carbon pre-filters to AHU-5, which could help minimize transient odors and extend the useful life of the primary filters.

• CO2 monitoring results indicated that the amount of outdoor air ventilation being delivered to the Space was well within the recommended range for occupant comfort.

• No CO was detected; results were well below exposure limits and guidelines. • All temperatures in the Space were within ranges recommended for occupant comfort.

• Dew point temperatures were within recommended ranges for occupant thermal comfort

during most occupied hours (94%), but were slightly above (1 – 2 degrees Fahrenheit above) the range for short periods of time when outdoor dew point temperatures were elevated. Although not a primary concern reported in the Space, if occupants express concerns about thermal comfort, UMass Boston should review and, as warranted, adjust temperature control strategies and balancing to control for periods when outdoor air humidity levels are elevated.

• Airborne dust levels were low, below all exposure guidelines and standards, and within

typical ranges expected in offices. Results did not suggest any unusual dust conditions. • No evidence of elevated levels of airborne mold or the presence of indoor mold reservoirs

impacting IEQ were identified in the Space. Air sampling results from the Space did not suggest the presence of potential indoor mold sources affecting IEQ in any location.

• TVOC levels, indicators of chemical sources within the environment, were low (below detection) in the Space. These results did not suggest any unusual or localized source of organic chemicals impacting IEQ.

• No VSCs were detected in air samples collected during odor events in the Space.

• Air sampling results for VOCs did not indicate any evidence of unusual odor sources in the

Space. All detected VOCs during the three odor events in the Space were well below (thousands of time times below) the lowest (most health protective) occupational exposure limits, including the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) exposure limits. Further, concentrations of all detected VOCs were within normal ranges for office buildings and below odor thresholds. A few VOCs were detected at low levels that do not have published exposure limits or odor thresholds, but none of the compounds are considered toxic and all are commonly found in consumer products, foods, etc.

Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc. | 21629 | www.eheinc.com 4

If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please contact either of us at 1-800-TALK EHE (1-800-825-5343). Sincerely, William S. Wade, C.I.H. Matt A. Fragala, M.S., C.I.H. Senior Scientist/Project Manager Practice Director, Education & Commercial/ Project Executive Appendix A Limitations Appendix B Background and Monitoring Methods Appendix C Indoor Environmental Quality Monitoring Results cc: Dorothy Renaghan, Asst. Vice Chancellor for Facilities Management, UMass Boston (email) Zehra Schneider Graham, Deputy Director OEHS, UMass Boston (email) P:\21629\Report\Report.docx

APPENDIX A LIMITATIONS

1. Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.'s (EH&E) indoor environmental quality

assessment described in the attached report number 21629, IEQ Assessment – College of Nursing and Health Sciences (hereafter "the Report"), was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices employed by other consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area; and EH&E observed that degree of care and skill generally exercised by such other consultants under similar circumstances and conditions. The observations described in the Report were made under the conditions stated therein. The conclusions presented in the Report were based solely upon the services described therein, and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of described services.

2. Observations were made of the site as indicated within the Report. Where access to

portions of the site was unavailable or limited, EH&E renders no opinion as to the condition of that portion of the site.

3. The observations and recommendations contained in the Report are based on limited

environmental sampling and visual observation and were arrived at in accordance with generally accepted standards of industrial hygiene practice. The sampling and observations conducted at the site were limited in scope and, therefore, cannot be considered representative of areas not sampled or observed.

4. When an outside laboratory conducted sample analyses, EH&E relied upon the data

provided and did not conduct an independent evaluation of the reliability of these data. 5. The purpose of the Report was to assess the characteristics of the subject site as stated

within the Report. No specific attempt was made to verify compliance by any party with all federal, state, or local laws and regulations.

C-1

APPENDIX B BACKGROUND AND MONITORING METHODS

MOISTURE SURVEY

The moisture survey was intended to identify potentially wet building materials in inspected locations. This survey was performed by inspection to identify visual evidence of moisture (e.g., staining, discoloration, and/or liquid water) and infrared (IR) thermography to identify building materials with potentially elevated moisture content. Moisture meter measurements were then used to quantify actual moisture levels in building materials. The IR camera used during the evaluation was a ThermaCAM™ B20 (FLIR Systems, Inc., North Billerica, Massachusetts). IR cameras display relative surface temperatures of materials in the visual field. Under most conditions, building materials that contain higher moisture content are relatively cooler than dryer materials and can be differentiated in the camera display. Where possible, a moisture meter was used to confirm IR camera findings. Moisture meter measurements were then used to quantify actual moisture levels in building materials. The moisture meter used during the evaluation was a GE Protimeter® Surveymaster (GE Infrastructure Sensing, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts). This instrument displays readings as percent moisture content, referenced to a wood standard. When non-wood materials or wood of a different type then that used to calibrate the moisture meter, the results are expressed as percent wood moisture equivalent (% WME). Moisture levels in building materials are considered elevated when they are higher than levels measured in similar materials in unaffected areas (e.g., dry, not damaged by moisture). Direct moisture meter measurements obtained from wall materials that did not exhibit evidence of being wet based on visual inspection and IR survey were less than approximately 15% WME, a moisture content that was considered dry. SURFACE SAMPLING FOR MOLD Surface sampling differentiates mold from dust or other non-biological debris and is also useful for identifying the presence of the types of mold that may indicate elevated moisture conditions.1,2 This analysis provides a qualitative assessment of whether there is mold growth on the surface sampled (indicated by the presence of mycelial structures), the density of the growth (indicated using a 1-4 numerical ranking), the type of growth, and the presence of settled spores.

1 ACGIH, 1999, Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control, J Macher Ed., Cincinnati, OH: American

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 2 AIHA, 2005, Field Guide for Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples,

Second Edition, Hung LL, Miller JD, Dillon HK, eds., Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.

B-2

Surface samples were collected from a surface suspected of containing fungal growth (i.e., a surface with suspected/visually apparent mold) for laboratory analysis to differentiate mold growth from non-microbiological staining. A field blank was also collected for quality assurance purposes. Samples were collected by applying clear adhesive tape to the selected surface and then affixing the tape to a glass slide. After sampling, the slides were transmitted, under chain-of-custody, to EMLab P&K, LLC (Fairfax, Virginia), an American Industrial Hygiene Association accredited laboratory for examination by light microscopy. CARBON DIOXIDE Background

People exhale carbon dioxide (CO2) as a normal byproduct of metabolism. Although the indoor concentrations of CO2 resulting from usual occupant activities are rarely hazardous, this gas can serve as an indicator of room ventilation rate. This is because CO2 concentrations in indoor air increase inversely with the amount of outdoor air supplied to a room; that is, the more outdoor air supplied to a room, the lower the CO2 concentration. Supplying adequate ventilation is also important for diluting airborne concentrations of indoor contaminants that may build up due to materials in the space or to occupant activities. It is possible to estimate the amount of outdoor air supplied to an area by monitoring CO2 levels in an occupied room or area, assuming an activity level for the occupants, and assuming that an equilibrium has been reached in the space. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), a professional organization dedicated to promulgating standards for industry based on a rigorous peer review process, has adopted standards that specify minimum supply quantities of outdoor air for occupied building spaces. Although these standards do not have force of law, they are cited widely and are generally regarded as state-of-the-art. These standards, including the indoor air quality standard, are reviewed every five years so that they incorporate the latest scientific developments and findings. ASHRAE3, some model building codes4,5 regard an outdoor air supply rate of 20 cubic feet per minute (cfm) per person as a satisfactory comfort criterion for mechanically ventilated office environments. This ventilation rate corresponds to a nominal CO2 concentration of 915 parts per million (ppm), using an assumption of light activity (e.g., office work), an outdoor air concentration of 375 ppm CO2, and steady-state operating conditions. EH&E has performed extensive analysis of the issues surrounding the relationship between CO2 concentrations and ventilation rates. EH&E devised a method that is appropriate where occupancy is not necessarily

3 ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016. 2016. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta, GA:

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 4 BOCA 1993. BOCA National Mechanical Code 1993. Eighth Edition. Country Club Hills, IL: Building

Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. 5 ICC. 1996. International Mechanical Code 1996. Falls Church, VA: International Code Council.

B-3

constant, and where ventilation rates may vary based on building heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning system operation and weather. This method aggregates the CO2 data for the occupied period of the day and uses the 90th percentile CO2 concentration as an estimate of the steady state CO2 concentration.6 From this CO2 value, the ventilation rate per person is calculated assuming that occupants generate CO2 at a known and constant rate appropriate for their activity level and that outdoor CO2 concentrations are constant. Methods

CO2 measurements were made using a Q-Trak Model 7575 Indoor Air Quality Monitor, manufactured by TSI, Inc. (St. Paul, Minnesota). The CO2 sensor is non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) and is accurate within 3% (or 50 ppm at 25 degrees Celsius [78 degrees Fahrenheit]) of the reading. This sensor was calibrated at zero using hydrocarbon free air and spanned to approximately 1,000 ppm of CO2 with gases purchased from Airgas East (Salem, New Hampshire). CO2 measurements were taken concurrently with carbon monoxide, relative humidity and temperature measurements. CARBON MONOXIDE Background

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon fuels. It is a common component of exhaust from motor vehicles and heating units, such as boilers and space heaters, and it is also present in tobacco smoke. Although the airborne concentrations of this gas in most indoor environments are usually low, elevated levels can occur under certain situations, such as entrainment of exhaust from trucks idling at a loading dock into a building air intake, migration of air from traffic or parking garages, or leakage of boiler flue gases into a building. Inhaled CO readily binds to hemoglobin in red blood cells and results in decreased delivery of oxygen to tissues.7 The extent of symptoms produced by CO inhalation depends on both personal activity level and airborne concentrations. Exposures to high concentrations may produce headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and nausea. Although average indoor concentrations of CO are usually less than 2 ppm, levels can reach 5 to 10 ppm inside motor vehicles. Symptoms become clinically apparent when the amount of CO bound to red blood cells, termed carboxyhemoglobin, reaches approximately 10%. As an example, a person at rest would have to inhale 80 ppm of CO for eight hours to reach this 10% carboxyhemoglobin level. 6 Ludwig JF, McCarthy JF, Baker BJ, Caron RK, Hanson DK. 2000. A Review of Selected

Methodologies to Determine Outdoor Air Ventilation Rates in BASE Study Buildings. In: Engineering Solutions to Indoor Air Quality Problems: Proceedings of a symposium held in Raleigh, North Carolina. July 17-19, 2000. Pittsburgh, PA: Air & Waste Management Association.

7 Coultas DB, Lambert WE. 1991. Carbon monoxide. In: Samet JM, Spengler JD, eds. Indoor Air Pollution: A Health Perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

B-4

Table B.1 lists currently accepted standards and guidelines for carbon monoxide.

Table B.1 Occupational and Public Health Guidelines for Carbon Monoxide Authority One Hour Exposure Eight Hour Exposure

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1 35 ppm 9 ppm ASHRAE: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers2 –

9 ppm

OSHA: U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration3 – 50 ppm ACGIH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists3 – 25 ppm NIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health3 – 35 ppm ppm parts per million 1 EPA 40 CFR 50. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 50. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C. (These standards are designed to protect the general public against adverse health effects).

2 ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016. 2016. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

3 ACGIH. 2017. 2017 Guide to Occupational Exposure Values. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. (These standards are intended for use in industrial settings and may not be appropriate for office settings.)

Methods

CO measurements were made using Q-Trak with CO Models 7575 IAQ Monitors, manufactured by TSI, Inc. (St. Paul, Minnesota). CO measurements were taken concurrently with CO2, relative humidity, and temperature measurements. The CO sensor uses an electrochemical cell and is accurate to within 3% of the reading. This sensor was zeroed with nitrogen and spanned to 10 ppm CO. Calibration gas was purchased from Airgas East (Salem, New Hampshire). THERMAL COMFORT Background

Temperature and humidity are essential factors for determining the thermal comfort in a work environment. Optimal thermal comfort depends on a variety of factors, including an individual’s metabolic rate, transfer of body heat to the surrounding environment, and body temperature. ASHRAE has defined acceptable reference levels for humidity and temperature referred to as “the thermal comfort envelope.”8 The recommended levels of relative humidity take into consideration not only comfort but also health issues related to the presence of moisture in air supply systems. This would include consideration of moisture conditions that provide a comfortable indoor environment but do not promote the growth of mold or other biological agents that could become sources of indoor air pollutants. High relative humidity can promote growth of fungi on building materials. Table B.2 summarizes thermal comfort recommendations.

8 ASHRAE Standard 55-2013. 2013. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta,

GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

B-5

Table B.2 Recommended Ranges of Temperature and Dew Point1,2

Dew Point Temperature Winter Temperature Summer Temperature <63 °F 67.5 °F – 75.5 °F 73.0 °F – 80.0 °F

°F degrees Fahrenheit 1 Recommendations apply to persons dressed in typical seasonal clothing doing light, primarily sedentary, activity. 2 Adapted from ASHRAE Standard 55-2013. 2013. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Atlanta, GA: American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Methods

Air temperature and relative humidity measurements were made using Q-Trak Models 7575 IAQ Monitors, manufactured by TSI, Inc. (St. Paul, Minnesota). These measurements were made concurrently with monitoring for CO and CO2. The temperature sensor in the Q-Trak is a thermistor with an accuracy of ±1.0 degree Fahrenheit. Relative humidity is measured by a thin-film capacitive sensor with a stated accuracy of ±3% relative humidity. Temperature and relative humidity sensors were compared to primary standards, a National Institute for Standards and Technology traceable thermometer, and a calibrated humidity standard. AIRBORNE PARTICLES Background

Particles in indoor air, collectively referred to as dust, form a complex mixture that originates from a variety of sources, including the outdoors, office equipment, building materials, furnishings, and occupants. Particles are an important category of indoor air pollutants because in high enough concentrations they can act as irritants to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. Aerodynamic size is the primary determinant as to how far particles can penetrate into the respiratory tract and determines the sites of possible health effects. Inhalable particles are those that can deposit anywhere in the respiratory tract from the nose and upper airways to the lower airways and lung tissue where gas exchange occurs. Particles less than 10 microns (µm) in aerodynamic diameter (1 micron equals approximately 1/25,000 of an inch) can reach the trachea and all of the airways. Respirable suspended particles, that is, those that can initially reach the gas exchange region of the lungs, are defined as particles in the air that are less than 3.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for airborne particles. In July 1987, the EPA revised the NAAQS limit for airborne particles from total suspended particles, which was a measurement of all inhalable particles regardless of size, to PM10, which is a standard based on particles with an

B-6

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 µm.9 This change was designed to focus importance on the size range of particles that could reach the airways of the respiratory tract. In 1997, EPA established a new NAAQS for fine particles, which the agency defined as particles with aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 µm or less. This standard is referred to as PM2.5, and acknowledges the findings that very small particles can penetrate into the deepest parts of the lungs. The current ASHRAE Standard,10 which provides recommendations for maintaining acceptable indoor air quality, refers to the EPA NAAQS for airborne particles as amended in 2000. In 2006,11 EPA revised the NAAQS for airborne particles, and vacated the PM10 annual standard and revised the PM2.5 annual standard. In 2013, EPA revised the NAAQS for airborne particles, upholding the 24-hour average standards for PM2.5 and PM10 and revising the PM2.5 annual standard.12 Both occupational and public health guidelines exist for exposures to particulate matter and are presented in Table B.3. Public health guidelines are intended to protect the health of all individuals of all susceptibilities including those of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly, whereas occupational health guidelines reflect the maximum concentration that a worker may be exposed to under U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations or other applicable guidance (e.g., American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists).

Table B.3 Occupational and Public Health Guidelines for Exposure to Airborne Particulate Matter

Authority

Airborne Particles (micrograms per cubic meter)

Annual 24-hour 8-hour U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1 PM10 NA 1502 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1 PM2.5 123 353 – U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration4 – – 15,0004

5,0004 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists5 – – 10,0005

3,0005 NA not applicable

9 EPA. 1986. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter: Updated

Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, Addendum to the 1982 OAQPS Paper. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Strategies and Air Standards Division.

10 ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2016. 2016. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

11 EPA. 2006. EPA 40 CFR Part 50. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final Rule. Federal Register. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 17, 2006.

12 EPA. 2013. EPA 40 CFR Part 50. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final Rule. Federal Register. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 15, 2013.

B-7

1 EPA 40 CFR 50. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 Part 50. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C. (These standards are designed to protect the general public against adverse health effects. ASHRAE has also adopted these guidelines).

2 The indicated standards are based on sampling for particulate matter less than 10 microns (µm) in diameter (PM10). 3 The indicated standards are based on sampling for particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5). 4 OSHA 29 CFR 1910. Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1910. U.S. Occupational

Safety and Health Administration: Washington, D.C. (These standards are intended for use in industrial settings and may not be appropriate for office settings.) The first level, 15,000 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), represents total dust. The second level, 5,000 µg/m3, represents the respirable fraction.

5 ACGIH. 2017. TLVs® and BEIs® Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Cincinnati, OH. (These standards are intended for use in industrial settings and may not be appropriate for office settings.) The first level listed, 10,000 µg/m3, represents the inhalable fraction. The second level, 3,000 µg/m3, represents the respirable fraction.

Methods

Airborne particle levels were measured during the walkthrough surveys with DustTrak™, DRX Model 8533, Aerosol Monitors, manufactured by TSI, Inc. (St. Paul, Minnesota). The DustTrak™ instruments simultaneously measure PM10 and PM2.5 size fractions. The instrument measures airborne dust concentrations with a resolution of 1 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) using a 90° light scattering laser diode. The range of the DustTrak™ is 1 – 150,000 µg/m3. The unit is factory calibrated annually and the zero calibration is checked prior to each use. AIRBORNE FUNGI Background

Microorganisms, which include fungi, are normal inhabitants of the environment. The varieties that use non-living organic matter as a food source inhabit soil, vegetation, water, or any reservoir that can provide an ample supply of a nutrient substrate. Under appropriate temperature, pH, moisture, and nutrient conditions, microorganisms can multiply. These microorganisms may then be disseminated alone or in association with soil, dust, or water particles through various mechanisms. Levels of microorganisms can vary with geographic location, climactic conditions, and surrounding activity. In a normal indoor environment, levels of microorganisms are affected by several factors, including cleanliness of the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning system, the number of building occupants, and occupant activities. Regulatory standards for acceptable levels of fungi in indoor air have not been established. This is primarily due to a lack of data concerning the relationship between levels of microorganisms in indoor environments and the likelihood of developing physiological responses following exposures. As a general recommendation, potential indoor sites for microbiological growth and amplification should be removed to minimize exposures to fungi. Specifically, buildup of organic material should not be allowed on air filters in ventilation systems, standing water should

B-8

be removed, and water-damaged materials should be appropriately cleaned or replaced in a timely manner. Methods

Samples for analyses of levels of viable and non-viable fungi spores in the air were collected with Air-O-Cell® sampling cassettes (Zefon International, Inc., Ocala, Florida) using a calibrated air sampling pump (SKC Quick Take, SKC Inc., Eighty Four, Pennsylvania). Samples were collected for five minutes at a flow rate of 15 liters per minute. One replicate and two blanks were collected for quality assurance purposes. Outdoor air samples were collected for comparison purposes. All cassettes were sent to EMLab P&K (Fairfax, Virginia), an American Industrial Hygiene Association certified laboratory, for analysis by light microscopy. Results were presented in spores per cubic meter of air sampled. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Background

Health effects from exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at typical indoor and outdoor concentrations have yet to be understood fully. It is known that exposure to some of these VOCs at concentrations greater than 1,000 times the typical indoor or outdoor levels may cause adverse health effects. Measurement of total VOCs (TVOCs) is an integrated measurement of the concentrations of all VOCs in an air sample. TVOC measurements in indoor environments are taken primarily for two reasons. The first is to detect any abnormally high levels of VOCs that would indicate the need for more detailed investigations for specific compounds. The second is to obtain readings from different areas and, by comparing the results from these areas, determine potential sites or sources of VOCs, such as, gasoline vapors, exhaust gases, or vaporized solvents. No recommended guidelines for airborne concentrations of TVOCs currently exist. However, measurements of TVOCs are useful for identifying potential sources or locations of VOCs that could present health or fire hazards for humans. These data can also be used to determine the cause and effect of various processes that may be associated with release of these compounds. Air sampling results for individual VOCs were evaluated in comparison to health-based occupational exposure limits (OELs).13 To protect the health of workers, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates exposures to many chemicals in workplace

13 ACGIH. 2017. 2017 Guide to Occupational Exposure Values. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

B-9

settings.14 OSHA requires that employers maintain personal exposures to various chemicals below the permissible exposure limit (PEL), which is a measured exposure averaged over an eight-hour workday (full shift) and/or short-term (typically 15-minute) time periods. PELs are health-based standards intended to protect the health of workers for forty hours per week over forty years of work. All employers are required to comply with the OSHA PEL. In addition to OSHA, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)15 and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),16 publish recommended health-based OELs for many chemicals. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) also publishes OELs, referred to as Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs®),17 for some chemicals without OELs published by OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH. Compliance with the exposure limits of NIOSH, ACGIH, and AIHA is not required by law; as a conservative (health-protective) measure, EH&E used the lowest OEL published for each detected compound for comparison purposes in our analysis. VOC air sampling results were also compared to data from the Building Assessment Survey Evaluation (BASE) study, which was conducted by the EPA between 1994 and 1998.18 The BASE study included detailed environmental characterization of 100 office buildings across the United States without reported indoor air quality problems and the data have been used as reference values to provide a range of typical background levels in offices. Individual VOC results were also compared to the lowest concentration that can be detected by smell (referred to as the odor threshold) in the scientific literature.19 Real-time TVOC Measurement Methods

Photoionization detectors (PIDs) were used to measure TVOCs. A PID is an instrument that can be used for the detection of a wide variety of VOCs and is especially sensitive to molecules with

14 OSHA 29 CFR 1910. Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Code of Federal Regulations. Title

29, Part 1910, Section 1000, Table Z-1, Limits for Air Contaminants. Washington, DC: U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

15 ACGIH. 2017. 2017 TLVs® and BEIs® Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

16 NIOSH. 2016. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

17 AIHA. 2011. Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs®), AIHA Guideline Foundation. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.

18 EPA. BASE. Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) Study Conducted from 1994 – 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/base/.

19 AIHA. 2013. Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with Established Occupational Health Standards, 2nd edition. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.

B-10

a carbon-carbon double bond. PIDs provide readout of the TVOC level in a building environment, normalized to a VOC standard (usually isobutylene). The PID uses an ultraviolet (UV) light source to ionize organic molecules with electrodes measuring the quantity of organic gas. The strength of the UV light (measured in electron volts [eV]) determines which contaminants can be ionized and the PID used during the evaluation was equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp. 10.6 eV lamps are commonly used in PIDs during general TVOC surveys at both indoor and outdoor locations where a variety of VOCs are expected. The UV light is used to ionize or dissociate incoming organic compounds. Sample air is actively pumped into the instrument via a built-in sampling pump. Ionized particles are drawn toward their oppositely charged electrode within the meter, producing electrical impulses. This electric current, which in turn drives a meter, is proportional to the amount of ions produced, which is proportional to the organic vapor concentration.20 The PID monitor ppbRae 3000 (Rae Systems, Inc., Sunnyvale, California) was used to measure TVOCs during the walkthrough surveys and continuous monitoring period. The ppbRae is capable of detecting TVOCs at the parts per billion (ppb) level, as well as parts per million (ppm) detection comparable to standard PIDs. The ppbRae was calibrated to zero air and 10 ppm isobutylene prior to field use. Individual Volatile Organic Compounds Measurement Methods

Whole air samples for individual VOCs were collected and analyzed in accordance with EPA Method TO-15.21 Air samples were collected with certified clean Silonite stainless steel canisters provided by the analytical laboratory. Grab air samples were collected by occupants trained by EH&E. Following collection, all VOC samples were sealed and transported to the analytical laboratory under chain of custody. The samples were analyzed by ALS Environmental, Inc. (ALS) in Simi Valley, California, an accredited laboratory. The air samples were analyzed for 75 individual VOCs using gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy in accordance with EPA Method TO-15. In addition to the standard list of VOCs, the VOC air samples were evaluated for all detectable gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC/MS) responses (i.e., peaks) that did not correspond to the spectra for the 75 target compounds, which are referred to as tentatively identified compounds (TICs). TICs are identified based on a review of a spectral library of

20 Rae Systems Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, ppbRae 3000 product manual. 21 EPA. 1999. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient

Air, Second Edition: Compendium Method TO-15, Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Air Collected In Specially-Prepared Canisters and Analyzed By Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Cincinnati, OH: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development.

B-11

approximately 250,000 compounds that can be detected by GC/MS and are reported as estimated concentrations based on their relative spectra responses. The 75 target VOCs and the laboratory reporting limit for each are presented in Table B.4.

Table B.4 List of Targeted Volatile Organic Compounds and Laboratory Reporting Limits

CASRN Compound Nominal Laboratory Reporting Limit

(µg/m3) 115-07-1 Propene 0.50 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12) 0.50 74-87-3 Chloromethane 0.50 76-14-2 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC 114) 0.50 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride 0.50 106-99-0 1,3-Butadiene 0.50 74-83-9 Bromomethane 0.50 75-00-3 Chloroethane 0.50 64-17-5 Ethanol 5.0 75-05-8 Acetonitrile 0.50 107-02-8 Acrolein 2.0 67-64-1 Acetone 5.0 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC 11) 0.50 67-63-0 2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol) 5.0 107-13-1 Acrylonitrile 0.50 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) 0.50 75-09-2 Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) 0.50 107-05-1 3-Chloro-1-propene (allyl chloride) 0.50 76-13-1 Trichlorotrifluoroethane 0.50 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 5.0 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.50 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 0.50 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether 0.50 108-05-4 Vinyl Acetate 5.0 78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) 5.0 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.50 141-78-6 Ethyl Acetate 1.0 110-54-3 n-Hexane 0.50 67-66-3 Chloroform 0.50 109-99-9 Tetrahydrofuran (THF) 0.50 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.50 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) 0.50 71-43-2 Benzene 0.50 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 0.50 110-82-7 Cyclohexane 1.0 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.50 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 0.50 79-01-6 Trichloroethene (TCE) 0.50 123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane 0.50 80-62-6 Methyl methacrylate 1.0 142-82-5 n-Heptane 0.50 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.50 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.50

B-12

Table B.4 Continued

CASRN Compound Nominal Laboratory Reporting Limit

(µg/m3) 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.50 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.50 108-88-3 Toluene 0.50 591-78-6 2-Hexanone 0.50 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 0.50 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.50 123-86-4 n-Butyl acetate 0.50 111-65-9 n-Octane 0.50 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 0.50 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 0.50 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.50 179601-23-1 m,p-Xylenes 1.0 75-25-2 Bromoform 0.50 100-42-5 Styrene 0.50 95-47-6 o-Xylene 0.50 111-84-2 n-Nonane 0.50 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.50 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene (cumene) 0.50 80-56-8 alpha-Pinene 0.50 103-65-1 n-Propylbenzene 0.50 622-96-8 4-Ethyltoluene 0.50 108-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.50 95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.50 100-44-7 Benzyl chloride 0.50 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.50 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.50 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.50 5989-27-5 d-Limonene 0.50 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane 0.50 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.50 91-20-3 Naphthalene 0.50 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.50 CASRN Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

VOLATILE REDUCED SULFUR COMPOUNDS Background

Volatile reduced sulfur compounds (VSCs), such as sulfides and mercaptans, are chemicals that have very distinctive odors and can be detected by smell at very low levels. Odors of many VSCs are offensive to humans.

B-13

Methods

Whole air samples for individual VSCs were collected and analyzed in accordance with ASTM Method D5504-12. Air samples were collected with certified clean Silonite stainless steel canisters provided by the analytical laboratory. Grab air samples were collected by occupants trained by EH&E. Following collection, all VSC samples were sealed and transported to the analytical laboratory under chain of custody. The samples were analyzed by ALS Environmental, Inc. (ALS) in Simi Valley, California, an accredited laboratory. The air samples were analyzed for individual VSCs using a GC equipped with a sulfur chemiluminescence detector in accordance with ASTM Method D5504-12. The target VSCs and the laboratory reporting limit for each are presented in Table B.5.

Table B.5 List of 20 Volatile Sulfur Compounds and Laboratory Reporting Limits CASRN Compound Nominal Laboratory Reporting Limit (µg/m3)

7783-06-4 Hydrogen Sulfide 7.0 463-58-1 Carbonyl Sulfide 12 74-93-1 Methyl Mercaptan 9.8 75-08-1 Ethyl Mercaptan 13 75-18-3 Dimethyl Sulfide 13 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 7.8 75-33-2 Isopropyl Mercaptan 16 75-66-1 tert-Butyl Mercaptan 18 107-03-9 n-Propyl Mercaptan 16 624-89-5 Ethyl Methyl Sulfide 16 110-02-1 Thiophene 17 513-44-0 Isobutyl Mercaptan 18 352-93-2 Diethyl Sulfide 18 109-79-5 n-Butyl Mercaptan 18 624-92-0 Dimethyl Disulfide 9.6 616-44-4 3-Methylthiophene 20 110-01-0 Tetrahydrothiophene 18 638-02-8 2,5-Dimethylthiophene 23 872-55-9 2-Ethylthiophene 23 110-81-6 Diethyl Disulfide 12 CASRN Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

C-1

APPENDIX C INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS

Table C.1 Results of Direct Microscopic Examination for Mold in Surface Samples, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, July 26, 2017

Location Miscellaneous.

Spores Present1 Molds with Mycelial and/or Sporulating

Structures2 Impression Supply diffuser in Kitchenette, floor 2

Variety < 1+ Brown hyphae with no associated spores, ID unknown (hyphal fragments)

Minimal mold growth

Field Blank None None No mold spores detected 1 Indicative of typical conditions, i.e., seen on surfaces everywhere. Includes basidiospores (mushroom spores), myxomycetes, plant

pathogens such as ascospores, rusts, and smuts, and a mix of saprophytic genera with no particular spore type predominating. Distribution of spore types seen mirrors that usually seen outdoors.

2 Quantities of molds seen growing are graded 1+ to 4+, with 4+ denoting the highest numbers. Samples analyzed by EMLab P&K, Fairfax, Virginia.

Table C.2 Short-term Indoor Environmental Monitoring Results, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, August 3, 2017

Space Floor Location Time CO2

(ppm) CO

(ppm) Temp (°F)

RH (%)

Dew Point (°F)

PM2.5 (µg/m3)

PM10 (µg/m3)

TVOC (ppb)

CNHS 3 Workstation in 301/30 13:50 533 ND <3 73 70 62 3 6 <10 CNHS 3 Office in 301/30 13:53 610 ND <3 74 69 63 2 5 <10 CNHS 3 Corridor outside 301/61 13:55 464 ND <3 73 68 62 2 4 <10 CNHS 3 Corridor outside 301/66 13:58 517 ND <3 73 70 62 4 9 <10 CNHS 3 CNHS lounge, 301-46 14:00 472 ND <3 72 71 62 2 3 <10 CNHS 3 Corridor outside 301-18 14:02 513 ND <3 72 69 61 2 2 <10 SFE 1 Workstation near

Dr. Metzel 14:08 459 ND <3 73 68 62 2 2 <10

SFE 1 Outside Business Manager

14:09 472 ND <3 74 67 62 2 6 <10

SFE 1 Reception area 14:10 517 ND <3 73 64 60 3 7 <10 SFE 1 Corridor outside School

for Environment 14:13 556 ND <3 72 70 62 3 4 <10

CNHS 2 CIPO area, 02-17 14:15 562 ND <3 72 70 62 2 3 <10 CNHS 2 Office 02-15B 14:16 543 ND <3 73 69 62 2 4 <10 CNHS 2 Outside office 02-13C 14:18 506 ND <3 73 69 62 3 5 <10 CNHS 2 Office 02-13A 14:21 532 ND <3 73 68 62 3 7 <10 CNHS 2 Reception area 14:22 475 ND <3 73 66 61 4 7 <10 CNHS 2 Corridor 02-21 14:28 532 ND <3 73 69 62 2 3 <10 CNHS 2 Kitchen 14:25 514 ND <3 73 69 62 2 2 <10 CNHS 2 Corridor outside 02-13A 14:23 471 ND <3 73 68 62 2 3 <10 CNHS 2 Corridor outside 02-15A 14:24 531 ND <3 73 69 62 2 4 <10

– – Outdoor 15:00 434 – – – – – – <10

C-2

Table C.2 Continued CO2 carbon dioxide ppm parts per million CO carbon monoxide Temp temperature °F degrees Fahrenheit RH relative humidity PM2.5 particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller in size µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter PM10 particulate matter that is 10 micrometers or smaller in size TVOC total volatile organic compounds (isobutylene equivalents) ppb parts per billion ND not detected above the reporting limit of the instrument < less than CNHS Center for Nursing and Health Sciences CIPO Clinical and Internship Placement Office SFE School for the Environment

Table C.3 Results of Continuous Carbon Dioxide Monitoring, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, July 26 to August 3, 2017*

Location CO2 Concentration (ppm)

90th Percentile Maximum CIPO, 02-17 533 635 CIPO Clinical and Internship Placement Office CO2 carbon dioxide ppm parts per million * Representative of data during occupied hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays).

Table C.4 Results of Continuous Carbon Monoxide Monitoring, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, July 26 to August 3, 2017*

Location CO Concentration (ppm)

Average 95th Percentile Maximum CIPO, 02-17 ND <3 ND <3 ND<3 CIPO Clinical and Internship Placement Office CO carbon monoxide ppm parts per million ND not detected above instrument’s reporting limit < less than * Representative of data throughout the entire monitoring period (24 hours a day).

C-3

Table C.5 Results of Continuous Temperature, Relative Humidity, and Dew Point Monitoring, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, July 26 to August 3, 2017*

Location

Temp Range

(°F)

Average Temp (°F)

RH Range

(%)

Average RH (%)

Dew Point Range

(°F)

Average Dew Point (°F)

CIPO, 02-17 69 – 75 72 54 – 78 64 48 – 65 59 CIPO Clinical and Internship Placement Office Temp temperature °F degrees Fahrenheit RH relative humidity * Representative of data during occupied hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays).

Table C.6 Results of Continuous Airborne Particle Monitoring (as PM2.5 and PM10), College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, July 26 to August 3, 2017*

Location

Airborne Particle Concentration (µg/m3) PM2.5 PM10

Average 95th Percentile Maximum Average 95th Percentile Maximum CIPO, 02-17 <1 1 8 2 9 44 CIPO Clinical and Internship Placement Office PM2.5 particulate matter that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller in size PM10 particulate matter that is 10 micrometers or smaller in size µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter < less than the instrument’s reporting limit * Representative of data during occupied hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays).

C-4

Table C.7 Air Sampling Results for Total Viable and Non-Viable Mold Spores, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, July 26, 2017

Location Fungal Type Concentration (spores/m3)* Office 02-15B, Floor 2 Basidiospores

210

Total 210 Office 02-15I, floor 2 Alternaria

Basidiospores Other brown Penicillium/Aspergillus types Pithomyces

13 210

13 110

13 Total 360

Office 02-17, CIPO, floor 2 Basidiospores Cladosporium Other brown Penicillium/Aspergillus types

160 110

13 270

Total 550 Office 02-17, CIPO, floor 2 (replicate) Basidiospores

320

Total 320 Reception area, floor 2 Basidiospores

Cladosporium Penicillium/Aspergillus types Rusts

160 53 53 13

Total 280 Outdoors, roof near air intake Ascospores

Basidiospores Penicillium/Aspergillus types Pithomyces Smuts, Periconia, myxomycetes

1,300 17,000

270 13 13

Total 18,000 Outdoors, roof near air intake Ascospores

Basidiospores Cladosporium Penicillium/Aspergillus types Smuts, Periconia, myxomycetes

1,900 15,000

1,900 270

27 Total 19,000

301/31 office area, floor 3 Basidiospores Penicillium/Aspergillus types Rusts

110 110

13 Total 230

Corridor outside office 301/61, floor 3 Basidiospores 160 Total 160

Corridor 02-21, floor 2 Basidiospores Penicillium/Aspergillus types

690 110

Total 800 Kitchenette, floor 2 Ascospores

Basidiospores Penicillium/Aspergillus types

110 210 110

Total 430 Field blank None observed ND Media blank None observed ND

C-5

Table C.7 Continued

CNHS Center for Nursing and Health Sciences CIPO Clinical and Internship Placement Office spores/m3 spores per cubic meter ND none detected * Total spore concentrations reported by the laboratory are rounded to two significant digits. Total counts of 13 spores/m3 indicated that

based on the volume of air sampled only one spore was present. Samples analyzed by EMLab P&K, Fairfax, VA Method: Air-O-Cell, spore trap analysis

Table C.8 Air Sampling Results for Volatile Reduced Sulfur Compounds in Grab Samples Collected During Odor Events, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, August 2017

CAS # Compound Reception Areaa Outside Office 02-12Bb Office 02-15Bc

Concentration (µg/m³) 7783-06-4 Hydrogen sulfide ND <8.6 ND <8.6 ND <8.6 463-58-1 Carbonyl sulfide ND <15 ND <15 ND <15 74-93-1 Methyl mercaptan ND <12 ND <12 ND <12 75-08-1 Ethyl mercaptan ND <16 ND <16 ND <16 75-18-3 Dimethyl sulfide ND <16 ND <16 ND <16 75-15-0 Carbon disulfide ND <9.6 ND <9.6 ND <9.6 75-33-2 Isopropyl mercaptan ND <19 ND <19 ND <19 75-66-1 tert-Butyl mercaptan ND <23 ND <23 ND <23 107-03-9 n-Propyl mercaptan ND <19 ND <19 ND <19 624-89-5 Ethyl methyl sulfide ND <19 ND <19 ND <19 110-02-1 Thiophene ND <21 ND <21 ND <21 513-44-0 Isobutyl mercaptan ND <23 ND <23 ND <23 352-93-2 Diethyl sulfide ND <23 ND <23 ND <23 109-79-5 n-Butyl mercaptan ND <23 ND <23 ND <23 624-92-0 Dimethyl disulfide ND <12 ND <12 ND <12 616-44-4 3-Methylthiophene ND <25 ND <25 ND <25 110-01-0 Tetrahydrothiophene ND <22 ND <22 ND <22 638-02-8 2,5-Dimethylthiophene ND <28 ND <28 ND <28 872-55-9 2-Ethylthiophene ND <28 ND <28 ND <28 110-81-6 Diethyl disulfide ND <15 ND <15 ND <15 CAS # Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number µg/m³ microgram per cubic meter ND none detected above the laboratory reporting limit < less than laboratory reporting limit a Sample collected August 14, 2017 at 3:43 p.m. during odor described as “intense”. b Samples collected on August 15, 2017 at 12:18 p.m. during odor described as “pungent electrical”. c Samples collected on August 15, 2017 at 12:04 p.m. during odor described as “diesel fuel like”. Samples analyzed by ALS Environmental (Simi Valley, California) using ASTM Method D5504-12.

C-6

Table C.9 Air Sampling Results for Volatile Organic Compounds in Grab Samples Collected During Odor Events, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, August 2017a

CAS # Compound Reception Areab

Outside Office 02-12Bc Office 02-15Bd Lowest OELe EPA BASEf

Lowest Odor Thresholdg

Concentration µg/m3 115-07-1 Propene 2.4 0.89 4.0 860,000 NA 17,400 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12) 2.3 2.3 2.2 4,950,000 36 988,000,400 74-87-3 Chloromethane 0.31 0.31 0.29 103,000 4.3 20,700 64-17-5 Ethanol 41 26 29 1,900,000 260 170 67-64-1 Acetone 8.3 14 15 590,000 110 950 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.0 1.3 1.1 5,600,000 51 28,100 67-63-0 2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol) 6.8 ND <0.62 11 492,000 320 2,500 76-13-1 Trichlorotrifluoroethane 0.47 0.47 0.46 7,600,000 8.1 NA 71-43-2 Benzene 0.27 0.53 0.34 1,600 9.1 1,500 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride 0.32 0.34 0.34 31,000 0.74 10,600 108-88-3 Toluene ND <0.62 1.2 1.2 75,000 39 79 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 0.36 0.25 0.27 170,000 18 5,200 179601-23-1 m,p-Xylenes ND <0.62 ND <0.62 0.62 434,000 24 52 5989-27-5 d-Limonene 0.72 0.79 ND <0.62 NA 44 10 TIC Unknown 4.9 2.5 ND NA NA NA TIC Propylene Glycol 39 ND ND 10,000h NA 16,000 TIC Hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane 3.4 ND ND NA NA NA TIC 2-(Hexyloxy)Ethanol 3.4 ND ND NA NA NA TIC Unknown siloxane 3.9 8.1 10 NA NA NA TIC 2,2,4,4,6,8,8- Heptamethylnonane 3.2 ND ND NA NA NA TIC Bromochlorodifluoromethane ND 3.7 4.7 NA NA NA TIC Isoprene ND 2.7 ND 11,140h NA 131 TIC Trimethylsilanol ND ND 3.7 NA NA NA TIC Acetaldehyde ND ND 2.4 360,000 15 2.7

C-7

Table C.9 Continueda CAS # Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number µg/m³ microgram per cubic meter ppb parts per billion OEL Occupational Exposure Limit EPA BASE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation Study AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association VOC volatile organic compound TICs tentatively identified compounds, result is estimated ND non-detect NA none available > greater than < less than a Only compounds that were detected in the samples are represented here. Refer to Table B.4 for a listing of all targeted compounds and laboratory reporting limits. b Sample collected August 14, 2017 at 3:43 p.m. during odor described as “intense”. c Samples collected on August 15, 2017 at 12:18 p.m. during odor described as “pungent electrical”. d Samples collected on August 15, 2017 at 12:04 p.m. during odor described as “diesel fuel like”. e Represents the lowest OEL published by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). f 95th percentile concentration. g Lowest odor threshold reported by American Industrial Hygiene Association. h Represents OEL published by AIHA Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (AIHA WEELs). Samples analyzed by ALS Environmental (Simi Valley, California) using EPA Method TO-15 and ASTM Method D5504-12.