Trace Contaminant Control For The International Space Station's Node 1

National Aeronautics and NASA/TP—2017–218235
Space Administration
IS02
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, Alabama 35812
Trace Contaminant Control for the International

Space Station’s Node 1—Analysis, Design,
and Verification
J.L. Perry
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama
April 2017
The NASA STI Program…in Profile
Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
advancement of aeronautics and space science. The papers from scientific and technical conferences,
NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) symposia, seminars, or other meetings sponsored
Program Office plays a key part in helping NASA or cosponsored by NASA.
maintain this important role.
• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical,
The NASA STI Program Office is operated by or historical information from NASA programs,
Langley Research Center, the lead center for projects, and mission, often concerned with
NASA’s scientific and technical information. The subjects having substantial public interest.
NASA STI Program Office provides access to
the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.
aeronautical and space science STI in the world. English-language translations of foreign
The Program Office is also NASA’s institutional scientific and technical material pertinent to
mechanism for disseminating the results of its NASA’s mission.
research and development activities. These results
are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report Specialized services that complement the STI
Series, which includes the following report types: Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating
custom thesauri, building customized databases,
• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of organizing and publishing research results…even
completed research or a major significant providing videos.
phase of research that present the results of
NASA programs and include extensive data For more information about the NASA STI Program
or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations Office, see the following:
of significant scientific and technical data
and information deemed to be of continuing • Access the NASA STI program home page at
reference value. NASA’s counterpart of peer- <http://www.sti.nasa.gov>
reviewed formal professional papers but has less
stringent limitations on manuscript length and • E-mail your question via the Internet to
extent of graphic presentations. <[email protected]>
• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific • Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 757 –864–9658
specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports,
working papers, and bibliographies that contain • Write to:
minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive NASA STI Information Desk
analysis. Mail Stop 148
NASA Langley Research Center
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and Hampton, VA 23681–2199, USA
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.
NASA/TP—2017–218235

and Verification
J.L. Perry
National Aeronautics and

Marshall Space Flight Center • Huntsville, Alabama 35812
April 2017
i
Available from:
NASA STI Information Desk

Mail Stop 148
Hampton, VA 23681–2199, USA
757–864–9658
This report is also available in electronic form at

<http://www.sti.nasa.gov>
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL

DURING INITIAL ENTRY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
ALPHA NODE 1 ................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Analysis Approach ........................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Analysis Results ............................................................................................................. 5
2.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 10
2.6 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 11
3. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF TRACE CONTAMINANT

CONTROL DURING EARLY INGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL
SPACE STATION NODE 1 ................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Node 1 Charcoal Bed Performance Analyses ................................................................. 18
3.3 Other Considerations ..................................................................................................... 27
3.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 30
3.5 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 31
4. VERIFICATION ANALYSIS OF THE TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL

CAPABILITY FOR INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION NODE 1 .............................. 32
4.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 32

4.2 Requirements ................................................................................................................. 34
4.3 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 34
4.5 Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 35
4.6 Approach ....................................................................................................................... 36
4.7 Results ........................................................................................................................... 37
4.8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 44
5. SYNOPSIS .......................................................................................................................... 45
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A—NASA AND RUSSIAN MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

CONCENTRATIONS ................................................................................. 46
APPENDIX B—TRACE CHEMICAL CONTAMINANT DESIGN LOAD MODEL ......... 51
APPENDIX C—PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR NODE 1 UPON

CREW ENTRY ............................................................................................ 57
APPENDIX D—FLIGHT 2A, 3A, AND 4A TIMELINE ...................................................... 63
APPENDIX E—3% Pt ON ACTIVIATED CHARCOAL PERFORMANCE

IN DRY AIR ................................................................................................. 65
APPENDIX F—NODE 1 ENTRY VERIFICATION ANALYSIS MISSION TIMELINE .... 66
APPENDIX G—CABIN AIR CATALYST ELEMENT ASSEMBLIES PACKING

DEPTH VERIFICATION ........................................................................... 69
APPENDIX H—TRACE CONTAMINANT GENERATION RATES ................................. 74
APPENDIX I—2% Pt ON CHARCOAL QUALIFICATION TEST PERFORMANCE ....... 76
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 77
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
1. ISSA configuration for flight 5A ................................................................................ 3
2. Cabin concentration profile for 2-propenal during assembly mission 5A .................... 7
3. Cabin concentration profile for dichloromethane during assembly mission 5A .......... 7
4. Cabin concentration profile for 2-butanone during assembly mission 5A ................... 8
5. Cabin concentration profile for carbon monoxide during assembly mission 5A ......... 8
6. Node 1 relative contamination buildup ...................................................................... 20
7. Node 1 decontamination on-orbit 47 days after ground purge ................................... 22
11. Node 1 decontamination on-orbit 109 days after ground purge ................................. 24
12. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during missions 2A, 3A, and 4A

(launch minus 45-day scrub and full specification load) ............................................. 25
13. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during mission 3A (launch

minus 45-day scrub and full specification load) .......................................................... 26
14. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during mission 4A (launch

minus 45-day scrub and full specification load) .......................................................... 27
15. CACEA features and cross section ............................................................................. 33
16. Relative contamination of Node 1 for a 2,359-kg hardware basis ............................... 43
17. Relative contamination of Node 1 for a 1,361-kg hardware basis ............................... 43
v
LIST OF TABLES
1. Initial cabin concentrations upon Node 1 entry during ISSA flight 5A ...................... 5
2. Shuttle and Node 1 cabin concentrations 5.8 hours after entering Node 1
during flight 5A .......................................................................................................... 6
3. Final cabin concentrations in the Shuttle/Node 1 and Russian segment cabins

23.8 hours after entering Node 1 during flight 5A ...................................................... 6
4. Final cabin concentrations in the Node 1 and Russian segment cabins 24 hours
after entering Node 1 during flight 3A ....................................................................... 9
5. Ingress contamination control ground rules ............................................................... 20
6. Time to reduce Node 1 contamination to acceptable limits ........................................ 21
7. Logistics requirements ................................................................................................ 24
8. Contaminant limits from April 1994 U.S.-Russian protocol ....................................... 28
9. Contaminant concentrations in Shuttle/Node 1 before opening FGB hatch ............... 29
10. ISS contaminant concentrations after dilution with the Russian segment .................. 29
11. Trace contaminant concentrations for Node 1 for the 2,359-kg hardware basis .......... 37
12. Trace contaminant concentrations for Node 1 for the 1,361-kg hardware basis .......... 40
vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS
AC/GAC acid-treated granular activated charcoal
ATCO ambient temperature catalytic oxidizer
CACEA cabin air catalyst element assembly
FGB functional cargo block
GAC granular activated charcoal
GFE government-furnished equipment
IMV intermodule ventilation
ISS International Space Station
ISSA International Space Station Alpha
IVA intravehicular activities
JSC Johnson Space Center
KSC Kennedy Space Center
LPC limiting permissible concentration
MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center
PIDS Prime Item Development Specification
PMA pressurized mating adapter
Pt platinum
SMAC spacecraft maximum allowable concentration
TCCS-CP Trace Contaminant Control Simulation-Computer Program
T-value toxic hazard index
U.S. United States
vii
viii
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION
TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION’S

NODE 1—ANALYSIS, DESIGN, AND VERIFICATION
1. INTRODUCTION
Trace chemical contaminant generation inside crewed spacecraft cabins is a technical and
medical problem that must be continuously evaluated. Although passive control through materials
selection and active control by adsorption and catalytic oxidation devices is employed during normal
operations of a spacecraft, contaminant buildup can still become a problem. Buildup is particularly
troublesome during the stages between the final closure of a spacecraft during ground processing
and the time that a crewmember enters for the first time during the mission. Typically, the elapsed
time between preflight closure and first entry on orbit for spacecraft such as Spacelab modules was
30 days. During that time, the active contamination control systems are not activated and contami-
nants can potentially build up to levels which exceed the spacecraft maximum allowable concentra-
tions (SMACs) specified by NASA toxicology experts. To prevent excessively high contamination
levels at crew entry, the Spacelab active contamination control system was operated for 53 hours just
before launch.
Analysis of the atmosphere at initial crew entry during Spacelab missions found that contam-
inant concentrations are relatively low, indicating that the contaminant generation combined with
the prelaunch decontamination was sufficiently conservative to provide the crew with an acceptable
cabin atmosphere.1 As a result, it was found that operating the contamination control system before
launch was not necessary for Spacelab missions. The Space Station, however, presented a new chal-
lenge to contamination control engineering because the various modules may spend long periods
on the ground before launch, leading to a greater potential for significant contaminant buildup by
the time the crew enters a module for the first time. For example, during the Space Station Freedom
program, preliminary analysis of contaminant buildup in Node 2 over a 50-day period—before ini-
tial crew entry—indicated that some type of active contamination control system was necessary to
maintain acceptable contamination levels in the atmosphere.2
The following narrative presents the technical progression between November 1994 and Janu-
ary 1998 for the trace contaminant control technical approach for the International Space Station’s
(ISS’s) Node 1 module. This approach benefited from experience gained during the Spacelab pro-
gram. These materials, presented in three parts, consist of preliminary analysis, detailed performance
analysis, and verification analysis.
1
2. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL DURING INITIAL
ENTRY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION ALPHA NODE 1
The analysis was originally conducted in October 1994 and released under NASA Memoran-
dum ED62(62-94) dated January 10, 1995.
2.1 Background
The redesign of the Space Station as part of the transition from the Space Station Free-
dom program to the International Space Station Alpha (ISSA) program as well as the introduction
of Russian hardware has further complicated the situation for trace contaminant control by not
only introducing unknown contamination sources but also increasing the amount of time between
Node 1 closure on the ground and crew entry during on-orbit Station assembly. The amount of
time which could elapse between Node 1 closure and crew entry was up to 455 days according to the
vehicle assembly schedules. This long period, combined with the lack of active contamination con-
trol hardware within Node 1, raised concern with respect to the safety of the atmosphere within the
Node upon crew entry.
According to the ISSA assembly sequence, the crew from the Shuttle would enter Node 1
during flight 5A on flight day 5. The ISSA configuration during this flight which consists of the U.S.
Laboratory, Node 1, the Russian functional cargo block (FGB), and the Russian service module is
shown in figure 1. Upon entering, 81.55 m3/hr (48 cfm) atmosphere exchange between Node 1 and
the Shuttle would be established. Dilution of the built-up contamination in Node 1 by the cleaner
Shuttle atmosphere occurs as the dominant contamination control mechanism. After 139 minutes,
the crew would open the hatch to the Russian FGB. More dilution could occur at this time; however,
up to an additional 210 minutes would elapse before the 237.86 m3/hr (140 cfm) intermodule venti-
lation would be established. After this ventilation link was established, the Russian microimpurity
adsorption device would provide active contamination control. For the first few hours, however, dilu-
tion via intermodule ventilation would dominate.
To understand the effects of chemical contaminant dilution during the course of flight 5A,
a rigorous analysis was conducted. This analysis investigated the mass balance between the Shuttle
and Node 1 volumes followed by a mass balance between the Shuttle/Node 1 and Russian segment
volumes. The intent was to determine the projected trace chemical contaminant concentration that
the crew will be exposed to during the course of Node 1 activation and establish a technique for
assessing similar situations during the assembly of the ISSA.
2
Figure 1. ISSA configuration for flight 5A.
2.2 Analysis Approach
The ISSA flight 5A configuration was analyzed by setting up a material balance on trace
chemical contaminants in Node 1 and the Shuttle volumes. The material balance equations for two
well-mixed cabin volumes A and B are provided by equations (1) and (2), respectively:

dmA v!B
=
v!
mB − A mA −
∑η v m + r (1)
A A
dt VB VA VA
and

dmB v!A
=
v!
mA − B mB −
∑η v m + r , (2)
B B
dt VA VB VB
where
mA = total mass of contaminant in cabin volume A

mB = total mass of the contaminant in cabin volume B
VA = cabin A free volume
VB = cabin B free volume
v!A = intermodule ventilation flow from cabin volume A to cabin volume B
v!B = intermodule ventilation flow from cabin volume B to cabin volume A
∑η v = removal capacity in the respective cabin volume
rA = generation rate in cabin volume A
rB = generation rate in cabin volume B.
3
Simultaneous solution of equations (1) and (2) provide an equation for each cabin volume in
the form of equation (3):
x2 t x3 t
m = α + βe +γ e , (3)
where
m = total mass of contaminant in the reference cabin volume

a, b, and g = constants calculated from the cabin free volume, ventilation flow,
removal capacity, and contaminant generation rate
x2 and x3 = integration constants calculated from the cabin free volume, ventilation
flow, and removal capacity parameters.
Concentration is calculated by simply dividing the contaminant mass determined from equation (3)
by the cabin free volume.
Node 1 contamination was allowed to build up over a period of 455 days to accommodate
ground processing and the time elapsed on-orbit before crew entry. Crew entry from the Shuttle was
scheduled to occur on flight day 5 of assembly mission 5A. It was assumed that this activity begins
at time equals zero on flight day 5 and that intermodule ventilation is initiated at this time. Up to
349 minutes then elapse before the crew would open the hatch between the Shuttle/Node 1 configu-
ration and the Russian segment. A second pair of differential equations in the form of equation (3)
applies to the Shuttle/Node 1 and Russian segment volumes. Concentrations for 12 contaminants
that were determined to be greater than the NASA SMACs documented in appendix A were calcu-
lated for the Shuttle/Node 1 and Shuttle/Node 1/Russian segment configurations as a function of
time. A period up to 24 hours was investigated to determine whether the contaminant concentra-
tions could be reduced to less than the 180-day SMACs within that time since it is most likely that
reduction to these concentrations within 24 hours would be acceptable both from a toxicological and
safety viewpoint.
Trace chemical contaminant concentrations in Node 1 at the beginning of the flight 5A, flight
day 5 timeline were calculated using the trace contaminant load model generation rates documented
in appendix B. These final concentrations are listed in appendix C. Initial concentrations for the Shut-
tle cabin atmosphere were obtained from postflight Shuttle atmospheric sample analysis results while
initial Russian segment concentrations were based upon steady state concentrations derived from the
load model in appendix B combined with expected contamination control system performance.
An additional case considering Node 1 entry from the Russian segment during flight 3A after
250 days of contaminant buildup was also considered. This case used mass balance equations based
on equation (3) with initial Node 1 concentrations documented in appendix C. As with the assembly
mission 5A case, initial Russian segment concentrations were based upon steady state estimates.
4
2.3 Analysis Results
Calculation of the initial trace chemical contaminant concentrations showed that 12 com-
pounds would most likely exceed their maximum allowable concentrations. Although this comparison
is based upon the NASA 180-day SMACs, most of these compounds would likely be at concentra-
tions higher than the 24-hour SMACs. Table 1 shows a comparison between NASA SMACs, Rus-
sian limiting permissible concentrations (LPCs), and the projected initial concentrations for the 12
compounds in Node 1, the Shuttle cabin, and the Russian segment cabin.
Table 1. Initial cabin concentrations upon Node 1 entry during ISSA flight 5A.
Initial Concentrations
Chemical NASA SMAC Russian LPC (mg/m3)
Compound (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Node 1 Shuttle Russian Segment
Methanol 9 0.2 34.5 0.02 0.8
n-butanol 40 0.8 127 0.07 0.3
Phenol 7.7 0.1 13.1 – 0.03
2-propenal 0.03 – 0.094 – 0.0002
Benzene 0.2 2 0.68 0.003 0.002
2-ethoxyethanol 0.3 – 16.3 0.003 0.04
Dichloromethane 10 – 58.1 0.3 0.14
1,2-dichloroethane 1 0.5 2.1 0.002 0.005
Freon 113 400 – 513 1.5 1.2
Propanone 52 2 98 0.8 0.23
2-butanone 30 0.25 163 0.07 0.38
Carbon monoxide 10 5 55 0.6 0.13
After the Node 1 hatch is opened to the Shuttle and ventilation between the two volumes
is initiated, the chemical contaminant concentrations approach a uniform level in approximately
2 hours. Since the active contamination control capabilities onboard the Shuttle are limited, this
concentration level is maintained until the Shuttle/Node 1 configuration is opened to the Russian
segment which contains a more capable contamination control system. From the time that Node 1
is opened to the Shuttle cabin, approximately 5.8 hours elapses before ventilation is established with
the Russian segment. At this time, the cabin concentrations in Node 1 and the Shuttle are similar as
can be seen in table 2.
Using the final concentrations of table 2 as the new initial contaminant level for the Shuttle/
Node 1 configuration and the Russian segment initial concentrations listed in table 1, a new over-
all concentration level for the Shuttle/Node 1/Russian segment configuration is approached within
another 2 hours. After another 16 hours, all of the problem contaminants are well below their NASA
180-day and 7-day SMACs with the exception of 2-ethoxyethanol which is below its 30-day SMAC.
Table 3 shows the final concentrations for the entire Shuttle/Node 1/Russian segment configuration
23.8 hours after the Node 1 entry activities began. Figures 2 through 5 illustrate typical cabin con-
centration profiles for 2-propenal, dichloromethane, 2-butanone, and carbon monoxide for the flight
5A timeline. Time zero for these profiles is at initial Node 1 entry.
5
Table 2. Shuttle and Node 1 cabin concentrations 5.8 hours
after entering Node 1 during flight 5A.
Final Concentrations
Compound (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Node 1 Shuttle
Methanol 9 0.2 12.1 12
n-butanol 40 0.8 44.7 44.4
Phenol 7.7 0.1 4.6 4.6
2-propenal 0.03 – 0.03 0.03
Benzene 0.2 2 0.24 0.24
2-ethoxyethanol 0.3 – 5.7 5.7
Dichloromethane 10 – 20.6 20.4
1,2-dichloroethane 1 0.5 0.74 0.73
Freon 113 400 – 181.2 180
Propanone 52 2 34.9 34.7
2-butanone 30 0.25 57.3 57
Carbon monoxide 10 5 19.7 19.5
Table 3. Final cabin concentrations in the Shuttle/Node 1 and Russian segment

cabins 23.8 hours after entering Node 1 during flight 5A.
Compound (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Shuttle/Node 1 Russian Segment
Methanol 9 0.2 1.31 1.28
n-butanol 40 0.8 5.03 4.89
Phenol 7.7 0.1 0.52 0.50
2-propenal 0.03 – 0.0037 0.0036
Benzene 0.2 2 0.027 0.026
2-ethoxyethanol 0.3 – 0.64 0.63**
1,2-dichloroethane 1 0.5 0.083 0.081
Freon 113 400 – 20.4 19.8
Propanone 52 2 3.93 3.82
2-butanone 30 0.25 6.46 6.27
** Less than the 30-day SMAC of 2.
6
0.10
0.09 Establish IMV With Shuttle 1-Hr SMAC=0.2
24-Hr SMAC =0.08
0.08
7-Day SMAC =0.03
Concentration (mg/m3)
0.07 Node 1 30-Day SMAC =0.03

180-Day SMAC =0.03
0.06
0.05
Establish IMV With Russian Segment
0.04
0.03
Shuttle/Node 1
0.02 Shuttle
0.01
Russian Segment
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hr)
Figure 2. Cabin concentration profile for 2-propenal during assembly mission 5A.
100
90 1-Hr SMAC=350
24-Hr SMAC =120
80
7-Day SMAC =50
70 Establish IMV With Shuttle 30-Day SMAC =20F2_1715

180-Day SMAC =10
60
50
40 Node 1
30 Establish IMV With Russian Segment
20
Shuttle/Node 1
10 Shuttle
Russian Segment
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hr)
Figure 3. Cabin concentration profile for dichloromethane during assembly mission 5A.
F3_1715
7
170
160 Establish IMV With Shuttle
1-Hr SMAC=150
150 24-Hr SMAC =150
7-Day SMAC =30
140 30-Day SMAC =30
180-Day SMAC =30
130
Russian SMAC = 0.25
120
110
100
Node 1
90
80
60
50
40 Shuttle/Node 1
Shuttle
30
20
10 Russian Segment
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hr)
Figure 4. Cabin concentration profile for 2-butanone during assembly mission 5A.
100
90 1-Hr SMAC=60
24-Hr SMAC =20
80
7-Day SMAC =10
70 F4_1715
30-Day SMAC =10
Establish IMV With Shuttle 180-Day SMAC =5
60
50
40 Node 1
20
Shuttle/Node 1
10 Shuttle
Russian Segment
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hr)
Figure 5. Cabin concentration profile for carbon monoxide during assembly mission 5A.
8
For the case where Node 1 is entered from the Russian segment during flight 3A after 250 days
on orbit, the cabin concentrations for the 12 problem compounds are reduced to the common inter-
mediate level in 1 to 2 hours and all are well below their NASA 180-day SMACs within 24 hours.
Table 4 summarizes the final concentrations experienced for this case. Initial Node 1 concentrations
are listed in appendix C and initial Russian segment concentrations are listed in table 1.
Table 4. Final cabin concentrations in the Node 1 and Russian segment

cabins 24 hours after entering Node 1 during flight 3A.
Compound (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Node 1 Russian Segment
Methanol 9 0.2 0.53 0.52
n-butanol 40 0.8 1.65 1.63
Phenol 7.7 0.1 0.17 0.17
2-propenal 0.03 – 0.00014 0.00014
Benzene 0.2 2 0.0088 0.0087
2-ethoxyethanol 0.3 – 0.21 0.21
1,2-dichloroethane 1 0.5 0.027 0.027
Freon 113 400 – 6.63 6.54
Propanone 52 2 1.27 1.25
2-butanone 30 0.25 2.1 2.07
2.4 Discussion
Analysis results indicate that contaminant concentrations between two connected volumes
reach an intermediate level within approximately 2 hours after initiating intermodular ventilation.
This appears to be consistent for any volume that is launched and integrated with the Space Station
volumes already on orbit. Any additional volumes, such as laboratory modules and logistics mod-
ules, should be within relatively safe trace chemical contaminant concentrations within this period.
Of course, the initial concentration for the new volume plays an important part. The longer the
module is closed, the higher the initial trace contaminant concentration levels and the higher the
initial relative hazard to crew health. This hazard, however, is transient and, for the most part, short
lived. Calculation of the toxic hazard index (T-value) which is the summation of the ratios of each
contaminant’s cabin concentration to its SMAC, ∑η Cvi /Ci SMAC, allows the relative hazard to which
the crewmembers may be subjected during ISSA assembly to be determined. A T-value below 1 is the
desired relative hazard for mixtures of trace chemical contaminants in the cabin atmosphere during
normal spacecraft operations.
Of the 12 compounds that are projected to be greater than their SMAC within the Node 1
volume upon crew entry, 8 contribute substantially to the toxic hazard index. They are methanol,
n-butanol, benzene, dichloromethane, freon 113, 2-propanone, 2-butanone, and carbon monoxide.
These contaminants are also included in the list to be monitored by the ISSA program. For the case
where Node 1 is entered and activated during flight 5A after 455 days on orbit, the toxic hazard index
9
begins at a magnitude of approximately 28. After 5.8 hours, the index decreases to approximately 10.
A toxic hazard index of approximately 1 is achieved about 24 hours after Node 1 is entered for the first
time. By comparison, the toxic hazard index for Node 1 upon entry during flight 3A begins at approxi-
mately 15.5 and is reduced to roughly 4 within 1 hour. After 1.6 hours, the index is 1.6 and is reduced
to 0.4 after 24 hours.
As can be seen by these estimates for the toxic hazard index, the crew hazard at the initial
entry of Node 1 during flight 5A is roughly 28 times that desired for normal cabin conditions; how-
ever, this relative hazard is reduced to the desired level within 24 hours. Likewise, the hazard for
Node 1 entry during flight 3A begins at a level 15 times higher than desired for normal cabin condi-
tions. Similarly, the relative hazard is reduced to 1 or below within 24 hours.
The toxic hazard index is sensitive not only to the contaminant generation rates but also the
number of chemical compounds actually detected and quantified upon initial crew entry. As has
been observed in the past, some generation rates used for analysis have been conservative which leads
to high estimates for cabin concentration and, therefore, a high estimate of the T-value. Efforts to
quantify this conservatism have been made and the rates used for this analysis build upon this experi-
ence by reducing raw offgassing test data by a factor of 11.48.1 This factor accounts not only for tem-
perature-induced conservatism but also for generation rate reduction resulting from material aging.
Since these factors affecting generation rate have been accounted for, the estimates for concentration
and T-value are considered to be with the same order of magnitude for the actual flight hardware and
can be used to make decisions with respect to crew entry during flights 5A and 3A.
2.5 Conclusions
Conclusions based upon the analysis conducted for the initial entry of Node 1 during ISSA
flights 5A and 3A are the following:
(1) Trace chemical contaminant concentrations in the Node 1 volume may exceed long- and
short-duration SMACs for 12 contaminants in the U.S. segment trace contaminant control design
standard upon initial crew entry during flight 5A.
(2) Mixing between element volumes rapidly provides significant contamination level reduction.
(3) Trace chemical contaminant concentrations can be reduced to below all 24-hour SMACs
within 5.8 hours after initiating intermodular ventilation between Node 1 and the Shuttle cabin
during flight 5A.
(4) All contaminant concentrations are reduced to below their 7-day SMACs within 7 hours
after entering Node 1.
(5) Trace chemical contaminant concentrations can be reduced to below U.S. long-duration
SMACs within 23.8 hours after entering Node 1 for the first time by initiating intermodular ventila-
tion between Node 1 and the Russian segment at approximately 5.8 hours after Node 1 is entered for
the first time from the Shuttle.
10
(6) Trace chemical contaminant concentrations can be reduced to below U.S. long-duration
SMACs within 1 hour after entering Node 1 from the Russian segment during flight 3A.
(7) Toxic hazard index estimates indicate that for contaminants to be monitored by the ISSA
program, the index will be at 1 or less within 24 hours after entering Node 1 during flights 5A and 3A.
2.6 Recommendations
Analysis of the trace chemical contamination levels which may be experienced during ISSA
flights 5A and 3A and the conclusions drawn from the analysis indicate that the cabin atmosphere
may present some potential risk to the crew during the first 24 hours after entering Node 1. Based
upon this potential risk, the following recommendations are made:
(1) The NASA toxicology subject matter experts should be consulted by the ISSA program
concerning the results of this analysis to obtain final guidance with respect to entering Node 1 during
either flights 5A or 3A.
(2) Offgassing test data from Node 1 and the Russian segment should be collected to deter-
mine actual ISSA hardware offgassing rates to support a final analysis of trace chemical contami-
nant concentrations in the spacecraft cabin during flights 5A or 3A.
11
3. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL
DURING EARLY INGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION NODE 1
The analysis was originally conducted between March and December 1996 and released under
NASA Memorandum ED62(09-97) dated January 22, 1997.
3.1 Background
Trace chemical contaminant generation from materials offgassing is a pervasive technical

problem during the ISS on-orbit assembly. Although the materials selection and control program pro-
vides a passive means for minimizing generation rates, zero generation cannot be fully achieved. Dur-
ing ISS assembly, buildup of trace contaminants in the habitable atmosphere, in particular Node 1,
has been a problem for various reasons. In some instances, such as Node 1, a long period of time
elapses between ground closeout and the first ingress on orbit. During this time, no power is avail-
able to operate an onboard active contamination control system. Also, constraints in volume and
ventilation system configuration have led to limitations in the Node 1 contamination control system
design. In order to adequately design a contamination control system for Node 1, the challenges that
the situation present, past flight experience, past analyses, the ISS assembly timeline, and active con-
tamination control design options must be thoroughly reviewed and understood.
3.1.1 Node 1 Contamination Control Challenges
Assembly of the ISS presents significant challenges to maintaining an acceptably clean cabin
atmosphere during all phases. Offgassing products from the equipment in Node 1 will accumulate in
its atmosphere for a significant length of time before the initial ingress. In some instances, contami-
nant levels may exceed SMACs. To complicate the assembly timeline, many of the Station elements
either do not have active onboard contamination control systems or have active control systems that
cannot be immediately operated. The requirement for early ingress of Node 1 during flights 2A, 3A,
and 4A present both challenges.
Node 1 is outfitted with four activated charcoal beds that are direct retrofits of the cabin air
particulate filters. However, during flight 2A, electrical power to operate the Node 1 cabin fan is not
available to provide needed atmospheric scrubbing. As a result, alternative means for providing an
acceptably clean atmosphere for the crew during flight 2A must be explored. These means include
purging Node 1 or running the cabin fan while on the ground, taking advantage of the dilution of
contaminants that will occur when the Node 1 and Shuttle atmospheres mix, and operating selected
Shuttle contamination control systems to remove contamination from the combined atmospheres.
Combinations of these means must also be considered and their timely application in the Node 1
ground and on-orbit processing timeline must be determined. Subsequent ingress and intravehicu-
lar activities (IVA) of Node 1 during flights 3A and 4A can benefit from operating the cabin fan to
provide air flow through the charcoal beds. The actual duration of fan operation and the life of the
12
charcoal beds must be assessed to optimize the IVA timeline without compromising crew perfor-
mance and near-term health.
3.1.2 Previous Experience
The challenge presented by Node 1 is not new. The Spacelab program has employed either
a ground purge or activated the cabin fan to draw air through its activated charcoal scrubber to
reduce contamination levels during the time between closeout and on-orbit ingress. As more data
were collected, however, the need to continue large-scale contamination control analyses and ground
operations was significantly reduced. Although preflight performance analyses were eliminated,
reduction of ground operations for Spacelab module missions was recommended to be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis. This approach was determined to be acceptable for Spacelab primarily because
of the wealth of data obtained from previous missions. New spacecraft, however, still require a sig-
nificant amount of preflight analysis and ground processing in addition to onboard contamination
control means to ensure an acceptably clean atmosphere.
3.1.3 Previous Analyses
During the Space Station Freedom program, analysis of the contamination buildup in the
Node 2 atmosphere over a 50-day period before initial ingress indicated that some type of active
contamination control capability was necessary.2 Activated charcoal beds were designed as retrofits
to the particulate filter element assemblies in Node 2 to provide the needed atmospheric scrubbing
capability. Subsequent program restructuring, redesign, and the transition to the ISS with the addi-
tion of Russian hardware has further complicated the situation. Node 1 also became the first U.S.
element to be launch rather than Node 2. Another complicating factor was that the Node charcoal
beds were deleted from the program as a cost savings. Recent analysis of the Node 1 atmospheric
contamination situation has resulted in the revival of the charcoal bed retrofit approach to providing
active contamination control.
Analysis of the Node 1 contamination control situation was first conducted in November
1994 and is summarized in section 2. This analysis considered the effects of dilution of Node 1
contaminant concentrations with the Shuttle atmosphere and the dynamics of this process. In the
analysis, Node 1 was sealed for 455 days before the first ingress that was then planned for flight 4A.
Assessment of the expected contaminant load for Node 1 identified 12 key contaminants that con-
tribute the most to the overall contaminant load. These 12 contaminants were considered in the
detailed analysis. At the end of the 455 days, contaminant concentrations in Node 1 were predicted
to rise well above SMACs. Within 2 hours after initiating intermodule ventilation (IMV) flow, a fully
mixed intermediate concentration is established in the combined Shuttle/Node 1 volume. At that
time, contaminant concentrations were reduced to levels very close to their 7-day SMACs. Four
hours later, the hatch between Node 1 and the Russian segment was opened. After another 2 hours,
a new intermediate concentration for the Shuttle/Node 1/Russian segment volume is reached. This
second plateau effectively reduced contaminant concentrations below their 7-day SMACs. Further
processing by the Russian segment contamination control system reduced the contaminant concen-
trations to below 180-day SMACs.
13
Although an effective approach, relying completely on dilution for contamination control
raised some concerns. First, the initial contaminant concentrations in Node 1 were much higher
than the 7-day SMACs. This presented an unusually high risk to crew health during a time when
they would be conducting a lot of operations. The probability for eye, throat, and nose irritation
in addition to headache was considered to be high. Also, previous agreements with the Russian
side documented by the meeting minutes for the April 1994 meeting of the Group on Toxicological
and Hygienic Evaluation of the ISS Atmosphere to meet Russian maximum allowable concentra-
tions during the early phases of Station assembly could not be readily met before opening the hatch
between Node 1 and the Russian segment. The only way to reliably provide the crew with an accept-
ably clean atmosphere and comply with agreements between the U.S. and Russian sides was to pro-
vide active contamination control in Node 1. The Node charcoal beds were brought back into the
ISS program to meet these requirements.
3.1.4 Timeline Through Flight 4A
The current timeline from Node 1 processing on the ground through crew first entry during
flight 4A is provided in appendix D. This timeline was the most detailed understanding available on
how Node 1 was processed before launch and the approximate timing for ingress during flights 2A,
3A, and 4A. Previous versions of the timeline served as the basis for the trace contaminant control
analyses which follow. These analyses actually helped to refine the timeline to its current status.
After Node 1 was delivered to NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC), it was subjected to vari-
ous acceptance tests. The last powered activity before Node 1 was sealed for launch was a dehumidi-
fication purge through the IMV circuit. This purge was planned to be conducted between 40 and
50 days before launch.
The planning for the time between Node 1 closeout in Huntsville, Alabama, and the purge
40 to 50 days before launch included collecting several grab samples from the sealed cabin atmo-
sphere. The planning for the sampling called for the first sample to be taken while Node 1 was in
Huntsville just before shipment to KSC. A second sample was collected upon Node 1’s arrival at KSC
approximately 10 to 14 days after its closeout in Huntsville. Two to three days later, a third sample
was collected just before Node 1 was opened for acceptance testing. These samples were to be used to
confirm the actual magnitude of contaminant generation rates. Data provided by the samples would
assist in determining precisely what actions are required on-orbit during Node 1 ingress to minimize
the effects that offgassed products may have on crew health and performance.
Ingress during flight 2A was to occur on approximately flight day 8. A 9-month quiescent
period would occur between flights 2A and 3A. Two ingress opportunities were identified for flight 3A
on flight days 4 and 8. Another 3-month quiescent period occurred between flights 3A and 4A. The
final ingress occurred on approximately flight day 7 of flight 4A. After that time, Node 1 was to
remain open to the Russian segment.
14
3.1.5 Charcoal Bed Design
The Node 1 charcoal beds were designed to temporarily take the place of the cabin air par-
ticulate filters. Four filter locations are available with each accommodating up to 127 m3/hr (75 cfm).
Nominal flow through each filter (charcoal bed) during Node 1 ingress was to be at least 85 m3/hr
(50 cfm). Allowable pressure drop for each charcoal bed was 498 Pa (2 inches of water).
The procedure for designing activated charcoal beds is well developed and must consider
the primary contaminants to be removed, their affinity for charcoal, and the total amount to be
removed.1,3 This procedure is iterative to account for multicontaminant adsorption. Example calcu-
lations on charcoal bed sizing are provided in reference 1.
3.1.5.1 Hardware Source Options. As the need for active contamination control means in
Node 1 became apparent, the ISS program began to explore options for their design and fabrica-
tion. Initially, an option to provide the charcoal beds as government-furnished equipment (GFE)
was explored. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) was requested to develop a design and
project plan with a cost estimate in March 1996. At the same time, Hamilton Standard (Windsor
Locks, Connecticut) was requested to study a design. Evaluation of these concepts by the ISS Pro-
gram Office was conducted to select a design that met contamination control requirements and pre-
sented the least risk to the overall hardware development schedule. At the conclusion of this review,
the Hamilton Standard concept was selected for detailed design and ultimate deployment onboard
Node 1.
In September 1996, another GFE atmospheric scrubbing concept was suggested by NASA
Johnson Space Center (JSC). This concept involved the use of existing Shuttle avionics air fans and
odor control filter charcoal beds. Subsequent analysis on the performance of this concept concluded
that it was inadequate to perform the Node 1 atmospheric scrubbing job with respect to logistics
requirements and atmospheric scrubbing time. The Hamilton Standard design was retained as the
Node 1 contamination control hardware baseline. All three concepts are described and their basic
relative performance summarized for completeness.
3.1.5.2 Government-Furnished Equipment Charcoal Bed Design Description and Performance.

Design options developed as GFE included a retrofit to the Node 1 particulate filters and an external
scrubbing kit that used excess Shuttle hardware. These options are described and the results of design
performance analyses discussed.
3.1.5.2.1 Marshall Space Flight Center Option. The MSFC charcoal bed design used the well
documented methodology described in reference 1. The key design-driving contaminant is metha-
nol which is poorly adsorbed by charcoal. Another 11 compounds projected to be present in large
amounts were also considered in the design. To provide adequate conservatism, initial calculations
were based upon an inlet concentration of one-half the SMAC for each contaminant. Original esti-
mates for the internal Node 1 hardware mass were approximately 2,400 kg (5,290 lb). The minimum
amount of charcoal for the saturation zone was determined to be 3.9 kg (8.6 lb), however, analysis of
the adsorption zone length indicated that more charcoal would be necessary to provide a reasonable
bed life. At the flow conditions, breakthrough will occur rapidly, although the large cross-sectional
area helped to reduce linear flow velocity and thus the mass transfer zone velocity through the bed.
15
As the design progressed, an allowable pressure drop of 498 Pa (2 inches of water) was estab-
lished by the ISS program. Also, the air flow rate through each bed was reduced from 127 m3/hr
to 85 m3/hr. At the same time, the Node 1 internal hardware mass basis was increased to 3,900 kg
(8,598 lb) which was considered to be the equivalent of two racks with a support structure. It was
also decided that the design should not take into account any atmospheric leakage and its accompa-
nying contaminant removal assist.
Using the Ergun equation, analysis of the amount of charcoal that would produce a 498 Pa
pressure drop indicated that the filter element volume could theoretically be filled completely with
charcoal. Therefore, a maximum allowable depth of 7.1 cm (2.8 in) was determined based upon the
sizing for the charcoal containment structure. Additional analysis of the amount of charcoal needed
showed that a total of 7.9 kg (17.4 lb) was necessary to do the job. The maximum packing depth was
determined to be 5.8 cm (2.3 in). To accommodate this much charcoal, three of the filter housings
would need to be filled with activated charcoal alone. Pressure drop for this design at the new flow
rate was calculated at 274 Pa (1.1 inches of water) which includes 62 Pa (0.25 inch of water) for the
containment structure.
The final design approach was to fill three beds with the 7.9 kg of activated charcoal. The
fourth bed was to be filled with 2% Pt on charcoal. A sufficient depth of 2% Pt on charcoal is neces-
sary to allow for a sufficient contact time to yield a reasonable single-pass removal efficiency. Typi-
cally, a contact time of no less than 0.2 s yields 100% single-pass removal efficiency.4 Based upon
past performance testing and pressure drop considerations, a depth of 7.1 cm was selected for the
2% Pt on charcoal. This bed would provide a single-pass efficiency for carbon monoxide oxidation
of 98% at ambient temperature and 40% relative humidity. Data on carbon monoxide oxidation
performance in dry air versus 40% relative humidity air for a similar material indicated little impact
on performance. These data as well as the effect of temperature on performance are provided in
appendix E.
Although the bed containing 2% Pt on charcoal would have a pressure drop of only 219 Pa
(0.88 inch of water) compared to the activated charcoal pressure drop of 274 Pa, no appreciable
effects on design performance would result. Natural flow balancing would cause a slight increase in
flow through the 2% Pt on a charcoal bed of no greater than 8.5 m3/hr (5 cfm), thus reducing the
single-pass carbon monoxide oxidation efficiency to a minimum of 87%. Likewise, a slightly reduced
flow through the charcoal beds would enhance single-pass efficiency and slightly extend bed life.
3.1.5.2.2 Johnson Space Center External Kit Option. The concept suggested by JSC used
a Shuttle orbiter avionics air fan combined with flexible ducting, odor control filters (part num-
ber SVHS783970) containing 2.3 kg (5 lb) of activated charcoal, and hydrazine absorber cartridges
(part number SVHS791197) containing 2.3 kg of 2% Pt on charcoal to remove offgassed products
from the Node 1 atmosphere. The flexible ducts connected to the Node 1 IMV ports. The Shuttle
avionics air fan provided up to 170 m3/hr (100 cfm) at a pressure rise of approximately 1.05 kPa
(4.25 inches of water). Analysis of the expected bed pressure drop and contaminant removal capac-
ity was conducted. Pressure drop for the radial flow odor control and hydrazine absorber cartridges
calculated using the Ergun equation ranged between 274 and 324 Pa (1.3 inches of water); how-
ever, contaminant removal performance was found to be poor. This was due to the short bed depth
16
combined with the high air velocity. As a result, scrubbing time was unreasonably long. The best
performance was obtained by scrubbing for 12 hours using a total of 12 beds.
Another alternative was to assess the potential for using a specially-designed axial flow bed
or the Spacelab transfer tunnel scrubber cartridge. The Spacelab cartridge contains phosphoric acid-
treated activated charcoal, untreated activated charcoal, and 2% Pt on charcoal in an axial flow con-
figuration. The specially-designed axial cartridge would contain only activated charcoal and 2% Pt
on charcoal. This option was found to achieve acceptable contaminant removal performance using
three beds over a period of 6 hours using a flow rate of 42 m3/hr (25 cfm) regardless of whether the
specially-designed or Spacelab cartridge was used. Unfortunately, excess hardware was not avail-
able from the Spacelab program. Also, the calculated packing pressure drop for an axial flow bed
was found to be 747 Pa (3 inches of water). Additional pressure drop for the housing and charcoal
containment structure, ducting, and IMV ports would most likely exceed the 1.05 kPa pressure rise
provided by the Shuttle avionics air fan. Previous testing of the Spacelab tunnel scrubber pressure
drop indicated a total pressure drop in excess of 996 Pa (4 inches of water) at 4.2 m3/hr (2.5 cfm).
Additional pressure drop versus flow testing would need to be conducted for this option; however, it
was considered unlikely that the pressure drop would be compatible with the external kit concept.
Based upon the performance analyses conducted on the external scrubbing kit option, it was
not selected for use in decontaminating the Node 1 atmosphere.
3.1.5.3 Hamilton Standard Charcoal Bed Design Description and Performance. The Ham-
ilton Standard design was slightly different from the MSFC design in that each bed contains both
activated charcoal and 2% Pt on charcoal. In all, the beds contained a total of 4.3 kg (8.7 lb) of
charcoal and 3.4 kg (7.5 lb) of 2% Pt on charcoal. The charcoal packing depth was approximately
3.2 cm (1.25 in) while the 2% Pt on charcoal packing depth was 2.5 cm (1 in). The 2% Pt on charcoal
provided approximately 36% single-pass oxidation efficiency for carbon monoxide. The estimated
pressure drop ranged between 130 Pa (0.52 inch of water) and 249 Pa (1 inch of water) for the pack-
ing with another estimated 62 Pa (0.25 inch of water) for the containment structure.
Initial analysis of the performance of this design option centered upon using the same design
and performance assessment criteria used for the MSFC design. These criteria indicated that an
additional 0.43 kg (0.94 lb) of charcoal would be necessary to achieve a similar performance to the
MSFC design. This would require increasing the charcoal packing depth by 1.3 cm (0.5 in).
In order to determine whether the Hamilton Standard-provided charcoal beds could do the
job with no modification, detailed assessments of performance must be conducted. These assess-
ments must emphasize the various system-level assists to contamination control provided by dilution
with the Shuttle atmosphere, Shuttle-provided contamination control equipment, and ground pro-
cessing operations. This analysis and its results follow.
17
3.2 Node 1 Charcoal Bed Performance Analyses
Performance analyses were conducted for the baseline Node 1 charcoal beds to be provided
by Hamilton Standard to ensure that the design contamination load can be controlled. All system
level and timeline analyses were conducted by building the appropriate input files and then using the
Trace Contaminant Control Simulation-Computer Program (TCCS-CP), Version 8.1, to project bed
performance and the resulting cabin concentrations. The TCCS-CP is well documented and has been
subjected to a validation and general uncertainty analysis.5–7 According to the general uncertainty
analysis, results from the TCCS-CP are considered to be within ±16% for projected contaminant
concentrations. This is well within the observed analytical uncertainty of most contamination con-
trol system tests and analytical results from grab samples.
3.2.1 Basic Analysis Assumptions
Basic assumptions established for all phases of the analyses are the following:
• Cyclic Node 1 atmospheric conditions for temperature and relative humidity have negligible effects
on the total mass of offgassed products.
• The Node 1 leakage rate is zero.
• Pressurized free volumes are 6.1 m3 (215.4 ft3) for the pressurized mating adapter (PMA), 51.3 m3
(1,811.6 ft3) for Node 1, and 65.8 m3 (2,323.7 ft3) for the Shuttle.
• The total Node 1 internal hardware mass contributing to offgassing is 3,536 kg (7,795.5 lb).
• The total scrubbing flow rate is 340 m3/hr (200 cfm) with the flow split evenly between the four
charcoal beds.
• Each charcoal bed contains 1.07 kg (2.36 lb) of activated charcoal packed to a depth of 3.2 cm
(1.25 in) and 0.85 kg (1.87 lb) of 2% Pt on charcoal packed to a depth of 2.5 cm (1 in).
• Seven-day SMACs apply.
• The load model documented by the U.S. Lab Prime Item Development Specification (document
number S683-29523, table VII-A) applies.
• Contaminant generation rates are considered to be constant with little decay over time which is
considered to be a worst case.
These assumptions were used for parametric and timeline analyses to validate the charcoal
bed performance and, therefore, the feasibility of the proposed Node 1 ingress timeline from element
closeout through flight 4A. In addition, the life limitations of the charcoal beds were assessed to
determine how long the Node 1 cabin fan may be activated during this timeframe.
18
It should be noted that recent studies of offgassing have shown that using 72-hour offgassing
test data as the rate basis and assuming a constant rate over time provides accurate predictions up to
70% of the time.8 Furthermore, offgassing regimes exhibited are the following:
• Offgassing that decreases with time.

• Continuous offgassing.
• Continuous offgassing after an induction period.
Of the materials studied, 30% exhibit offgassing type 1, 39% exhibit type 2, and 31% exhibit type 3.8
In total, 69% exhibit some type of continuous offgassing characteristics. Given this high percentage
for continuous offgassing, the assumption that rates are constant over time is considered to be appro-
priate and to provide adequate conservatism to any contamination control performance analysis.
3.2.2 Full Factorial Performance Analysis
The first issue that needed clarification was the timing of the initial ingress during flight 2A
relative to any ground-based purge or scrub of the Node 1 atmosphere. The duration of the scrub
time also had to be determined. Not only would this scrub time apply to flight 2A but also to flights
3A and 4A. A full factorial analysis was conducted using a reduced list of contaminants for simplic-
ity. Primary conclusions from this analysis are the following:
• Scrubbing effectiveness is highest during the first few hours. An optimum scrubbing time of 2 hours
was recommended for all flights.
• Contamination levels at ingress are most sensitive to internal hardware mass.
• The ground scrub or purge needed to occur within 17 days of Node 1 launch to ensure an accept-
ably clean atmosphere as initially defined by the JSC Toxicology Group to be a T-value ≤1.
3.2.3 Toxicological Guidelines
The first two conclusions from the full factorial analysis present no problems to the Node 1
ingress scenarios. The short-duration scrub and assessment of the charcoal bed performance using
a high internal mass provide for adequate margin in capabilities. The third conclusion, however, pres-
ents a particular challenge to ground-processing activities for Node 1. In addition, by using the full
contaminant load model, the criteria for meeting the acceptable T-value of 1 was virtually impossible
since the purge or scrub would have to be conducted very close to launch. A better definition for an
acceptably clean atmosphere for initial ingress was needed to resolve this situation.
Discussions with NASA toxicology experts led to establishing ground rules for defining
an acceptably clean atmosphere for crew entry. Table 5 summarizes these ground rules. The initial
T-value is the relative contamination level at the time on-orbit decontamination operations begin.
The allowable scrub time is the amount of time that the crew may be exposed to a continuously
decreasing relative contamination based upon the initial value. In addition, the number of days that
may pass until the respective T-value is reached is provided. In addition, it was established that if
19
a T-value of 3 or less was present in Node 1 at ingress, the crew could enter without any special pre-
cautions. At the same time, personnel at KSC indicated that an acceptable window for conducting
a ground purge or scrub was at approximately launch minus 43 days.
As can be seen in table 5 and figure 6, it is most likely that a T-value of 6 or lower at mis-
sion 2A ingress would be expected based upon the ISS design load model with 3,536 kg of internal
Node 1 hardware contributing to the contamination generation rate and a ground decontamination
within 68 days of ingress. However, to achieve a T-value of 3 or less, the ground decontamination
would have to occur closer to launch than the allowable 43 days. Therefore, some additional on-orbit
processing would have to occur.
Table 5. Ingress contamination control ground rules.

Initial Allowable Days to
Node T-Value Scrub Time (hr) T-Value
10 1 109
7 2 78
6 8 68
5 24 57
4 36 47
12
11
10
9
8
7
T-Value
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 25 50 75 100 125
Time to Reach T-Value (days)
Figure 6. Node 1 relative contamination buildup.
3.2.4 Flight 2A Analysis
In order to determine whether the available contamination control means could effectively
reduce the predicted relative contamination in Node 1 to a T-value <1, an analysis was conducted
for each initial T-value case in table 5.
F6_1715
20
Since power was not available to Node 1 during flight 2A, a means other than operating the
Node 1 cabin fan must be employed to reduce the relative contamination levels to within a T-value
of 1 within the specified amount of time. Scrubbing means available included the Shuttle condensing
heat exchanger, the ambient temperature catalytic oxidizer (ATCO), dilution provided by combin-
ing the Shuttle and Node 1 cabin volumes, and expendable activated charcoal beds (part number
SVHS783970) in place of one Shuttle lithium hydroxide bed. Under normal circumstances, it is
assumed that the Shuttle relative contamination will be approximately a T-value of 0.5.
In the simulation timeline, once the Node 1 hatch is opened, the crew establishes ventilation
between the Shuttle and Node 1 at a minimum of 85 m3/hr (50 cfm). Air flow through the condensing
heat exchanger is 655 kg/hr (1,445 lb/hr). The flow rate through the ATCO and expendable charcoal
bed is 1.7 m3/hr (1 cfm) and 42.5 m3/hr (25 cfm), respectively. Humidity condensate is removed at the
equivalent of a seven-person production rate of 0.69 kg/hr (1.5 lb/hr) to account for soluble com-
pound removal via absorption in humidity condensate. Two hours pass before the combined Shuttle/
Node 1 volume would reach full dilution according to the analysis in part I. The dilution is simulated
by increasing the simulation reference volume from 57 m3 (2,012.9 ft3) to 133 m3 (4,696.8 ft3) within
the 2 hours. Once the Node 1 hatch is opened, 6 hours of scrubbing by the available Shuttle systems
is conducted in parallel with the dilution.
The results from the analysis are provided in table 6. Representative plots of relative con-
tamination over time for each run are provided in figures 7 through 11. As can be seen from table 6
and figures 7 through 11, the available Shuttle contamination control systems can accommodate
a Node 1 starting T-value of 6. This result applies not only to flight 2A but also flights 3A and 4A.
Based upon an extrapolation of the analysis data, 7.3 hours and 11.3 hours are required to reduce
the Node 1 T-value magnitude from 7 and 10 to 1, respectively. Logistics requirements are provided
in table 7.
Table 6. Time to reduce Node 1 contamination to acceptable limits.

Initial Node Allowed Time Predicted Time
T-Value to T = 1 (hr) to T = 1 (hr)
10 1 11.3
7 2 7.3
6 8 6
5 24 4.8
4 36 3.3
21
22
T-Value T-Value
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1367.5
1367.8 1127.7
1368.1 1128
1368.4 1128.3
1368.7 1128.6
1369 1128.9
1369.3 1129.2
1369.6 1129.5
1369.9 1129.8
1370.2 1130.1
1370.5 1130.4
1370.8 1130.7
Time (hr)
1371.1 1131
Time (hr)
1371.4 1131.3
1371.7 1131.6
1372 1131.9
1372.3 1132.2
1372.6 1132.5
1372.9 1132.8
1373.2 1133.1
1373.5 1133.4
1373.8 1133.7
1134
F7_1715
Figure 8. Node 1 decontamination on-orbit 57 days after ground purge.

F8_1715
T-Value T-Value
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1871.6 1631.6
1631.8
1871.9 1632
1872.2 1632.2
1632.4
1872.5 1632.6
1872.8 1632.8
1633
1873.1 1633.2
1873.4 1633.4
1633.6
1873.7 1633.8
1874 1634
1634.2
1874.3 1634.4
1874.6 1634.6
1634.8
1874.9 1635
Time (hr)
Time (hr)
1875.2 1635.2
1635.4
1875.5 1635.6
1875.8 1635.8
1636
1876.1 1636.2
1876.4 1636.4
1636.6
1876.7 1636.8
1877 1637
1637.2
1877.3 1637.4
1877.6 1637.6
1637.8
1877.9 1638

F9_1715
F10_1715
23
11
10
9
8
7
6
T-Value
5
4
3
2
1
0
2620.41
2620.71
2621.01
2621.31
2621.61
2621.91
2615.6
2616.9
2616.2
2616.5
2616.8
2617.1
2617.4
2617.7
2618.3
2618.6
2618.9
2619.2
2619.5
2619.8
2620.1
2618
Time (hr)
Table 7. Logistics requirements.

Initial Node Number
T-Value of Charcoal Beds
F11_1715
10 12
7 8
6 6
5 5
4 4
Based upon these analysis results, it was concluded that the Node 1 ground decontamination
must be conducted within 68 days of ingress (60 days before launch). Also, additional resources must
be provided onboard the Shuttle to provide an acceptably clean atmosphere in the combined Shuttle/
Node 1 volume within an acceptable time period. The assistance provided by the Shuttle hardware
should be capable of reducing the Node 1 contamination to within acceptable levels within 6 hours.
The crew should be able to enter Node 1 for IVA 1 hour after initiating the atmospheric exchange
and, at the same time, operating the Shuttle contamination control systems. A launch slip that would
place the last ground decontamination more than 68 days before ingress would require a second
ground decontamination to ensure that toxicological requirements are met. It should be noted that
the atmospheric samples taken from Node 1 will further assist in refining the results of this analysis.
24
3.2.5 Flights 3A and 4A Analysis
A complete analysis of the timeline described earlier and documented in appendix F was con-
ducted to obtain a complete estimate of the Node 1 charcoal bed capacity as well as the estimated
relative contamination during the later ingress operations. This analysis used the basic analysis
assumptions listed previously; however, instead of utilizing a dry gas purge for ground decontamina-
tion, the Node 1 cabin fan was turned on. This approach represents a worst case load for the charcoal
beds during the Node 1 ingress timeline through flight 4A. The chief design-driving compound for
determining Node 1 charcoal bed life is methanol. Therefore, the ability to reduce methanol concen-
trations effectively in addition to the T-value levels were considered.
As previously noted, concern existed with respect to the Node 1 charcoal bed capacity over
the required useful life. In this case, up to 436 days elapse between when Node 1 is sealed on the
ground and the ingress operations during flight 4A. If no leakage or dilution effects are considered,
theoretically, the charcoal beds are undersized. However, when dilution by the Shuttle atmosphere is
considered, the Node 1 charcoal bed design is capable of meeting the total requirements for relative
contamination as well as for meeting SMACs. Figure 12 shows the relative contamination profile for
the entire Node 1 ground and flight processing timeline. Peaks in relative contamination occur after
ground closeout just before the ground decontamination and at flights 2A, 3A, and 4A just before
on-orbit decontamination operations. It is expected that T-values in Node 1 of up to 2.5, 1.4, and 2
will be experienced just before ingress. Individual assessment of each flight follows.
30
25 3A
20
T-Value
15
4A
10
Ground
Scrub
2A
5
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Elapsed Time From Ground Scrub (hr)
Figure 12. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during missions 2A, 3A, and 4A
(launch minus 45-day scrub and full specification load).
F12_1715 25
Detailed analysis of flight 2A was presented earlier. Figure 8 best represents the situation dur-
ing flight 2A ingress. The relative contamination in Node 1 will rise to a T-value of approximately 5.
In this case, the crew will open the Node 1 and PMA hatches, initiate IMV flow, and return to the
Shuttle for at least 1 hour while the atmospheric mixing combined with the contamination removal
provided by Shuttle systems reduces the relative contamination level. According to table 3, at least
five charcoal canisters will be needed in the Shuttle manifest for flight 2A. During this operation, the
T-value is reduced to less than 1 in 5 hours.
Between flights 2A and 3A, up to 9 months elapse. Figure 13 illustrates the situation during
flight 3A. Relative contamination in Node 1 will rise to a T-value of up to 23.6. At this time, the
Node 1 cabin fan will be started and run for at least 2 hours before the Node 1 hatch is opened and
IMV flow is established. This scrub will reduce the T-value to 1.45. At that time, the Node 1 hatch
will be opened, and IMV flow established. Mixing of the Node 1 and Shuttle atmospheres over the
next 2 hours results in a final T-value of 0.7. In this case, no special contamination control equip-
ment is necessary in the Shuttle manifest to meet the toxicological requirements for an acceptably
clean atmosphere.
25
20
15
T-Value
10
2-hr scrub reduces the
T-value from 23.6 to 1.45.
A dilution to a T-value of
5 0.69 with the Shuttle
volume follows.
0
7,895 7,900 7,905 7,910 7,915 7,920 7,925 7,930 7,935 7,940 7,945
Elapsed Time From Ground Closeout (hr)
Figure 13. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during mission 3A

Up to 3 months elapse between flights 3A and 4A. Figure 14 shows the flight 4A situation
in detail. During this time, the relative contamination rises to a T-value of approximately 10.9. Two
hours before ingress, the Node 1 cabin fan is started and run for at least 2 hours. The T-value is
reduced to 2 during this time. At the end of 2 hours, the Node 1 hatch is opened andF13_1715
IMV flow estab-
lished. Over the next 2 hours, the T-value is further reduced to 0.9 by the mixing of the Node 1 and
Shuttle atmospheres. As with flight 3A, no special contamination control equipment is necessary in
the Shuttle manifest.
26
12
10
8
T-Value
0
10,440 10,445 10,450 10,455 10,460 10,465 10,470
Elapsed Time From Ground Closeout (hr)
Figure 14. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during mission 4A

3.3 Other Considerations
Other factors can have effects on the performance of the Node 1 charcoal beds and the need
F14_1715
for additional Shuttle-provided contamination control hardware. The effects of ground purge air
cleanliness and purge methodology may prematurely load the Node 1 charcoal beds. At the same
time, programmatic agreements to meet selected Russian maximum allowable concentrations dur-
ing the early ISS assembly timeline may require additional Shuttle-provided contamination control
hardware. Simplified analyses have been conducted to address these concerns.
3.3.1 Effects of Contamination of Ground Purge Air on Charcoal Bed Capacity
In the event that the method of conducting a ground purge of the Node 1 atmosphere requires
both purge air and Node 1 atmosphere to flow through the Node 1 charcoal beds via the cabin air
circuit, a potential for reduced charcoal bed life may exist. A preliminary analysis was conducted to
assess the effects of such a purge on charcoal bed useful life. The purge air contamination specifica-
tion is not yet available; therefore, the capacity for the bed design driver, methanol, has been assessed
for purposes of the preliminary analysis.
Considering that up to 4.5 mg/day of methanol can be produced from the Node 1 hardware,
a total of up to 1,958 mg may be produced during the total 436 days between ground closeout and
4A ingress. The original charcoal bed design is for 455 days of offgassing or 2,043 mg of methanol.
Therefore, a margin of 19 days or 85 mg of methanol offgassing exists.
27
If the ground purge is conducted via the cabin air circuit at approximately 40 days before
launch, then up to 135 mg of methanol will have been produced. Assuming that the purge air con-
tains no detectable methanol (only light hydrocarbons such as methane) and that the purge provides
at least a 50% dilution of the Node 1 atmosphere flowing through the charcoal beds, then approxi-
mately 67 mg of methanol would load onto the charcoal beds. At this level, an 18-mg methanol
(4-day) margin exists. The margin for methanol control goes to zero if the purge is conducted 37
days after Node 1 closeout. Therefore, any ground purge via the cabin air circuit may have to be con-
ducted within 37 days after Node 1 closeout. Overall, a purge through the IMV circuit with no flow
through the charcoal beds would be the preferred option to eliminate these concerns.
Caution should be exercised regarding this preliminary analysis. Since the purge air con-
tamination specification is not yet available, a final recommendation cannot yet be made. Additional
analysis will be required if a purge through the cabin air circuit is selected.
3.3.2 Capability to Meet Selected Russian Maximum Allowable Concentrations
The 1994 protocol between U.S. and Russian experts on contamination control and analysis
established 12 contaminants for which Russian maximum allowable concentrations must be met dur-
ing early ISS assembly operations. For a 12th compound, benzene, the Russian side adopted the U.S.
SMAC of 0.2 mg/m3. Table 8 summarizes this agreement.
Table 8. Contaminant limits from April 1994 U.S.-Russian protocol.

Concentration
Limit
Compound (mg/m3)
n-butanol 0.8
Methanol 0.2
Ethanol 10
Formaldehyde 0.05
Acetaldehyde 1
Benzene 0.2
Toluene 8
Isopropylbenzene 0.25
Ethyl acetate 4
Acetone 1
Carbon monoxide 5
By considering the previous analysis conducted for flights 2A, 3A, and 4A, it is possible to
estimate the contaminant concentrations that may be present for these compounds at the time the
U.S. and Russian segments are opened to each other. These concentrations are summarized in table 9
and assume that the Russian segment is composed of the FGB, Service module, and Universal Dock-
ing module. As can be seen, n-butanol, methanol, and acetone present the greatest challenge rela-
tive to the table 8 maximum allowable concentrations. According to the analysis presented in part I,
dilution between the Shuttle/Node 1 and Russian segment would be expected to take approximately
2 hours. After dilution is complete, a midpoint concentration would be achieved. A summary of
28
concentrations for the three problem compounds after dilution with the Russian segment is provided
in table 10. Of these compounds, only methanol cannot be reduced to below its maximum allowable
concentration listed in table 8.
Table 9. Contaminant concentrations in Shuttle/Node 1 before opening FGB hatch.

Concentration
Limit Flight 2A Flight 3A Flight 4A
Compound (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)
n-butanol 0.8 1.4 0.04 0.08
Methanol 0.2 0.9 4.1 5.8
Ethanol 10 3.5 1.7 2.9
Formaldehyde 0.05 0* 0* 0*
Acetaldehyde 1 0.08 0.2 0.3
Benzene 0.2 0.01 0.002 0.002
Toluene 8 0.7 0.02 0.05
Isopropylbenzene 0.25 0.004 0.0001 0.0003
Ethyl acetate 4 0.1 0.009 0.02
Acetone 1 1.8 0.4 0.7
Carbon monoxide 5 2.8 0.2 0.1
* Insufficient data to estimate a generation rate or concentration.
Table 10. ISS contaminant concentrations after dilution with the Russian segment.
Maximum Average Diluted Concentrations
Concentration Russian
Limit Concentration Flight 2A Flight 3A Flight 4A
Compound (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)
n-butanol 0.8 0.17 0.6 0.12 0.14
Methanol 0.2 0.27 0.5 1.7 2.3
Acetone 1 0.66 0.6 0.56 0.67
In order to address the methanol problem, additional means for removing methanol have
been considered. These include additional Shuttle-provided charcoal beds and replacement Node 1
charcoal beds to be used before opening the FGB hatch. Concentration decay calculations based
upon a 50% removal capacity estimate 19.5 hours, and 2.4 hours would be necessary to further
reduce the Shuttle/Node 1 methanol concentration to the table 8 maximum allowable using Shuttle-
provided charcoal beds and fresh Node 1 charcoal beds, respectively. From a logistics and timeline
viewpoint, replacing the Node 1 charcoal beds is the better approach.
If the standard Russian trace contaminant control equipment is available onboard the Service
module, the methanol concentration estimated for flight 4A would be reduced to the table 8 maxi-
mum allowable within 51 hours. This assumes that the regeneration cycle is accelerated to maintain
at least a 50% methanol removal efficiency. This approach would be capable of reducing the Rus-
sian segment methanol concentration to the maximum allowable within 45 hours at flight 3A and
20 hours at flight 2A.
29
Formaldehyde is a concern mainly because it is difficult to monitor and little flight data are
available. Recent analyses for formaldehyde onboard both the Shuttle and Mir, however, indicate that
concentrations may be expected to be very close to the maximum allowable. Average concentrations
reported from samples collected onboard Mir have been reported to be approximately 0.058 mg/
m3 according to measurements made during the Mir 18 expedition. Similarly, samples collected
onboard the Shuttle during STS-67 have reported average concentrations of 0.056 mg/m3. It would
be reasonable, therefore, to assume that the situation during flights 2A, 3A, and 4A would be very
similar. There would appear to be no impact to either the Shuttle/Node 1 or Russian segment atmo-
sphere with respect to formaldehyde.
From this analysis, it is likely that some means of active contamination control would have
to be used to reduce the combined Shuttle/Node 1 contamination to within the table 8 limits before
opening the Node 1 and FGB hatches unless a joint agreement can be reached regarding methanol.
Methanol is well below the NASA SMAC of 9 mg/m3 during all early Node 1 ingress scenarios as
shown in tables 9 and 10; however, the joint agreement summarized in table 8 is not met. Given that
the methanol concentration is not presenting an immediate threat to the crew life or health according
to U.S. SMAC documentation, additional discussion between the U.S. and Russian sides is necessary
to resolve this matter.
3.4 Conclusions
Based upon the basic understanding of contamination buildup in the Node 1 atmosphere
over time and the information gained by the performance analysis of the available Node 1 and
Shuttle contamination control systems, conclusions that can be reached are the following:
• Ground decontamination is necessary to meet toxicological guidelines for an acceptably clean

atmosphere in Node 1 during ingress operations during flight 2A.
• A ground decontamination at approximately launch minus 43 days (51 days before ingress)
provides a margin of up to 17 days to accommodate a launch slip.
• The Node 1 charcoal bed capacity is sufficient to provide an acceptably clean atmosphere in Node 1
during all on-orbit ingress operations when dilution with the Shuttle atmosphere is considered.
• If a dry air purge through the cabin air circuit of Node 1 is selected as the ground decontamination
and/or dehumidification means, it must occur within 37 days of Node 1 closeout to prevent exces-
sive charcoal bed loading.
• Further decontamination by Shuttle contamination control systems is necessary to provide an

acceptably clean atmosphere for flight 2A.
• Each Shuttle charcoal canister (SVHS783970) has approximately a 1-hour useful life.
• At least 2 hours of Node 1 cabin fan operation is necessary to reduce the relative contamination to
an acceptable level for flights 3A and 4A.
30
• Charcoal bed capacity should not be significantly affected by low levels of contamination in the
ground purge air if the contamination is limited to highly volatile hydrocarbons such as methane;
however, these effects should be reassessed in the event that a purge via the cabin air circuit is
selected.
• Additional contamination control means may be necessary to meet selected Russian maximum
allowable concentrations for early Node 1 ingress during flights 2A, 3A, and 4A.
3.5 Recommendations
Based upon the detailed analysis of contamination control in Node 1 during ingress opera-
tions, recommendations are the following:
• Conduct Node 1 ground decontamination within 68 days of flight 2A ingress.
• Conduct the dry air purge via the IMV circuit within 68 days before on-orbit ingress as the primary
ground decontamination means.
• Operate the Node 1 cabin fan as the backup ground decontamination means if significant launch
delays occur and another purge is not feasible.
• Manifest at least six charcoal canisters (SVHS783970) onboard the Shuttle for flight 2A to provide
contamination control capabilities.
• Replace each Shuttle charcoal canister after no more than 1 hour.
• Operate Shuttle contamination control systems for up to 6 hours total.
• Operate the Node 1 cabin fan for at least 2 hours before ingress during flights 3A and 4A to reduce
the Node 1 relative contamination to an acceptable level.
• Reassess the effects of low level purge air contamination Node 1 charcoal bed life once its specifica-
tion becomes better defined.
• Negotiate an agreement between the U.S. and Russian sides regarding methanol concentrations
during early Node 1 ingress.
Since the analysis conducted is based upon contaminant generation rates obtained from sta-
tistical assessment of flight offgassing data, good engineering practice dictates that data obtained
from the Node 1 flight configuration be used as a final check to validate these analytical results.
Therefore, it is further recommended that the conclusions and recommendations be revisited once
grab samples of the Node 1 atmosphere have been collected and analyzed. Final conclusions and
recommendations should be based upon the actual Node 1 offgassing data. However, the current
conclusions and recommendations are considered to be valid and to possess appropriate conserva-
tism for planning purposes.
31
4. VERIFICATION ANALYSIS OF THE TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL
CAPABILITY FOR INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION NODE 1
The analysis was originally conducted in December 1997 and released under NASA Memo-
randum ED62(104-97) dated January 8, 1998.
4.1 Background
Trace contaminant control of the cabin atmosphere is a challenge that spans the design, man-
ufacturing, on-orbit deployment, and operations of a spacecraft. While efforts are made during the
design and manufacturing phases to limit the sources of trace chemical contamination, they cannot
be eliminated altogether. For this reason, active contamination control means must be considered for
use aboard spacecraft.
4.1.1 Node 1 Contamination Control
Node 1 represents a specific challenge to the ISS because of the relatively long quiescent peri-
ods that will occur from the time that it is sealed for launch until it is finally part of a habitable Space
Station at the conclusion of assembly flight 4A. During these periods, Node 1 is in an inactive state
and trace chemical contaminants may build up to unacceptable levels as described by previous analy-
ses in sections 2 and 3. This presents a problem because of plans to enter Node 1 several times during
assembly flights 2A, 2A.1, 3A, and 4A. Although the Russian-built FGB has active contamination
control capabilities, they cannot be used because the Node will not have permanent electrical power
to allow for proper thermal control. Therefore, the hatch between Node 1 and the FGB will remain
closed until assembly flight 4A. As a result, Node 1 is considered to be a stand-alone element that
must provide its own contamination control capability during the period from its closeout before
launch and its permanent activation during assembly flight 4A.
4.1.2 Cabin Air Catalyst Element Assembly Description
In order to address this problem, Node 1 has been outfitted with four cabin air catalyst ele-
ment assemblies (CACEAs) containing Barnebey & Sutcliffe type 3032, 4 × 6 mesh phosphoric acid-
treated granular activated charcoal (AC/GAC) and Engelhard Corporation 2% Pt on charcoal (2%
Pt/GAC). The design of the CACEA has been incremental. They were first introduced during the
Space Station Freedom program when it became apparent that an additional means for actively con-
trolling trace chemical contamination buildup in a Node during the early phases of Space Station
assembly. Several possible designs were considered as discussed in section 3.
The final design selected was provided to the ISS program by United Technologies Corp.
Hamilton Standard Space Systems International, Inc. of Windsor Locks, Connecticut. This design,
shown in cross section in figure 15, calls for the retrofit of four cabin air bacteria filter elements with
32
AC/GAC and 2% Pt/GAC. Minimum packing depths of the AC/GAC and 2% Pt/GAC are 3.3 cm
(1.3 in) and 1.27 cm (0.5 in), respectively. Verification of these packing depths was reported by Ham-
ilton Standard in analysis inspection records that were completed on June 2, 1997, and provided
herein as appendix G. Flow dimensions of the CACEA are approximately 72.3 cm (28.48 in) long and
9.2 cm (3.6 in) wide providing an area of 662.4 cm2 (102.7 in2) according to an inspection of a cabin
air bacteria filter element (CACEA) part number SVSK119898 manufactured on November 22,
1993, for NASA Contract NAS8-50000.
Cap
Cover Spring Upper Support Lifting Upper Pressure
Assembly
(Two Places) Frame Strap Plate
Filter Seal
Flow
Cover Lifting
Spring Handle Cap
Assembly
Screen
Upper Support
Frame
Upper Pressure
Filter Plate
Screen
Diffuser
Charcoal
Catalyst Filter
Wire Bag
Screen Diffuser
Catalyst Lower Pressure
Plate
Filter Lower Support
Screen Frame
Filter Seal
Flow Screen
Figure 15. CACEA features and cross section.
F15_1715
33
4.2 Requirements
Specific requirements regarding Node 1 contamination control are contained in the Node 1
Prime Item Development Specification (PIDS). Paragraphs 3.2.1.63 and 4.3.2.1.63 provide details
on the Node 1 contamination control capability and verification requirements. A summary of these
requirements is provided by the following:
• Control individual contaminant concentrations to less than or equal to the appropriate SMAC
listed in Node 1 PIDS (tables XI and XII).
• The trace contaminant load model basis is defined by Node 1 PIDS (table XII).
• The internal hardware mass contributing to trace contaminant generation is 2,359 kg (5,200 lb).
• No metabolic contaminant generation.
• Verification is by analysis and inspection.
• Catalytic filter qualification test data will be used for the verification analysis.
Further, a trace chemical contaminant removal verification analysis report is required that includes
the qualification data used in the analysis.
In addition to the Node 1 PIDS requirements, toxicological guidelines for ingress operations
have been issued by JSC’s Medical Sciences Division. These guidelines center upon the T-value which
is defined by T = ∑ηCvi /CSMAC, where Ci is the individual contaminant concentration and CSMAC is
the respective SMAC. The T-value guidelines are provided in table 5. The Node 1 verification analy-
sis also addresses these guidelines even though they are not a Node 1 PIDS requirement. According
to the guidelines, if the predicted T-value is ≤3, then ingress without first scrubbing Node 1 can be
considered acceptable. All other cases require some form of active contamination removal before
ingress.
4.3 Purpose
The purpose of the analysis summarized by the following discussion is to verify that the
Node 1 trace contaminant control capability, at a minimum, meets the requirements for trace con-
taminant control summarized by Node 1 PIDS (paragraphs 3.2.1.63 and 4.3.2.1.63).
4.4 Objectives
Verification of the Node 1 trace contaminant removal capability was conducted by analysis.
Specific objectives of the analysis which allow for appropriate verification of this capability are the
following:
• Determine the trace contaminant concentrations during early Node 1 ingress operations during
assembly flights 2A, 2A.1, 3A, and 4A.
• Determine the adequacy of the Node 1 CACEAs for meeting the relevant Node 1 PIDS
requirements.
34
4.5 Assumptions
To conduct the Node 1 trace contamination control capability verification analysis, assump-
tions must be made concerning the offgassing rates flight, cabin atmospheric conditions, hardware
configuration, CACEA configuration, and mission timeline.
4.5.1 Offgassing and Cabin Conditions
Basic assumptions pertaining to offgassing rates and cabin atmospheric conditions for all
phases of the verification analysis are the following:
• Node 1 internal hardware mass contributing to offgassing is 2,359 kg according to Node 1 PIDS
3.2.1.63 for analysis case 1.
• Node 1 internal hardware mass contributing to offgassing is most likely to be 1,361 kg (3,000 lb)
according to ISS program Product Group 1 mass properties analyses for analysis case 2.
• Node 1 leakage is zero.
• Node 1 atmospheric conditions are on average 10 ºC (50 ºF), 30% relative humidity (20 ºF dew-
point), and 1 atm.
• Offgassing rates are defined by the Node 1 PIDS (table XII). These rates are constant with time and
effects of temperature and pressure fluctuations are negligible.
• Seven-day SMACs apply for the analysis. 180-day SMACs are included for comparison to satisfy
Node 1 PIDS (paragraph 3.2.1.63).
4.5.2 Node 1 Configuration
On orbit, Node 1 is attached to a PMA which is in turn attached to the Shuttle during each
assembly flight. Node 1 is provided with a contamination control capability consisting of a cabin
fan and four CACEAs located in the cabin air return duct in place of the cabin air bacteria filter
elements. The configuration provides at least 340 m3/hr (200 ft3/min) total air flow rate through the
CACEAs. Assumptions pertaining to the Node 1 configuration and its contamination control capa-
bility are the following:
• Pressurized free volumes of Node 1, the PMA, and Shuttle are 51.3 m3 (1,811.6 ft3), 6.1 m3 (215.4 ft3),
and 65.8 m3 (2,323.6 ft3), respectively.
• The total Node 1 scrubbing rate is 340 m3/hr with the flow split evenly between four individual
CACEAs.
• Each CACEA has a minimum AC/GAC packing depth of 3.3 cm (1.3 in) and a 2% Pt/GAC pack-
ing depth of 1.27 cm (0.5 in).
35
4.5.3 Mission Timeline
Node 1 is launched during assembly flight 2A. Approximately 45 days before launch, a final
purge is conducted to provide a dry atmosphere. This purge has the added benefit of removing
trace contaminants. During mission 2A, Node 1 ingress activities are conducted on flight day 8.
The ingress operation begins with a 2-hr scrub of the Node 1 atmosphere using the Node 1 cabin
fan and four CACEAs. Following the scrub, the hatch is opened and IMV between Node 1 and the
Shuttle cabin is initiated. The IMV forces an additional dilution of the remaining trace contaminants
in Node 1’s atmosphere. Ingress operations continued for approximately 8 hours. At the completion
of flight 2A, a period of untended operations of approximately 150 days begins. After that time, the
next planned ingress activities occur during assembly of flight 2A.1. Multiple ingress events occur
during flight 2A.1. A similar ingress approach employing a 2-hr scrub followed by hatch opening and
IMV activation. At the conclusion of flight 2A.1, the expended CACEAs are replace with fresh ones.
There are approximately 30 days between flights 2A.1 and 3A. Ingress operations during flight 3A
are the same as those for previous flights. After flight 3A, approximately 90 days elapse before flight 4A.
Again, the same ingress approach is used. After flight 4A, Node 1 is operationally supported for trace
contaminant control by the Russian segment. Details on the timeline are provided in appendix F.
4.6 Approach
The following discussion summarizes the trace contaminant load model, the analytical tool,
and cases considered for the analysis.
4.6.1 Load Model
The trace contaminant load model is defined by Node 1 PIDS (table XII) and provided herein
in appendix B. This model was derived from Spacelab program mission offgassing data and repre-
sents the 95% confidence interval upper bound for expected offgassing rates from spacecraft hard-
ware.9 The 2,359 and 1,361 kg Node 1 hardware mass cases were applied to the load model to derive
the generation rates used for the verification analysis. The resulting rates are provided in appendix H.
4.6.2 Trace Contaminant Control Simulation Computer Program
The TCCS-CP, version 8.1, was used to conduct the analysis.6 This analytical tool calculates
the cabin concentration of individual trace chemical contaminants when generated at a specified rate
and controlled by any combination of removal devices. It contains subroutines for simulating the
performance of AC/GAC and 2% Pt/GAC. The TCCS-CP, version 8.1, has previously been assessed
for its applicability for use in spacecraft trace contaminant control verification analyses and was
found to be acceptable.7
The subroutine for the 2% Pt/GAC uses a carbon monoxide oxidation performance basis
previously reported by Lockheed-Martin in Sunnyvale, California, in 1977.4 This basis has been
checked against qualification data supplied by Hamilton Standard and was found to predict carbon
monoxide removal efficiency consistent with low temperature operations for the CACEA geometry.
The TCCS-CP predicts a 17.8% removal efficiency for a 0.0355-s residence time at 24 ºC. By compar-
ison, the 2% Pt/GAC qualification data provided in appendix I shows a similar performance: 17.7%
36
removal efficiency for a 0.033-s residence time at 10 ºC. Therefore, using the TCCS-CP 2% Pt/GAC
subroutine for the documented CACEA geometry results in a conservative performance assessment.
4.6.3 Analysis Cases Considered
Two analytical cases were considered. The first uses the Node 1 PIDS load model applied to
2,359 kg of internal hardware. The second uses a hardware mass basis of 1,361 kg. In both cases, the
cabin temperature is 10 ºC to most accurately simulate 2% Pt/GAC performance. Data from each
case were obtained at the completion of the preingress scrub to demonstrate compliance with the
Node 1 PIDS requirements.
4.7 Results
Tables 11 and 12 summarize the results of the Node 1 contamination control verification
analysis. The results using an offgassing basis of 2,359 kg of internal hardware are provided in
table 11 and the offgassing basis of 1,361 kg are provided in table 12. As can be seen by these results,
no single contaminant exceeds either its 7- or 180-day SMAC at the conclusion of the preingress
scrub for assembly flights 2A, 2A.1, 3A, and 4A. Figures 16 and 17 show the relative contamination
as defined by the T-value during the entire mission timeline. The T-value was calculated using the
7-day SMAC only because the mission duration for each flight is closer to 7 days and crew exposure
to the Node 1 contamination load after each preingress scrub is much less than 7 days. In all cases,
the ingress toxicological guidelines summarized in table 5 are met.
Table 11. Trace contaminant concentrations for Node 1

for the 2,359-kg hardware basis.
Compound Concentration (mg/m3) SMAC (mg/m3)

Name 2A 2A.1 3A 4A 7-Day 180-Day
Methanol 8.38E-01 2.47E+00 6.05E-01 1.55E+00 9.00 9.00
Ethanol 2.49E-01 1.03E+00 1.77E-01 6.18E-01 2,000.00 2,000.00
2-propen-1-ol 1.10E-04 2.71E-04 7.93E-05 1.89E-04 1.00 1.00
2-propanol 4.25E-02 1.03E-01 3.21E-02 7.25E-02 150.00 150.00
n-propanol 3.86E-03 8.63E-03 2.90E-03 6.24E-03 98.00 98.00
1,2-ethanediol 1.22E-04 2.65E-04 9.17E-05 1.94E-04 13.00 13.00
2-methyl-1-propanol 4.11E-03 8.29E-03 3.23E-03 6.23E-03 120.00 120.00
n-butanol 1.23E-02 2.29E-02 1.01E-02 1.78E-02 80.00 40.00
n-pentanol 4.48E-04 8.59E-04 3.60E-04 6.56E-04 130.00 130.00
Phenol 1.11E-03 1.93E-03 9.21E-04 1.54E-03 7.70 7.70
Cyclohexanol 1.45E-03 2.56E-03 1.21E-03 2.02E-03 120.00 120.00
2-hexanol 1.02E-05 2.24E-05 7.79E-06 1.62E-05 170.00 170.00
Methanal 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.05 0.05
Ethanal 2.02E-02 9.18E-02 1.38E-02 5.51E-02 4.00 4.00
2-propenal 3.18E-04 8.38E-04 2.25E-04 5.68E-04 0.03 0.03
Propanal 1.22E-02 3.29E-02 8.79E-03 2.22E-02 95.00 95.00
Butanal 4.62E-03 9.90E-03 3.55E-03 7.25E-03 120.00 120.00
Pentanal 5.58E-04 1.22E-03 4.23E-04 8.88E-04 110.00 110.00
37
for the 2,359-kg hardware basis (Continued).

Benzaldehyde 9.26E-05 1.92E-04 7.19E-05 1.42E-04 173.00 173.00
Benzene 5.26E-04 1.25E-03 3.86E-04 8.80E-04 1.50 0.20
Methylbenzene 6.67E-03 1.34E-02 5.29E-03 1.01E-02 60.00 60.00
Ethenylbenzene 1.32E-04 2.75E-04 1.02E-04 2.03E-04 43.00 43.00
1,2-dimethylbenzene 1.18E-03 2.21E-03 9.58E-04 1.70E-03 220.00 220.00
Ethylbenzene 4.21E-04 8.35E-04 3.35E-04 6.29E-04 130.00 130.00
Alpha-methylstyrene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 140.00 140.00
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 7.24E-05 1.34E-04 5.96E-05 1.03E-04 15.00 15.00
1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene 1.38E-05 2.82E-05 1.09E-05 2.10E-05 25.00 25.00
Isopropylbenzene 3.53E-05 7.11E-05 2.81E-05 5.31E-05 74.00 74.00
Propylbenzene 2.93E-04 5.16E-04 2.46E-04 4.05E-04 49.00 49.00
1-isopropyl-4-methylbenzene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.10 0.10
Methanoic acid methyl ester 3.92E-04 1.07E-03 2.77E-04 7.19E-04 0.10 0.10
Methanoic acid ethyl ester 2.52E-04 6.31E-04 1.81E-04 4.35E-04 91.00 91.00
Ethanoic acid methyl ester 3.88E-03 9.37E-03 2.84E-03 6.57E-03 120.00 120.00
Ethanoic acid ethyl ester 2.94E-03 6.60E-03 2.21E-03 4.76E-03 180.00 180.00
Methyl 2-methyl propenoate 8.92E-04 1.95E-03 6.78E-04 1.42E-03 100.00 100.00
Ethanoic acid isopropyl ester 5.59E-05 1.31E-04 4.14E-05 9.25E-05 210.00 210.00
Ethanoic acid propyl ester 1.36E-03 2.81E-03 1.06E-03 2.08E-03 170.00 170.00
Ethanoic acid butyl ester 1.23E-03 2.24E-03 1.02E-03 1.74E-03 190.00 190.00
Ethanoic acid isobutyl ester 3.80E-04 7.54E-04 3.03E-04 5.67E-04 190.00 190.00
Lactic acid ethyl ester 1.71E-05 3.70E-05 1.30E-05 2.70E-05 190.00 190.00
Ethanoic acid amyl ester 7.52E-05 1.40E-04 6.20E-05 1.07E-04 160.00 160.00
2-ethoxyethyl ethanoate 8.09E-04 1.33E-03 6.99E-04 1.07E-03 160.00 160.00
1,4-epoxy-1,3-butadiene 2.32E-04 6.17E-04 1.64E-04 4.17E-04 0.11 0.11
1,4-epoxybutane 1.81E-03 4.34E-03 1.33E-03 3.05E-03 120.00 120.00
Diethyl ether 1.50E-03 3.56E-03 1.10E-03 2.51E-03 240.00 240.00
2-methylfuran 1.38E-04 3.44E-04 9.91E-05 2.38E-04 0.13 0.13
2-ethoxyethanol 1.80E-03 3.42E-03 1.45E-03 2.62E-03 3.00 0.30
Chloromethane 6.12E-03 2.33E-02 4.23E-03 1.41E-02 41.00 41.00
Chloroethene 3.40E-04 1.01E-03 2.41E-04 6.60E-04 3.00 3.00
Chloroethane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 260.00 260.00
Dichloromethane 1.47E-01 6.46E-01 1.02E-01 3.82E-01 50.00 10.00
1,1-dichloroethene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.90 7.90
1,2-dichloroethane 1.77E-03 4.17E-03 1.30E-03 2.95E-03 2.00 1.00
Chlorobenzene 5.13E-03 1.01E-02 4.09E-03 7.64E-03 46.00 46.00
1,2-dichloropropane 1.29E-04 3.06E-04 9.49E-05 2.16E-04 42.00 42.00
Trichloromethane 7.24E-04 1.79E-03 5.22E-04 1.24E-03 4.90 4.90
Trichloroethene 1.47E-03 3.41E-03 1.09E-03 2.43E-03 50.00 10.00
1,1,1-trichloroethane 6.31E-03 1.42E-02 4.75E-03 1.02E-02 160.00 160.00
1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.50 5.50
1,2-dichlorobenzene 3.37E-05 7.13E-05 2.60E-05 5.25E-05 30.00 30.00
Tetrachoromethane 2.15E-04 5.18E-04 1.56E-04 3.63E-04 13.00 13.00
Tetrachloroethene 3.54E-03 7.33E-03 2.75E-03 5.45E-03 34.00 34.00
Chlorodifluoromethane 1.28E-02 6.03E-02 8.70E-03 3.55E-02 350.00 350.00
Dichlorofluoromethane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 21.00 21.00
1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluorethane 3.36E-04 8.67E-04 2.39E-04 5.92E-04 480.00 480.00
38

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.11E-03 2.93E-03 7.82E-04 1.98E-03 490.00 490.00
1,2-dichloro-1,2-difluoroethene 1.20E-04 3.08E-04 8.55E-05 2.10E-04 140.00 140.00
Trichlorofluoromethane 3.39E-02 9.06E-02 2.46E-02 6.12E-02 560.00 560.00
Bromotrifluoromethane 4.45E-02 2.26E-01 3.00E-02 1.29E-01 11,000.00 11,000.00
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 7.24E-04 1.79E-03 5.23E-04 1.24E-03 700.00 700.00
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 8.17E-02 1.99E-01 6.28E-02 1.38E-01 400.00 400.00
Tetrachlorodifluoroethane 2.45E-04 5.51E-04 1.85E-04 3.96E-04 830.00 830.00
Methane 1.39E+00 4.79E+00 1.07E+00 3.17E+00 3,800.00 3,800.00
Ethene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 340.00 340.00
Ethane 1.08E-03 5.45E-03 7.40E-04 3.28E-03 1,200.00 1200.00
Propene 3.16E-04 9.44E-04 2.23E-04 6.16E-04 860.00 860.00
Propane 2.26E-04 6.16E-04 1.59E-04 4.13E-04 900.00 900.00
1,3-butadiene 2.21E-04 5.75E-04 1.57E-04 3.92E-04 0.70 0.13
1-butene 2.93E-03 7.53E-03 2.11E-03 5.16E-03 460.00 460.00
2-methylpropane 4.19E-04 1.06E-03 3.00E-04 7.28E-04 240.00 240.00
Butane 2.16E-04 5.44E-04 1.55E-04 3.75E-04 240.00 240.00
1-pentene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 190.00 190.00
2-methylbutane 4.76E-05 1.17E-04 3.44E-05 8.14E-05 300.00 300.00
Pentane 1.12E-03 2.61E-03 8.31E-04 1.85E-03 590.00 590.00
Cyclohexane 2.54E-03 5.54E-03 1.93E-03 4.03E-03 210.00 210.00
Methylcyclopentane 3.05E-04 7.01E-04 2.27E-04 5.00E-04 52.00 52.00
2,2-dimethylbutane 2.49E-05 5.95E-05 1.83E-05 4.18E-05 88.00 88.00
3-methylpentane 4.68E-05 1.09E-04 3.47E-05 7.73E-05 1,800.00 1,800.00
Hexane 3.88E-04 8.54E-04 2.95E-04 6.18E-04 180.00 180.00
1-heptene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 200.00 200.00
Methylcyclohexane 2.60E-04 5.55E-04 2.01E-04 4.07E-04 60.00 60.00
Heptane 1.59E-04 3.28E-04 1.25E-04 2.43E-04 200.00 200.00
1,1-dimethylcyclohexane 1.36E-04 2.75E-04 1.08E-04 2.05E-04 120.00 120.00
Trans-1,2-dimethylcyclohexane 1.27E-04 2.55E-04 1.01E-04 1.91E-04 120.00 120.00
Octane 3.07E-05 6.05E-05 2.48E-05 4.55E-05 350.00 350.00
Nonane 9.45E-06 1.75E-05 7.85E-06 1.34E-05 320.00 320.00
Isopropenylmethylcyclohexene 4.70E-06 9.03E-06 3.84E-06 6.84E-06 557.00 557.00
Decane 2.11E-05 3.27E-05 1.87E-05 2.68E-05 230.00 230.00
Undecane 1.39E-05 1.95E-05 1.28E-05 1.67E-05 320.00 320.00
Dodecane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 280.00 280.00
2-propanone 7.72E-02 2.37E-01 5.60E-02 1.53E-01 50.00 50.00
2-butanone 4.03E-02 9.49E-02 3.08E-02 6.72E-02 30.00 30.00
2-pentanone 4.12E-05 9.65E-05 3.04E-05 6.83E-05 70.00 70.00
3-methyl-2-butanone 2.96E-04 6.67E-04 2.22E-04 4.79E-04 70.00 70.00
4-methyl-3-penten-2-one 6.82E-04 1.38E-03 5.36E-04 1.03E-03 40.00 40.00
Cyclohexanone 1.16E-03 2.00E-03 9.72E-04 1.59E-03 60.00 60.00
4-methyl-2-pentanone 2.79E-03 5.22E-03 2.28E-03 4.01E-03 140.00 140.00
Acetophenone 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 250.00 250.00
2-octanone 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 100.00 100.00
2,6-dimethyl-4-heptanone 3.61E-06 6.48E-06 3.04E-06 5.03E-06 58.00 58.00
Hydrogen sulfide 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.80 2.80
Carbonyl sulfide 6.03E-03 2.68E-02 4.31E-03 1.72E-02 12.00 12.00
Dimethyl sulfide 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.50 2.50
Carbon disulfide 2.59E-03 6.99E-03 1.84E-03 4.72E-03 16.00 16.00
Ethanoic acid 2.12E-04 5.40E-04 1.51E-04 3.71E-04 7.40 7.40
39

Methyl cyanide 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.70 6.70
2,3-benzopyrrole 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.25 0.25
Hydrogen 1.36E-03 4.03E-03 9.17E-04 2.60E-03 340.00 340.00
Ammonia 2.58E-05 2.84E-05 2.53E-05 2.70E-05 7.00 7.00
Carbon monoxide 5.42E-01 1.61E+00 3.66E-01 1.04E+00 10.00 10.00
Trimethylsilanol 1.11E-03 2.43E-03 8.46E-04 1.77E-03 40.00 40.00

for the 1,361-kg hardware basis.

Methanol 4.91E-01 1.30E+00 3.54E-01 1.23E+00 9.00 9.00
Ethanol 1.47E-01 5.32E-01 1.06E-01 3.33E-01 2,000.00 2,000.00
2-propen-1-ol 6.10E-05 1.52E-04 4.38E-05 1.05E-04 1.00 1.00
2-propanol 2.77E-02 6.52E-02 2.09E-02 4.63E-02 150.00 150.00
n-propanol 2.52E-03 5.69E-03 1.88E-03 4.10E-03 98.00 98.00
1,2-ethanediol 8.28E-05 1.83E-04 6.19E-05 1.33E-04 13.00 13.00
n-butanol 8.28E-03 1.56E-02 6.70E-03 1.20E-02 80.00 40.00
n-pentanol 2.96E-04 5.80E-04 2.35E-04 4.39E-04 130.00 130.00
Phenol 7.50E-04 1.35E-03 6.15E-04 1.06E-03 7.70 7.70
Cyclohexanol 9.64E-04 1.75E-03 7.92E-04 1.37E-03 120.00 120.00
2-hexanol 5.81E-06 1.29E-05 4.40E-06 9.32E-06 170.00 170.00
Methanal 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.05 0.05
Ethanal 1.13E-02 4.74E-02 7.77E-03 2.89E-02 4.00 4.00
2-propenal 2.22E-04 5.84E-04 1.57E-04 3.96E-04 0.03 0.03
Propanal 7.59E-03 2.00E-02 5.48E-03 1.36E-02 95.00 95.00
Butanal 3.00E-03 6.50E-03 2.30E-03 4.75E-03 120.00 120.00
Pentanal 3.62E-04 8.02E-04 2.73E-04 5.80E-04 110.00 110.00
Benzaldehyde 6.07E-05 1.28E-04 4.68E-05 9.44E-05 173.00 173.00
Benzene 3.38E-04 8.06E-04 2.47E-04 5.67E-04 1.50 0.20
Methylbenzene 4.38E-03 8.91E-03 3.45E-03 6.66E-03 60.00 60.00
Ethenylbenzene 8.58E-05 1.82E-04 6.62E-05 1.34E-04 43.00 43.00
Ethylbenzene 2.74E-04 5.54E-04 2.16E-04 4.14E-04 130.00 130.00
Alpha-methylstyrene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 140.00 140.00
1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene 9.15E-06 1.90E-05 7.17E-06 1.40E-05 25.00 25.00
Isopropylbenzene 2.25E-05 4.61E-05 1.77E-05 3.42E-05 74.00 74.00
Propylbenzene 1.88E-04 3.41E-04 1.56E-04 2.65E-04 49.00 49.00
1-isopropyl-4-methylbenzene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.10 0.10
40

Methanoic acid methyl ester 2.71E-04 7.40E-04 1.91E-04 4.96E-04 0.10 0.10
Methanoic acid ethyl ester 1.62E-04 4.08E-04 1.16E-04 2.81E-04 91.00 91.00
Ethanoic acid methyl ester 2.46E-03 5.96E-03 1.79E-03 4.17E-03 120.00 120.00
Ethanoic acid ethyl ester 1.90E-03 4.31E-03 1.43E-03 3.10E-03 180.00 180.00
Methyl 2-methyl propenoate 5.78E-04 1.28E-03 4.37E-04 9.25E-04 100.00 100.00
Ethanoic acid isopropyl ester 3.66E-05 8.62E-05 2.70E-05 6.09E-05 210.00 210.00
Ethanoic acid propyl ester 8.83E-04 1.86E-03 6.83E-04 1.37E-03 170.00 170.00
Ethanoic acid butyl ester 7.96E-04 1.49E-03 6.52E-04 1.14E-03 190.00 190.00
Ethanoic acid isobutyl ester 2.45E-04 4.96E-04 1.94E-04 3.70E-04 190.00 190.00
Lactic acid ethyl ester 1.23E-05 2.71E-05 9.38E-06 1.96E-05 190.00 190.00
Ethanoic acid amyl ester 4.79E-05 9.10E-05 3.91E-05 6.94E-05 160.00 160.00
2-ethoxyethyl ethanoate 5.19E-04 8.77E-04 4.43E-04 7.00E-04 160.00 160.00
1,4-epoxy-1,3-butadiene 1.24E-04 3.31E-04 8.77E-05 2.24E-04 0.11 0.11
1,4-epoxybutane 1.14E-03 2.76E-03 8.35E-04 1.94E-03 120.00 120.00
Diethyl ether 9.49E-04 2.27E-03 6.96E-04 1.60E-03 240.00 240.00
2-methylfuran 9.74E-05 2.44E-04 6.98E-05 1.69E-04 0.13 0.13
2-ethoxyethanol 1.19E-03 2.32E-03 9.52E-04 1.77E-03 3.00 0.30
Chloromethane 3.20E-03 1.16E-02 2.21E-03 9.28E-03 41.00 41.00
Chloroethene 1.78E-04 5.14E-04 1.26E-04 3.39E-04 3.00 3.00
Chloroethane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 260.00 260.00
Dichloromethane 8.40E-02 3.27E-01 5.91E-02 2.00E-01 50.00 10.00
1,1-dichloroethene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.90 7.90
1,2-dichloroethane 1.13E-03 2.69E-03 8.30E-04 1.90E-03 2.00 1.00
Chlorobenzene 3.39E-03 6.78E-03 2.68E-03 5.10E-03 46.00 46.00
1,2-dichloropropane 8.13E-05 1.94E-04 5.94E-05 1.37E-04 42.00 42.00
Trichloromethane 4.61E-04 1.15E-03 3.32E-04 7.94E-04 4.90 4.90
Trichloroethene 9.39E-04 2.20E-03 6.92E-04 1.56E-03 50.00 10.00
1,1,1-trichloroethane 4.07E-03 9.24E-03 3.05E-03 6.63E-03 160.00 160.00
1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.50 5.50
1,2-dichlorobenzene 2.17E-05 4.66E-05 1.66E-05 3.41E-05 30.00 30.00
Tetrachoromethane 1.31E-04 3.19E-04 9.51E-05 2.23E-04 13.00 13.00
Tetrachloroethene 2.32E-03 4.88E-03 1.79E-03 3.60E-03 34.00 34.00
Chlorodifluoromethane 7.02E-03 3.04E-02 4.82E-03 1.82E-02 350.00 350.00
Dichlorofluoromethane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 21.00 21.00
1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 2.14E-04 5.54E-04 1.52E-04 3.78E-04 480.00 480.00
Dichlorodifluoromethane 6.71E-04 1.78E-03 4.75E-04 1.20E-03 490.00 490.00
1,2-dichloro-1,2-difluoroethene 6.53E-05 1.68E-04 4.63E-05 1.15E-04 140.00 140.00
Trichlorofluoromethane 2.12E-02 5.50E-02 1.54E-02 3.76E-02 560.00 560.00
Bromotrifluoromethane 2.40E-02 1.09E-01 1.64E-02 6.37E-02 11,000.00 11,000.00
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 4.52E-04 1.12E-03 3.26E-04 7.78E-04 700.00 700.00
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 5.23E-02 1.22E-01 4.01E-02 8.61E-02 400.00 400.00
Tetrachlorodifluoroethane 1.57E-04 3.56E-04 1.17E-04 2.55E-04 830.00 830.00
Methane 8.03E-01 2.77E+00 6.19E-01 1.83E+00 3,800.00 3,800.00
Ethene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 340.00 340.00
Ethane 4.84E-04 2.33E-03 3.32E-04 1.40E-03 1,200.00 1,200.00
Propene 1.65E-04 4.79E-04 1.16E-04 3.15E-04 860.00 860.00
Propane 1.21E-04 3.26E-04 8.45E-05 2.19E-04 900.00 900.00
1,3-butadiene 1.55E-04 4.02E-04 1.10E-04 2.74E-04 0.70 0.13
1-butene 1.82E-03 4.65E-03 1.31E-03 3.19E-03 460.00 460.00
2-methylpropane 2.69E-04 6.82E-04 1.92E-04 4.69E-04 240.00 240.00
41

Butane 1.38E-04 3.51E-04 9.90E-05 2.41E-04 240.00 240.00
1-pentene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 190.00 190.00
2-methylbutane 2.63E-05 6.52E-05 1.89E-05 4.51E-05 300.00 300.00
Pentane 7.11E-04 1.67E-03 5.25E-04 1.18E-03 590.00 590.00
Cyclohexane 1.64E-03 3.63E-03 1.24E-03 2.63E-03 210.00 210.00
Methylcyclopentane 1.97E-04 4.57E-04 1.46E-04 3.25E-04 52.00 52.00
2,2-dimethylbutane 1.39E-05 3.34E-05 1.01E-05 2.34E-05 88.00 88.00
3-methylpentane 3.06E-05 7.19E-05 2.26E-05 5.08E-05 1,800.00 1,800.00
Hexane 2.47E-04 5.51E-04 1.87E-04 3.97E-04 180.00 180.00
1-heptene 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 200.00 200.00
Methylcyclohexane 1.67E-04 3.61E-04 1.28E-04 2.63E-04 60.00 60.00
Heptane 1.03E-04 2.15E-04 8.00E-05 1.58E-04 200.00 200.00
1,1-dimethylcyclohexane 8.69E-05 1.79E-04 6.83E-05 1.33E-04 120.00 120.00
Trans-1,2-dimethylcyclohexane 8.15E-05 1.67E-04 6.43E-05 1.24E-04 120.00 120.00
Octane 1.91E-05 3.83E-05 1.53E-05 2.86E-05 350.00 350.00
Nonane 5.89E-06 1.12E-05 4.85E-06 8.49E-06 320.00 320.00
Isopropenylmethylcyclohexene 3.34E-06 6.51E-06 2.71E-06 4.90E-06 557.00 557.00
Decane 1.29E-05 2.05E-05 1.14E-05 1.67E-05 230.00 230.00
Undecane 8.53E-06 1.22E-05 7.80E-06 1.04E-05 320.00 320.00
Dodecane 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 280.00 280.00
2-propanone 4.79E-02 1.36E-01 3.49E-02 9.03E-02 50.00 50.00
2-butanone 2.62E-02 6.01E-02 2.00E-02 4.30E-02 30.00 30.00
2-pentanone 2.95E-05 6.95E-05 2.17E-05 4.91E-05 70.00 70.00
3-methyl-2-butanone 1.91E-04 4.35E-04 1.42E-04 3.11E-04 70.00 70.00
4-methyl-3-penten-2-one 4.45E-04 9.20E-04 3.47E-04 6.83E-04 40.00 40.00
Cyclohexanone 7.69E-04 1.37E-03 6.37E-04 1.08E-03 60.00 60.00
4-methyl-2-pentanone 1.82E-03 3.47E-03 1.47E-03 2.65E-03 140.00 140.00
Acetophenone 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 250.00 250.00
2-octanone 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 100.00 100.00
2,6-dimethyl-4-heptanone 2.56E-06 4.68E-06 2.14E-06 3.61E-06 58.00 58.00
Hydrogen sulfide 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.80 2.80
Carbonyl sulfide 3.34E-03 1.54E-02 2.37E-03 9.84E-03 12.00 12.00
Dimethyl sulfide 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.50 2.50
Carbon disulfide 1.60E-03 4.28E-03 1.14E-03 2.90E-03 16.00 16.00
Ethanoic acid 1.16E-04 2.98E-04 8.27E-05 2.04E-04 7.40 7.40
Methyl cyanide 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.70 6.70
2,3-benzopyrrole 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.25 0.25
Hydrogen 8.15E-04 2.42E-03 5.50E-04 1.56E-03 340.00 340.00
Ammonia 1.49E-05 1.64E-05 1.46E-05 1.56E-05 7.00 7.00
Carbon monoxide 3.13E-01 9.27E-01 2.11E-01 5.97E-01 10.00 10.00
Trimethylsilanol 7.20E-04 1.59E-03 5.45E-04 1.15E-03 40.00 40.00
42
12
Mission Post-Scrub T-Value

2A 0.18 2A.1
10 2A.1 0.54
3A 0.13
4A 0.34
8
4A
T-Value
4 2A
3A
2
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Elapsed Time From Ground Scrub (hr)
Figure 16. Relative contamination of Node 1 for a 2,359-kg hardware basis.
7
Mission Post-Scrub T-Value
2A 0.11 2A.1
6
2A.1 0.30
3A 0.08 F16_1715
4A 0.24
5
4 4A
T-Value
2A
2
3A
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Time From Ground Purge (hr)
Figure 17. Relative contamination of Node 1 for a 1,361-kg hardware basis.
43
4.8 Conclusion
Based upon the analysis results, it is concluded that the Node 1 contamination removal capa-
bility provided by the CACEAs exceeds that required by the Node 1 PIDS.
44
5. SYNOPSIS
The technical challenges associated with trace contaminant control engineering during the
ISS’s early assembly stages have been presented and discussed. Contaminant buildup during quies-
cent periods between habitable module launch and on-orbit activation as well as the periods between
crew visits before permanent habitation was identified as the major challenge.
Early assessment presented in section 2 identified the challenge and developed the cabin
material balance equations and techniques. The material balance equations and analysis approach
became the primary method for assessing dynamic contamination control during the ISS’s assembly
and operation. This initial effort also found that two adjacent habitable volumes approach a well-
mixed condition within 2 hours after ventilation is initiated between them. At prevailing intermodule
ventilation flow rates, this time period for approaching a well-mixed condition has been repeatable.
The early assessment recommended that each habitable element be subjected to an offgassing test
to obtain data that allows for the actual trace contaminant load to be determined and compared to
the load used for design. Determining the actual trace contaminant load verifies the effectiveness of
passive trace contaminant control methods as well as aids in quantifying the active contamination
control operational margins.
The assessment presented in section 3 evaluated a more detailed assembly mission timeline
and the effectiveness of three active trace contaminant control options. The final active contamina-
tion control approach was evaluated in detail. This approach included scrubbing the Node 1 cabin
for 2 hours before first entry and supplementing the Node 1 active contamination control resources
with Shuttle-provided resources. This assessment also recommended that in-flight cabin atmospheric
grab samples be collected as an aid to verify the approach. The practice of collecting in-flight cabin
atmospheric grab samples during habitable module first entry ultimately becomes the accepted prac-
tice throughout the ISS’s assembly and operations.
Active trace contaminant control performance validation analysis presented in section 4 found
that the capability provided in Node 1 exceeded specified requirements. Not only were the engineer-
ing requirements exceeded but also the cabin atmospheric quality guidelines established by NASA
toxicology personnel were met. The cabin atmospheric quality guidelines presented in sections 3 and 4
became the basis for flight rules governing ISS habitable module first entry operations.
The engineering analysis techniques and tools developed throughout this period of ISS devel-
opment became the standard by which each new habitable module was assessed in support of its acti-
vation on orbit. These techniques and tools are directly applicable to future crewed space exploration
missions and programs.
45
APPENDIX A—NASA AND RUSSIAN MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS
46
Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations
NASA Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration (mg/m3)
Current
Chemical Compound 7-Day 1-Hr 24-Hr 7-Day 30-Day 180-Day
Methanol 52.4 40.0 13.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Ethanol 94.0 4,000.0 4,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0
2-propanol 98.3 1,000.0 240.0 150.0 150.0 150.0
n-butanol 121.0 150.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 40.0
2-methyl-2-propanol 121.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 100.0
1,2-ethanediol 127.0 35.0 10.0 1.6 0.3 0.2
1,5-pentanedial 0.1 0.49 0.08 0.024 0.012 0.002
2-propenal 0.11 0.2 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03
Methanal 0.12 0.5 0.12 0.05 0.05 0.05
Ethanal 54.0 20.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Benzene 0.32 35.0 10.0 1.6 0.3 0.2
Ethylbenzene 86.8 780.0 260.0 130.0 130.0 50.0
Methylbenzene 75.3 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
Dimethylbenzene (o-, m-, p-) 86.8 430 430 220 220 220
Ethyl acetate 180.0 1,440.0 1,440.0 – – –
2-butoxyethanol 24.2 20.0 4.0 0.7 0.7 0.7
2-ethoxyethanol 73.7 40.0 40.0 3.0 2.0 0.3
1,2-dichloroethane 98.97 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0
Chloroethene 0.26 330.0 75.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Dichloroethyne 0.1 2.4 0.16 0.12 0.1 0.06
Dichloromethane 86.8 350.0 120.0 50.0 20.0 10.0
Trichloroethene 0.54 270.0 60.0 50.0 20.0 10.0
Trichloromethane 4.9 – – – – –
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 383.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0
Bromotrifluoromethane 608.8 21,350.0 21,350.0 11,000.0 11,000.0 11,000.0
1,3-butadiene 221.2 4.0 4.0 0.7 0.3 0.13
n-hexane 176.0 – – – 7.0 7.0
Methane 1,771.0 3,800.0 3,800.0 3,800.0 3,800.0 3,800.0
2-butanone 59.0 150.0 150.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
4-methyl-2-pentanone 23.5 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0
Propanone 712.5 210.0 84.0 52.0 52.0 52.0
Ethanoic acid 7.4 – – – – –
Nitromethane 0.1 65.0 40.0 18.0 18.0 13.0
Methyl hydrazine 0.08 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Hydrazine 0.05 5.0 0.4 0.05 0.03 0.005
2,3-benzopyrrole 0.48 5.0 1.5 0.25 0.25 0.25
Ammonia 17.4 20.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Hydrogen 247.3 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0
Carbon monoxide 28.6 60.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Carbon dioxide 7,102.5 27,000.0 27,000.0 18,000.0 18,000.0 18,000.0
Octamethyltrisiloxane 114.0 4,000.0 2,000.0 1,000.0 200.0 40.0
Trimethylsilanol 1.8 600.0 70.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
Hydrogen chloride 1.5 7.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5
Hydrogen cyanide 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1
Hydrogen fluoride 0.082 2.0 1.0 0.1 0.08 0.04
Mercury 0.006 0.1 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
SMACs set by the NASA Chief Scientist for Toxicology as of November 1994.
All other compounds must reference JSC 20584 or MAPTIS.
47
Limiting Permissible Concentration
Common IUPAC Molecular Weight Design Standard
Name Name (g/mol) (mg/m3)
Alcohols
Methyl alcohol Methanol 32.04 0.20
Ethyl alcohol Ethanol 46.07 10.00
Propyl alcohol N-propanol 60.09 0.60
Isopropyl alcohol 2-propanol 60.09 1.50
Ethylene glycol 1,2-ethanediol 62.07 10.00
Butyl alcohol N-butanol 74.12 0.80
Isobutyl alcohol 2-methyl-1-propanol 74.12 0.10
Phenol Phenol 94.11 0.10
Hexahydrophenol Cyclohexanol 100.16 0.20
Methylpentanol 2-hexanol 102.18 0.25
Heptyl alcohol Heptanol 116.20 1.30
Octyl alcohol Octanol 130.22 1.30
Bisphenol A 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenol) 228.29 0.80
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde Methanal 30.03 0.05
Acetaldehyde Ethanal 44.05 1.00
Furaldehyde Furfural 96.09 0.20
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzene Benzene 78.11 0.20
Toluene Methylbenzene 92.15 8.00
Styrene Ethenylbenzene 104.14 0.25
Alpha-methylstyrene 2-phenylpropene 118.18 0.25
Cumene Isopropylbenzene 120.20 0.50
Propylbenzene Diethylbenzene 134.22 0.50
Esters
Vinyl acetate Ethenyl acetate 86.09 0.70
Ethyl acetate Ethyl acetate 88.11 4.00
Methyl methacrylate Methyl methacrylate 100.12 0.30
Isopropyl acetate Isopropyl acetate 102.13 4.00
Butyl acetate Butyl acetate 116.16 2.00
Methyl phenyl formate 4-methylphenyl formate 120.15 0.80
Butyl acrylate 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester 128.17 1.00
Butyl phthalate Dibutyl benzene-1,2-dicarboxylate 278.35 0.15
Ethers
Oxirane (ethylene oxide) Epoxyethane 44.05 0.15
Furan 1,4-epoxy-1,3-butadiene 68.07 0.11
Tetrahydrofuran 1,4-epoxybutane 72.11 3.00
Ether Diethyl ether 74.12 10.00
P-dioxane 1,4-dioxane 88.11 0.50
Halocarbons
Methyl chloride Chloromethane 50.49 0.50
Freon 22 Chlorodifluoromethane 86.47 100.00
Chloroprene 2-chloro-1,3-butadiene 88.54 0.03
Chloropropylene oxide Epichlorohydrin 92.52 0.10
Chlorobenzene Chlorobenzene 112.56 1.50
Freon 12 Dichlorodifluoromethane 120.91 150.00
Tri Trichloroethylene 131.39 1.50
Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloromethane 153.82 4.00
Freon 218 Octafluoropropane 188.02 150.00
Freon 114 B-2 1,2-dibromo-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 259.85 100.00
48
Hyrocarbons
Methane Methane 16.04 3,342.00
Ethylene Ethene 28.05 20.00
Ethane Ethane 30.07 1,230.00
Propylene Propene 42.08 860.30
Propane Propane 44.09 901.40
Vinylethylene 1,3-butadiene 54.09 2.00
Ethylethylene 1-butene 56.10 15.00
Butane Butane 58.12 10.00
Isoprene 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene 68.11 3.00
Pentane Pentane 72.15 10.00
Hexamethylene Cyclohexane 84.16 3.00
n-hexane Hexane 86.18 5.00
Heptane Heptane 100.21 10.00
Isooctane 2,2,4-trimethylpentane 114.00 8.00
n-octane Octane 114.23 10.00
Ketones
Acetone 2-propanone 58.08 2.00
Methyl ethyl ketone 2-butanone 72.11 0.25
Maleic anhydride 2,5-furandione 98.06 0.10
Cyclohexanone (pimelic ketone) Cyclohexanone 98.14 1.30
Mercaptans and Sulfides
Hydrogen sulfide Hydrogen sulfide 34.08 0.50
Methyl sulfide Dimethyl sulfide 62.14 4.00
Sulfur dioxide Sulfur dioxide 64.06 2.00
Carbon disulfide Carbon disulfide 76.14 1.00
Organic Acids
Acetic acid Ethanoic acid 60.05 7.40
Butyric acid Butanoic acid 88.10 4.00
Propionic acid Propanoic acid – 5.60
Valeric acid Pentanoic acid 102.10 2.90
Phthalic anhydride Phthalic anhydride 148.11 0.20
Dimethylbenzeneacetic acid 2-methyl-2-phenylpropanoic acid 164.20 0.20
Capric acid Decanoic acid 172.26 2.90
Organic Nitrogens
Amylase Amylase – 4.00
Ethoxyethylenediamine ethoxy-1,2-diaminoethane – 0.50
Petroleum ligroin Benzine – 5.00
Polyethyleneimine Polyethyleneimine – 0.25
Acetonitrile Methyl cyanide 41.05 6.70
Aziridine Ethyleneimine 43.07 0.01
Dimethylamine Dimethylamine 45.09 1.00
Acrylonitrile Propenenitrile 53.06 0.07
Dimethylformamide – 73.10 1.00
Aniline Aminobenzene 93.10 0.06
Triethylamine Triethylamine 101.19 1.00
Caprolactam – 113.16 0.30
Hexamethylenediamine 1,6-diaminohexane 116.21 0.10
Dimethylanaline Dimethylaminobenzene 121.18 0.02
Dimethylbenzylamine – 135.21 0.80
Toluene diisocyanate Toluene diisocyanate 174.15 0.03
Tetranitromethane Tetranitromethane 196.04 0.05
49
Miscellaneous
Polyorganosilicon Polyorganooxosilane – 0.20
Hydrogen Hydrogen 2.02 340.00
Ammonia Ammonia 17.03 1.00
Hydrogen fluoride Hydrogen fluoride 20.01 0.01
Hydrogen cyanide Hydrogen cyanide 27.03 0.005
Carbon monoxide Carbon monoxide 28.01 5.00
Nitric oxide Nitric oxide 30.01 0.40
Hydrogen peroxide Hydrogen peroxide 34.01 1.00
Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen chloride 36.46 0.05
Ozone Ozone 48.00 0.03
Chlorine Chlorine 70.91 0.20
Arsine Arsenic anhydride 77.94 0.005
Sulfuric acid Sulfuric acid 98.08 2.00
Siloxane Oxosilane 104.17 5.00
Phosphorous pentoxide Phosphorous pentoxide 141.94 0.10
50
APPENDIX B—TRACE CHEMICAL CONTAMINANT DESIGN LOAD MODEL
51
52
Molecular Equipment Metabolic Total Equipment Required Flow
Weight SMAC Rate Rate Rate Rate
Common Name IUPAC Name (g/mol) (mg/m3) (mg/day*kg) (mg/man*day) (%) (%) m3/hr ft3/min
Alcohols
Methyl alcohol Methanol 32.04 9.00 1.27E-03 1.50E+00 0.01 0.02 0.53 0.31
Ethyl alcohol Ethanol 46.07 2000.00 7.85E-03 4.00E+00 0.07 0.11 0.01 0.01
Allyl alcohol 2-propen-1-ol 58.08 1.00 2.35E-06 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 –
Isopropyl alcohol 2-propanol 60.09 150.00 3.99E-03 0.00E+00 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.05
Propyl alcohol n-propanol 60.09 98.30 2.41E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 0.01
Ethylene glycol 1,2-ethanediol 62.07 0.20 6.03E-06 0.00E+00 – – 0.10 0.06
2-butanol 2-butanol 74.12 121.00 9.63E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Isobutyl alcohol 2-methyl-1-propanol 74.12 121.00 8.46E-04 1.20E+00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02
Tert-butyl alcohol 2-methyl-2-propanol 74.12 100.00 7.38E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Butyl alcohol n-butanol 74.12 40.00 4.71E-03 1.33E+00 0.04 0.06 0.42 0.25
n-amyl alcohol n-pentanol 88.15 126.00 1.62E-04 0.00E+00 – – – –
Phenol Phenol 94.11 7.70 4.83E-04 0.00E+00 – 0.01 0.22 0.13
Hexahydrophenol Cyclohexanol 100.16 123.00 7.56E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
2-hexanol 2-hexanol 102.18 167.00 2.48E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde Methanal 30.03 0.05 4.40E-08 0.00E+00 – – – –
Acetaldehyde Ethanal 44.05 4.00 1.09E-04 9.00E-02 – – 0.10 0.06
Acrolein 2-propenal 56.06 0.03 3.46E-06 0.00E+00 – – 0.40 0.24
Propionaldehyde Propanal 58.08 95.00 3.19E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 0.01
n-butylaldehyde Butanal 72.10 118.00 8.59E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01
Valeraldehyde Pentanal 86.13 106.00 7.84E-05 8.30E-01 – – – –
Benzenecarbonal Benzaldehyde 106.12 173.00 1.99E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Benzene Benzene 78.11 0.32 2.51E-05 0.00E+00 – – 0.27 0.16
Toluene Methylbenzene 92.15 60.00 1.98E-03 0.00E+00 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.07
Styrene Vinylbenzene 104.14 42.60 3.13E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
O-xylene 1,2-dimethylbenzene 106.16 220.00 5.56E-04 0.00E+00 – 0.01 0.01 0.01
M-xylene 1,3-dimethylbenzene 106.16 220.00 2.03E-03 0.00E+00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02
P-xylene 1,4-dimethylbenzene 106.16 220.00 1.08E-03 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
Ethylbenzene Ethylbenzene 106.16 86.80 1.50E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 –
Alpha-methylstyrene alpha-methylstyrene 118.18 145.00 1.67E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Pseudocumene 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 120.20 15.00 4.49E-05 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 0.01
Mesitylene 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 120.20 15.00 3.63E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene 1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene 120.20 25.00 4.88E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Cumene Isopropylbenzene 120.20 73.70 1.40E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Propylbenzene Propylbenzene 120.20 49.10 2.15E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.02 0.01
Esters
Ethyl formate Ethyl formate 74.08 90.90 4.51E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Methyl acetate Methyl acetate 74.08 121.00 1.41E-04 0.00E+00 – – – –
Ethyl acetate Ethyl acetate 88.11 180.00 2.97E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 –
Methyl methacrylate Methyl methacrylate 100.12 102.00 1.30E-04 0.00E+00 – – – –
Isopropyl acetate Isopropyl acetate 102.13 209.00 5.81E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Propyl acetate Propyl acetate 102.13 167.00 3.38E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 –
Butyl acetate Butyl acetate 116.16 190.00 7.46E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Isobutyl acetate Isobutyl acetate 116.16 190.00 1.52E-04 0.00E+00 – – – –
Ethyl lactate Ethyl lactate 118.13 193.00 3.64E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
n-amyl acetate n-amyl acetate 130.18 160.00 4.78E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Cellosolve acetate 2-ethoxyethyl acetate 132.16 162.00 7.46E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
Ethers
Furan 1,4-epoxy-1,3-butadiene 68.07 0.11 1.84E-06 0.00E+00 – – 0.06 0.03
Tetrahydrofuran 1,4-epoxybutane 72.11 118.00 6.93E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Ether Diethyl ether 74.12 242.00 8.90E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Sylvan 2-methylfuran 82.10 0.13 3.46E-06 0.00E+00 – – 0.09 0.05
Ethyl cellosolve 2-ethoxyethanol 90.12 0.30 6.01E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 6.96 4.10
Chlorocarbons
Methyl chloride Chloromethane 50.49 41.30 6.76E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Vinyl chloride Chloroethene 62.50 3.00 1.46E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Ethyl chloride Chloroethane 64.52 263.70 8.99E-08 0.00E+00 – – – –
Methylene chloride Dichloromethane 84.93 10.00 2.15E-03 0.00E+00 0.02 0.03 0.75 0.44
Dichloroethene 1,1-dichloroethene 96.95 7.90 5.64E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Ethylene dichloride 1,2-dichloroethane 98.97 1.00 7.74E-05 0.00E+00 – – 0.27 0.16
Chlorobenzene Chlorobenzene 112.56 46.00 1.54E-03 0.00E+00 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.07
Propylene chloride 1,2-dichloropropane 112.99 42.20 7.42E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
53
54
Chloroform Trichloromethane 119.38 4.90 1.76E-05 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 0.01
Tri Trichloroethylene 131.39 10.00 8.62E-05 0.00E+00 – – 0.03 0.02
Methyl chloroform 1,1,1-trichloroethane 133.41 164.00 6.72E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Vinyl trichloride 1,1,2-trichloroethane 133.41 5.50 8.24E-08 0.00E+00 – – – –
Dichorobenzene 1,2-dichlorobenzene 147.01 30.00 6.33E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloromethane 153.82 13.00 9.60E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Tetrachloroethylene Tetrachloroethene 165.83 34.00 7.28E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.04
Chlorofluorocarbons
Freon 22 Chlorodifluoromethane 86.47 353.60 5.75E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Freon 21 Dichlorofluoromethane 102.90 21.00 6.36E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Chlorotrifluoroethane 1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 118.50 484.50 4.88E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Freon 12 Dichlorodifluoromethane 120.91 494.40 1.35E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Dichorodifluoroethene 1,2-dichloro-1,2-difluoroethene 132.93 136.00 1.89E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Freon 11 Trichlorofluoromethane 137.40 561.80 1.41E-03 0.00E+00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
Halon 1301 Bromotrifluoromethane 148.90 11000.00 2.61E-04 0.00E+00 – – – –
Freon 114 1,1-dichloro-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 170.92 702.90 2.62E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Freon 113 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 187.40 400.00 1.89E-02 0.00E+00 0.17 0.26 0.16 0.10
Freon 112 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-1,2-difluoroethane 204.00 834.20 3.33E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Hyrocarbons
Methane Methane 16.04 3800.00 6.39E-04 1.60E+02 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.01
Ethylene Ethene 28.05 344.10 2.27E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Ethane Ethane 30.07 1230.00 1.17E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Propylene Propene 42.08 860.30 2.56E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Propane Propane 44.09 901.40 9.21E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Vinylethylene 1,3-butadiene 54.09 0.13 2.66E-06 0.00E+00 – – 0.07 0.04
Ethylethylene 1-butene 56.10 458.00 8.03E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Isobutane 2-methylpropane 58.12 237.60 1.10E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Butane Butane 58.12 237.60 5.13E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Propylethylene 1-pentene 70.13 186.00 2.20E-08 0.00E+00 – – – –
Isopentane 2-methylbutane 72.15 295.00 1.80E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Pentane Pentane 72.15 590.00 9.54E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Hexamethylene Cyclohexane 84.16 206.00 3.79E-04 0.00E+00 – 0.01 0.01 –
Methylpentamethylene Methylcyclopentane 84.16 51.60 2.97E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Neohexane 2,2-dimethylbutane 86.17 88.10 1.67E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Diethylmethylmethane 3-methylpentane 86.18 1762.00 5.97E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Hexane Hexane 86.18 7.00 6.95E-05 0.00E+00 – – 0.03 0.02
1-heptylene 1-heptene 98.18 201.00 1.10E-08 0.00E+00 – – – –
Hexahydrotoluene Methylcyclohexane 98.18 60.20 6.09E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Heptane Heptane 100.21 205.00 5.59E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Dimethylcyclohexane 1,1-dimethylcyclohexane 112.22 115.00 2.61E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Trans-1,2-dimethylhexamethylene trans-1,2-dimethylcyclohexane 112.22 115.00 5.23E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Octane Octane 114.23 350.00 1.61E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Nonane Nonane 128.26 315.00 7.35E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Citrene (limonene) 4-isopropenyl-1-Mecyclohexene 136.23 557.00 3.58E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Decane Decane 142.28 223.00 2.78E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Hendecane Undecane 156.31 319.00 2.51E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Dodecane Dodecane 170.34 278.00 6.91E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Ketones
Acetone 2-propanone 58.08 52.00 3.62E-03 2.00E-01 0.03 0.05 0.24 0.14
Methyl ethyl ketone 2-butanone 72.11 30.00 6.01E-03 0.00E+00 0.05 0.08 0.70 0.41
Methyl propyl ketone 2-pentanone 86.13 70.40 4.03E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Methyl isopropyl ketone 3-methyl-2-butanone 86.13 70.40 3.11E-05 0.00E+00 – – – –
Mesityl oxide (methyl isobutenyl ketone) 4-methyl-3-penten-2-one 98.14 40.10 1.91E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.02 0.01
Cyclohexanone (pimelic ketone) Cyclohexanone 98.14 60.20 6.62E-04 0.00E+00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02
Methyl isobutyl ketone 4-methyl-2-pentanone 100.16 140.00 1.41E-03 0.00E+00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
Phenyl methyl ketone acetophenone 120.14 245.00 5.66E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Methyl hexyl ketone 2-octanone 128.21 105.00 1.65E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Diisobutyl ketone 2,6-dimethyl-4-heptanone 142.20 58.10 3.34E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Hydrogen sulfide Hydrogen sulfide 34.08 2.80 0.00E+00 9.00E-02 – – 0.01 –
Carbon oxisulfide Carbonyl sulfide 60.07 12.00 6.05E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Methyl sulfide Dimethyl sulfide 62.14 2.50 1.88E-07 0.00E+00 – – – –
Carbon disulfide Carbon disulfide 76.14 16.00 3.23E-05 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 –
55
56
Organic Acids
Acetic acid Ethanoic acid 60.05 7.40 1.42E-06 0.00E+00 – – – –
Organic Nitrogens
Acetonitrile Methyl cyanide 41.05 6.70 1.70E-08 0.00E+00 – – – –
Indole 2,3-benzopyrrole 117.15 0.25 0.00E+00 6.25E+00 – – 6.08 3.58
Miscellaneous
Hydrogen Hydrogen 2.02 340.00 5.91E-06 2.60E+01 0.02 – 0.02 0.01
Ammonia Ammonia 17.00 7.00 8.46E-05 3.21E+02 0.20 – 11.17 6.57
Carbon monoxide Carbon monoxide 28.01 10.00 2.03E-03 2.30E+01 0.03 0.03 1.26 0.74
Trimethylsilanol Trimethylsilanol 90.21 40.00 1.69E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.01 0.01
Hexamethylcyclotrioxosilane Hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane 222.40 227.00 1.62E-04 0.00E+00 – – – –
Octamethyltrioxosilane Octamethyltrisiloxane 236.54 40.00 2.11E-04 0.00E+00 – – 0.02 0.01
APPENDIX C—PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR NODE 1 UPON CREW ENTRY
57
58
Equipment Time to Reach Node 1 Node 1 Node 1
Molar Mass SMAC Gen Rate SMAC at 250 Days at 455 Days at 730 Days
Common Name IUPAC Name (g/mol) (mg/m3) (mg/day*kg) (days) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)
Alcohols
Methyl alcohol Methanol 32.04 9.00 1.27E-03 118.82 1.89E+01 3.45E+01 5.53E+01
Ethyl alcohol Ethanol 46.07 2,000.00 7.85E-03 4282.12 1.17E+02 2.13E+02 3.41E+02
Allyl alcohol 2-propen-1-ol 58.08 1.00 2.35E-06 7160.45 3.49E-02 6.35E-02 1.02E-01
Isopropyl alcohol 2-propanol 60.09 150.00 3.99E-03 632.44 5.93E+01 1.08E+02 1.73E+02
Propyl alcohol n-propanol 60.09 98.30 2.41E-04 6861.74 3.58E+00 6.52E+00 1.05E+01
Ethylene glycol 1,2-ethanediol 62.07 13.00 6.03E-06 36236.49 8.97E-02 1.63E-01 2.62E-01
2-butanol 2-butanol 74.12 121.00 9.63E-06 211230.19 1.43E-01 2.61E-01 4.18E-01
Isobutyl alcohol 2-methyl-1-propanol 74.12 121.00 8.46E-04 2403.08 1.26E+01 2.29E+01 3.68E+01
Tert-butyl alcohol 2-methyl-2-propanol 74.12 121.00 7.38E-05 27536.33 1.10E+00 2.00E+00 3.21E+00
Butyl alcohol n-butanol 74.12 121.00 4.71E-03 431.81 7.01E+01 1.27E+02 2.05E+02
n-amyl alcohol n-pentanol 88.15 126.00 1.62E-04 13076.58 2.41E+00 4.38E+00 7.03E+00
Phenol Phenol 94.11 7.70 4.83E-04 267.97 7.18E+00 1.31E+01 2.10E+01
Hexahydrophenol Cyclohexanol 100.16 123.00 7.56E-04 2735.00 1.12E+01 2.05E+01 3.28E+01
2-hexanol 2-hexanol 102.18 167.00 2.48E-06 1131299.61 3.69E-02 6.72E-02 1.08E-01
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde Methanal 30.03 0.05 4.40E-08 19080.23 6.55E-04 1.19E-03 1.91E-03
Acetaldehyde Ethanal 44.05 4.00 1.09E-04 619.35 1.61E+00 2.94E+00 4.71E+00
Acrolein 2-propenal 56.06 0.03 3.46E-06 145.76 5.15E-02 9.36E-02 1.50E-01
Propionaldehyde Propanal 58.08 95.00 3.19E-04 5000.95 4.75E+00 8.64E+00 1.39E+01
n-butylaldehyde Butanal 72.10 118.00 8.59E-04 2307.92 1.28E+01 2.33E+01 3.73E+01
Valeraldehyde Pentanal 86.13 106.00 7.84E-05 22719.76 1.17E+00 2.12E+00 3.41E+00
Benzenecarbonal Benzaldehyde 106.12 173.00 1.99E-05 146080.47 2.96E-01 5.39E-01 8.65E-01
Benzene Benzene 78.11 0.20 2.51E-05 133.83 3.74E-01 6.80E-01 1.09E+00
Toluene Methylbenzene 98.13 60.00 1.98E-03 508.57 2.95E+01 5.37E+01 8.61E+01
Styrene Vinylbenzene 104.14 42.60 3.13E-05 22902.29 4.65E-01 8.46E-01 1.36E+00
O-xylene 1,2-dimethylbenzene 106.16 220.00 5.56E-04 6651.90 8.27E+00 1.50E+01 2.41E+01
M-xylene 1,3-dimethylbenzene 106.16 220.00 2.03E-03 1824.88 3.01E+01 5.49E+01 8.80E+01
P-xylene 1,4-dimethylbenzene 106.16 220.00 1.08E-03 3424.12 1.61E+01 2.92E+01 4.69E+01
Ethylbenzene Ethylbenzene 106.16 86.80 1.50E-04 9737.63 2.23E+00 4.06E+00 6.51E+00
Alpha-methylstyrene Alpha-methylstyrene 118.18 145.00 1.67E-07 14570063.00 2.49E-03 4.53E-03 7.26E-03
Pseudocumene 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 120.20 15.00 4.49E-05 5616.87 6.68E-01 1.22E+00 1.95E+00
Mesitylene 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 120.20 15.00 3.63E-06 69412.77 5.40E-02 9.83E-02 1.58E-01
1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene 1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene 120.20 25.00 4.88E-06 86112.30 7.26E-02 1.32E-01 2.12E-01
Cumene Isopropylbenzene 120.20 73.70 1.40E-05 88434.68 2.08E-01 3.79E-01 6.08E-01
Propylbenzene Propylbenzene 120.20 49.10 2.15E-04 3829.16 3.21E+00 5.83E+00 9.36E+00
Esters
Ethyl formate Ethyl formate 74.08 90.90 4.51E-06 338784.88 6.71E-02 1.22E-01 1.96E-01
Methyl acetate Methyl acetate 74.08 121.00 1.41E-04 14431.54 2.10E+00 3.81E+00 6.12E+00
Ethyl acetate Ethyl acetate 88.11 180.00 2.97E-04 10200.22 4.41E+00 8.03E+00 1.29E+01
Methyl methacrylate Methyl methacrylate 100.12 102.00 1.30E-04 13217.19 1.93E+00 3.51E+00 5.63E+00
Isopropyl acetate Isopropyl acetate 102.13 209.00 5.81E-06 604133.51 8.65E-02 1.57E-01 2.53E-01
Propyl acetate Propyl acetate 102.13 167.00 3.38E-04 8300.26 5.03E+00 9.15E+00 1.47E+01
Butyl acetate Butyl acetate 116.16 190.00 7.46E-04 4279.85 1.11E+01 2.02E+01 3.24E+01
Isobutyl acetate Isobutyl acetate 116.16 190.00 1.52E-04 21050.16 2.26E+00 4.11E+00 6.59E+00
Ethyl lactate Ethyl lactate 118.13 193.00 3.64E-06 891289.50 5.41E-02 9.85E-02 1.58E-01
n-amyl acetate n-amyl acetate 130.18 160.00 4.78E-05 56266.69 7.11E-01 1.29E+00 2.08E+00
Cellosolve acetate 2-ethoxyethyl acetate 132.16 162.00 7.46E-04 3648.84 1.11E+01 2.02E+01 3.24E+01
Ethers
Furan 1,4-epoxy-1,3-butadiene 68.07 0.11 1.84E-06 1013.50 2.74E-02 4.98E-02 8.00E-02
Tetrahydrofuran 1,4-epoxybutane 72.11 118.00 6.93E-05 28608.31 1.03E+00 1.88E+00 3.01E+00
Ether Diethyl ether 74.12 242.00 8.90E-05 45679.45 1.32E+00 2.41E+00 3.87E+00
Sylvan 2-methylfuran 82.10 0.13 3.46E-06 632.07 5.14E-02 9.36E-02 1.50E-01
Ethyl cellosolve 2-ethoxyethanol 90.12 0.30 6.01E-04 8.39 8.94E+00 1.63E+01 2.61E+01
Chlorocarbons
Methyl chloride Chloromethane 50.49 41.30 6.76E-06 102681.22 1.01E-01 1.83E-01 2.94E-01
Vinyl chloride Chloroethene 62.50 3.00 1.46E-06 34642.10 2.16E-02 3.94E-02 6.32E-02
Ethyl chloride Chloroethane 64.52 263.70 8.99E-08 49310702.89 1.34E-03 2.43E-03 3.90E-03
Methylene chloride Dichloromethane 84.93 10.00 2.15E-03 78.33 3.19E+01 5.81E+01 9.32E+01
Dichloroethene 1,1-dichloroethene 96.95 7.90 5.64E-07 235224.55 8.40E-03 1.53E-02 2.45E-02
Ethylene dichloride 1,2-dichloroethane 98.97 1.00 7.74E-05 217.20 1.15E+00 2.09E+00 3.36E+00
Chlorobenzene Chlorobenzene 112.56 46.00 1.54E-03 500.76 2.30E+01 4.18E+01 6.71E+01
Propylene chloride 1,2-dichloropropane 112.99 42.20 7.42E-06 95579.48 1.10E-01 2.01E-01 3.22E-01
59
60
Chloroform Trichloromethane 119.38 4.90 1.76E-05 4675.79 2.62E-01 4.77E-01 7.65E-01
Tri Trichloroethylene 131.39 10.00 8.62E-05 1949.30 1.28E+00 2.33E+00 3.74E+00
Methyl chloroform 1,1,1-trichloroethane 133.41 164.00 6.72E-04 4102.03 1.00E+01 1.82E+01 2.92E+01
Vinyl trichloride 1,1,2-trichloroethane 133.41 5.50 8.24E-08 1121597.53 1.23E-03 2.23E-03 3.58E-03
Dichorobenzene 1,2-dichlorobenzene 147.01 30.00 6.33E-06 79695.95 9.41E-02 1.71E-01 2.75E-01
Carbon tetrachloride Tetrachloromethane 153.82 13.00 9.60E-06 22762.19 1.43E-01 2.60E-01 4.17E-01
Tetrachloroethylene Tetrachloroethene 165.83 34.00 7.28E-04 784.62 1.08E+01 1.97E+01 3.16E+01
Chlorofluorocarbons
Freon 22 Chlorodifluoromethane 86.47 353.60 5.75E-05 103426.72 8.55E-01 1.56E+00 2.50E+00
Freon 21 Dichlorofluoromethane 102.90 21.00 6.36E-07 555147.38 9.46E-03 1.72E-02 2.76E-02
Chlorotrifluoroethane 1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 118.50 484.50 4.88E-06 1669298.23 7.26E-02 1.32E-01 2.12E-01
Freon 12 Dichlorodifluoromethane 120.91 494.40 1.35E-05 617446.13 2.00E-01 3.64E-01 5.85E-01
Dichorodifluoroethene 1,2-dichloro-1,2-difluoroethene 132.93 136.00 1.89E-06 1210333.28 2.81E-02 5.11E-02 8.20E-02
Freon 11 Trichlorofluoromethane 137.40 561.80 1.41E-03 6704.76 2.09E+01 3.81E+01 6.12E+01
Halon 1301 Bromotrifluoromethane 148.90 11,000.00 2.61E-04 709175.90 3.88E+00 7.06E+00 1.13E+01
Freon 114 1,1-dichloro-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 170.92 702.90 2.62E-05 450945.73 3.90E-01 7.09E-01 1.14E+00
Freon 113 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 187.40 400.00 1.89E-02 354.85 2.82E+02 5.13E+02 8.23E+02
Freon 112 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-1,2-difluoroethane 204.00 834.20 3.33E-05 420968.69 4.95E-01 9.02E-01 1.45E+00
Hyrocarbons
Methane Methane 16.04 3,800.00 6.39E-04 99999.14 9.50E+00 1.73E+01 2.77E+01
Ethylene Ethene 28.05 344.10 2.27E-07 25524245.16 3.37E-03 6.13E-03 9.84E-03
Ethane Ethane 30.07 1,230.00 1.17E-06 17720686.71 1.74E-02 3.16E-02 5.07E-02
Propylene Propene 42.08 860.30 2.56E-06 5650432.67 3.81E-02 6.93E-02 1.11E-01
Propane Propane 44.09 901.40 9.21E-07 16453020.09 1.37E-02 2.49E-02 4.00E-02
Vinylethylene 1,3-butadiene 54.09 0.13 2.66E-06 820.94 3.96E-02 7.21E-02 1.16E-01
Ethylethylene 1-butene 56.10 458.00 8.03E-05 95909.51 1.19E+00 2.17E+00 3.49E+00
Isobutane 2-methylpropane 58.12 237.60 1.10E-05 362546.47 1.64E-01 2.98E-01 4.78E-01
Butane Butane 58.12 237.60 5.13E-06 777802.97 7.64E-02 1.39E-01 2.23E-01
Propylethylene 1-pentene 70.13 186.00 2.20E-08 142190550.08 3.27E-04 5.95E-04 9.55E-04
Isopentane 2-methylbutane 72.15 295.00 1.80E-06 2753189.85 2.68E-02 4.88E-02 7.82E-02
Pentane Pentane 72.15 590.00 9.54E-05 103985.29 1.42E+00 2.58E+00 4.14E+00
Hexamethylene Cyclohexane 84.16 206.00 3.79E-04 9123.02 5.65E+00 1.03E+01 1.65E+01
Methylpentamethylene Methylcyclopentane 84.16 51.60 2.97E-05 29211.04 4.42E-01 8.04E-01 1.29E+00
Neohexane 2,2-dimethylbutane 86.17 88.10 1.67E-06 885556.88 2.49E-02 4.53E-02 7.26E-02
Diethylmethylmethane 3-methylpentane 86.18 1762.00 5.97E-06 4962404.36 8.88E-02 1.62E-01 2.59E-01
Hexane Hexane 86.18 7.00 6.95E-05 1693.75 1.03E+00 1.88E+00 3.02E+00
1-heptylene 1-heptene 98.18 201.00 1.10E-08 307205142.72 1.64E-04 2.98E-04 4.78E-04
Hexahydrotoluene Methylcyclohexane 98.18 60.20 6.09E-05 16614.64 9.06E-01 1.65E+00 2.65E+00
Heptane Heptane 100.21 205.00 5.59E-05 61613.82 8.32E-01 1.51E+00 2.43E+00
Dimethylcyclohexane 1,1-dimethylcyclohexane 112.22 115.00 2.61E-05 74149.85 3.88E-01 7.06E-01 1.13E+00
Trans-1,2-dimethylhexamethylene Trans-1,2-dimethylcyclohexane 112.22 115.00 5.23E-05 36920.43 7.79E-01 1.42E+00 2.27E+00
Octane Octane 114.23 350.00 1.61E-05 365254.67 2.40E-01 4.36E-01 7.00E-01
Nonane Nonane 128.26 315.00 7.35E-06 720404.73 1.09E-01 1.99E-01 3.19E-01
Citrene (limonene) 4-isopropenyl-1-Mecyclohexene 136.23 557.00 3.58E-06 2613567.09 5.33E-02 9.70E-02 1.56E-01
Decane Decane 142.28 223.00 2.78E-05 134706.49 4.14E-01 7.53E-01 1.21E+00
Hendecane Undecane 156.31 319.00 2.51E-05 213830.06 3.73E-01 6.79E-01 1.09E+00
Dodecane Dodecane 170.34 278.00 6.91E-07 6756900.92 1.03E-02 1.87E-02 3.00E-02
Ketones
Acetone 2-propanone 58.08 52.00 3.62E-03 241.31 5.39E+01 9.80E+01 1.57E+02
Methyl ethyl ketone 2-butanone 72.11 30.00 6.01E-03 83.90 8.94E+01 1.63E+02 2.61E+02
Methyl propyl ketone 2-pentanone 86.13 70.40 4.03E-06 293560.80 6.00E-02 1.09E-01 1.75E-01
Methyl isopropyl ketone 3-methyl-2-butanone 86.13 70.40 3.11E-05 37994.07 4.63E-01 8.43E-01 1.35E+00
Mesityl oxide (methyl isobutenyl ketone) 4-methyl-3-penten-2-one 98.14 40.10 1.91E-04 3534.72 2.84E+00 5.16E+00 8.28E+00
Cyclohexanone (pimelic ketone) Cyclohexanone 98.14 60.20 6.62E-04 1527.27 9.85E+00 1.79E+01 2.88E+01
Methyl isobutyl ketone 4-methyl-2-pentanone 100.16 143.00 1.41E-03 1704.44 2.10E+01 3.82E+01 6.12E+01
Phenyl methyl ketone Acetophenone 120.14 245.00 5.66E-07 7271020.37 8.42E-03 1.53E-02 2.46E-02
Methyl hexyl ketone 2-octanone 128.21 105.00 1.65E-07 10715827.26 2.45E-03 4.46E-03 7.15E-03
Diisobutyl ketone 2,6-dimethyl-4-heptanone 142.20 58.10 3.34E-06 291944.33 4.98E-02 9.05E-02 1.45E-01
Hydrogen sulfide Hydrogen sulfide 34.08 2.80 0.00E+00 INFINITE 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Carbon oxisulfide Carbonyl sulfide 60.07 12.00 6.05E-06 33336.64 9.00E-02 1.64E-01 2.63E-01
Methyl sulfide Dimethyl sulfide 62.14 2.50 1.88E-07 223837.00 2.79E-03 5.08E-03 8.15E-03
Carbon disulfide Carbon disulfide 76.14 16.00 3.23E-05 8317.02 4.81E-01 8.75E-01 1.40E+00
61
62
Organic Acids
Acetic acid Ethanoic acid 60.05 7.40 1.42E-06 87387.56 2.12E-02 3.85E-02 6.18E-02
Organic Nitrogens
Acetonitrile Methyl cyanide 41.05 6.70 1.70E-08 6616228.70 2.53E-04 4.61E-04 7.39E-04
Indole 2,3-benzopyrrole 117.15 0.25 0.00E+00 INFINITE 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Miscellaneous
Hydrogen Hydrogen 2.02 340.00 5.91E-06 967600.27 8.78E-02 1.60E-01 2.57E-01
Ammonia Ammonia 17.00 7.00 8.46E-05 1390.85 1.26E+00 2.29E+00 3.67E+00
Carbon monoxide Carbon monoxide 28.01 10.00 2.03E-03 82.79 3.02E+01 5.50E+01 8.82E+01
Trimethylsilanol Trimethylsilanol 90.21 40.00 1.69E-04 3985.00 2.51E+00 4.57E+00 7.33E+00
Hexamethylcyclotrioxosilane Hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane 222.40 227.00 1.62E-04 23612.67 2.40E+00 4.37E+00 7.02E+00
Octamethyltrioxosilane Octamethyltrisiloxane 236.54 40.00 2.11E-04 3185.19 3.14E+00 5.71E+00 9.17E+00
APPENDIX D—FLIGHT 2A, 3A, AND 4A TIMELINE
63
64
APPENDIX E—3% Pt ON ACTIVATED CHARCOAL PERFORMANCE IN DRY AIR
80
CO Conc. = 55 ppm (Inlet)
70 CO2 Conc. = 7,529 ppm
60
Outlet CO Concentration (ppm)
50
40
30
Relative Humidity = 0%
Relative Humidity = 40%
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (hr)
6
CO = 55 ppm
O2 = 20%
5 H2O = 40% RH (25°C)
CO2 = 7,500 ppm AppE_F1
Outlet CO Concentration (ppm)
GHSV = 90,000 hr–1

4 Ea =19.2 kcal/mol
II Order Reaction
1
In{(1/t) ×(1/CAo) ×(XA/(1–XA))} = In(A)– Ea/(RT)
0
2.05 2.10 2.15 2.20
(1/T) × 1,000 (1/K)
65
APPENDIX F—NODE 1 ENTRY VERIFICATION ANALYSIS MISSION TIMELINE
APPENDIX G—NODE 1 ENTRY VERIFICATION ANALYSIS MISSION TIMELINE
Event Time (hr)

• Node 1 purge at L-45 days completed 0
• Ingress during mission 2A flight day 8 1272
Ø 2-hour scrub 1272-1274
Ø Dilution with shuttle free volume 1274-1276
Ø 8-hour ingress event with fan operating 1274-1282
• Flight 2A complete 1368
• 150 days elapse between missions 2A and 2A.1 4968
• Ingress no. 1 on mission 2A.1 flight day 4 5064
• Ingress no. 2 on mission 2A.1 flight day 5 with no preliminary scrub 5088
Ø 8-hour ingress event with fan operating including dilution with shuttle free volume 5088-5096
Ø CACEAs replaced with fresh units 5184
• Flight 2A.1 complete 5208
• 30 days elapse between missions 2A.1 and 3A 5928
Ø 2-hour scrub followed by dilution with shuttle free volume 6024-6026
• Flight 3A complete 6168
• 90 days elapse between missions 3A and 4A 8328
Ø 8-hour ingress event with fan operating on flight day 7 8496-8506
Timeline reference: A DeVera white paper on TCC plan for flights 2A to 7A.
66
67
68
APPENDIX G—CABIN AIR CATALYST ELEMENT ASSEMBLY
PACKING DEPTH VERIFICATION
69
70
71
72
73
APPENDIX H—TRACE CONTAMINANT GENERATION RATES
Generation Rate Generation Rate

(mg/hr) (mg/hr)
IUPAC 2,359 kg 1,361 kg IUPAC 2,359 kg 1,361 kg
Name Basis Basis Name Basis Basis
Alcohols Esters
Methanol 0.1251 0.0722 Ethyl formate 0.0004 0.0003
Ethanol 0.7715 0.4451 Methyl acetate 0.0139 0.0080
2-propen-1-ol 0.0002 0.0001 Ethyl acetate 0.0292 0.0168
2-propanol 0.3918 0.2260 Methyl methacrylate 0.0127 0.0074
n-propanol 0.0237 0.0137 Isopropyl acetate 0.0006 0.0003
1,2-ethanediol 0.0006 0.0003 Propyl acetate 0.0332 0.0192
2-butanol 0.0009 0.0005 Butyl acetate 0.0733 0.0423
2-methyl-1-propanol 0.0832 0.0480 Isobutyl acetate 0.0149 0.0086
2-methyl-2-propanol 0.0073 0.0042 Ethyl lactate 0.0004 0.0002
n-butanol 0.4629 0.2671 n+-amyl acetate 0.0047 0.0027
n-pentanol 0.0159 0.0092 2-ethoxyethyl acetate 0.0733 0.0423
Phenol 0.0475 0.0274 Ethers
Cyclohexanol 0.0743 0.0429 1,4-epoxy-1,3-butadiene 0.0002 0.0001
2-hexanol 0.0002 0.0001 1,4-epoxybutane 0.0068 0.0039
Aldehydes Diethyl ether 0.0088 0.0050
Methanal 0.0000 0.0000 2-methylfuran 0.0003 0.0002
Ethanal 0.0107 0.0062 2-ethoxyethanol 0.0591 0.0341
2-propenal 0.0003 0.0002 Chlorocarbons
Propanal 0.0314 0.0181 Chloromethane 0.0007 0.0004
Butanal 0.0845 0.0487 Chloroethene 0.0001 0.0001
Pentanal 0.0077 0.0044 Chloroethane 0.0000 0.0000
Benzaldehyde 0.0020 0.0011 Dichloromethane 0.2109 0.1217
Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1,1-dichloroethene 0.0001 0.0000
Benzene 0.0025 0.0014 1,2-dichloroethane 0.0076 0.0044
Methylbenzene 0.1949 0.1124 Chlorobenzene 0.1517 0.0875
Vinylbenzene 0.0031 0.0018 1,2-dichloropropane 0.0007 0.0004
1,2-dimethylbenzene 0.0546 0.0315 Trichloromethane 0.0017 0.0010
1,3-dimethylbenzene 0.1991 0.1149 Trichloroethylene 0.0085 0.0049
1,4-dimethylbenzene 0.1061 0.0612 1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.0660 0.0381
Ethylbenzene 0.0147 0.0085 1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.0000 0.0000
Alpha-methylstyrene 0.0000 0.0000 1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.0006 0.0004
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 0.0044 0.0025 Tetrachloromethane 0.0009 0.0005
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 0.0004 0.0002 Tetrachloroethene 0.0716 0.0413
1-ethyl-2-methylbenzene 0.0005 0.0003 Chlorofluorocarbons
Isopropylbenzene 0.0014 0.0008 Chlorodifluoromethane 0.0056 0.0033
Propylbenzene 0.0212 0.0122 Dichlorofluoromethane 0.0001 0.0000
1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 0.0005 0.0003
Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.0013 0.0008
1,2-dichloro-1,2-difluoroethene 0.0002 0.0001
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.1384 0.0799
Bromotrifluoromethane 0.0256 0.0148
1,1-dichloro-1,2,2,2-tetrafluoroethane 0.0026 0.0015
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 1.8621 1.0743
1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-1,2-difluoroethane 0.0033 0.0019
74
Generation Rate Generation Rate
(mg/hr) (mg/hr)
IUPAC 2,359 kg 1,361 kg IUPAC 2,359 kg 1,361 kg
Name Basis Basis Name Basis Basis
Hydrocarbons Organic Acids
Methane 0.0628 0.0362 Ethanoic acid 0.0001 0.0001
Ethene 0.0000 0.0000 Organic Nitrogens
Ethane 0.0001 0.0001 Methyl cyanide 0.0000 0.0000
Propene 0.0003 0.0001 2,3-benzopyrrole 0.0000 0.0000
Propane 0.0001 0.0001 Miscellaneous
1,3-butadiene 0.0003 0.0002 Hydrogen 0.0006 0.0003
1-butene 0.0079 0.0046 Ammonia 0.0083 0.0048
2-methylpropane 0.0011 0.0006 Carbon monoxide 0.1995 0.1151
Butane 0.0005 0.0003 Trimethylsilanol 0.0166 0.0096
1-pentene 0.0000 0.0000 Hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane 0.0159 0.0092
2-methylbutane 0.0002 0.0001 Octamethyltrisiloxane 0.0207 0.0120
Pentane 0.0094 0.0054
Cyclohexane 0.0373 0.0215
Methylcyclopentane 0.0029 0.0017
2,2-dimethylbutane 0.0002 0.0001
3-methylpentane 0.0006 0.0003
Hexane 0.0068 0.0039
1-heptene 0.0000 0.0000
Methylcyclohexane 0.0060 0.0035
Heptane 0.0055 0.0032
1,1-dimethylcyclohexane 0.0026 0.0015
Trans-1,2-dimethylcyclohexane 0.0051 0.0030
Octane 0.0016 0.0009
Nonane 0.0007 0.0004
4-isopropenyl-1-Mecyclohexene 0.0004 0.0002
Decane 0.0027 0.0016
Undecane 0.0025 0.0014
Dodecane 0.0001 0.0000
Ketones
2-propanone 0.3560 0.2054
2-butanone 0.5906 0.3408
2-pentanone 0.0004 0.0002
3-methyl-2-butanone 0.0031 0.0018
4-methyl-3-penten-2-one 0.0187 0.0108
Cyclohexanone 0.0651 0.0376
4-methyl-2-pentanone 0.1386 0.0800
Acetophenone 0.0001 0.0000
2-octanone 0.0000 0.0000
2,6-dimethyl-4-heptanone 0.0003 0.0002
Hydrogen sulfide 0.0000 0.0000
Carbonyl sulfide 0.0006 0.0003
Dimethyl sulfide 0.0000 0.0000
Carbon disulfide 0.0032 0.0018
75
APPENDIX I—2% Pt ON CHARCOAL QUALIFICATION TEST PERFORMANCE
76
REFERENCES
1. Perry, J.L.: “Elements of Spacecraft Cabin Air Quality Control Design,” NASA/TP—1998–
207978, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, pp. 21–26, 49–59, 140–144, May
1998.
2. Link, Jr., D.E.: “Gaseous Trace Contaminant Modeling for the Space Station Freedom Man
Tended Capability Configuration,” SAE 921229, 22nd International Conference on Environmen-
tal Systems, Seattle, WA, July 13–16, 1992.
3. Olcott, T.; Lamparter, R.; Maine, B.; et al.: “Design Fabrication, and Test of a Trace Contaminant
Control System,” LMSC-D462467, NASA Contract NAS-1-11526, NASA-CR-147860, Lockheed
Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, pp. 260–263, November 28, 1975.
4. Jagow, R.B.; Lamparter, R.A.; Katan, T.; and Ray, C.D.: “Investigation of Low Temperature
Carbon Monoxide Catalysts,” ASME 77-ENAs-28, International Conference on Environmental
Systems, San Francisco, CA, pp. 8–11, July 11–14, 1977.
5. Perry, J.L.: “Trace Contaminant Control Simulation Computer Program, Version 8.1,” NASA
TM-108457, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, pp. 24 and 61, May 1994.
6. Perry, J.L.: “Computerized Atmospheric Trace Contaminant Control Simulation for Manned
Spacecraft,” NASA TM-108409, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, June
1993.
7. Perry, J.L.: “Elements of Spacecraft Cabin Air Quality Control Design,” NASA/TP—1998–
207978, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, pp. 66–75, May 1998.
8. Leano, H.: “Using 72-Hour Data to Predict Long-term Offgassing from Space Vehicle Crew Com-
partment Compounds,” TR-572-0001, NASA Johnson Space Center, White Sands Test Facility,
Las Cruces, NM, p. 15, July 13, 1988.
9. Perry, J.L.: “Trace Chemical Contaminant Generation Rates for Spacecraft Contamination
Control System Design,” NASA Technical Memorandum 108497, NASA Marshall Space Flight
Center, Huntsville, AL, 82 pp., August, 1995.
77
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining
the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operation and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.
Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid
OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

01–04–2017 Technical Publication
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Trace Contaminant Control for the International Space Station’s 5b. GRANT NUMBER
Node 1—Analysis, Design, and Verification

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER

J.L. Perry
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
Huntsville, AL 35812 M–1426
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA

Washington, DC 20546–0001 11. SPONSORING/MONITORING REPORT NUMBER
NASA/TP—2017–218235
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category 54
Availability: NASA STI Information Desk (757–864–9658)
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Prepared by the Space Systems Department, Engineering Directorate
14. ABSTRACT
Trace chemical contaminant generation inside crewed spacecraft cabins is a technical and medical problem that must be continuously
evaluated to ensure mission health and safety. Although passive control via materials selection and active control devices is employed
during normal operations of a spacecraft, contaminant buildup can still become a problem. Such contaminant buildup is particularly
troublesome during the quiescent period between the final closure of a spacecraft during ground processing and the time that a crew-
member enters. The International Space Station (ISS) presented a new challenge to contamination control engineering because the vari-
ous modules may spend long periods on the ground before launch, leading to a greater potential for significant contaminant buildup by
the time the crew enters a module for the first time. As well, long quiescent periods between crew visits during early assembly on orbit are
a challenge for maintaining cabin atmospheric quality. The progression between November 1994 and January 1998 is presented for the
trace contaminant control technical approach developed for the ISS’s Node 1 module. This approach was refined as the Space Station’s
assembly progressed. The materials presented address preliminary engineering, performance, and verification analysis.
15. SUBJECT TERMS

space station, contaminant control, air quality, activated carbon, catalyst, ingress, maximum allowable
concentration, material balance, design verification
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 18. NUMBER OF 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE PAGES STI Help Desk at email: [email protected]
U U U UU 90 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

STI Help Desk at: 757–864–9658
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
78
The NASA STI Program…in Profile
Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
advancement of aeronautics and space science. The papers from scientific and technical conferences,
NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) symposia, seminars, or other meetings sponsored
Program Office plays a key part in helping NASA or cosponsored by NASA.
maintain this important role.
• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical,
The NASA STI Program Office is operated by or historical information from NASA programs,
Langley Research Center, the lead center for projects, and mission, often concerned with
NASA’s scientific and technical information. The subjects having substantial public interest.
NASA STI Program Office provides access to
the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.
aeronautical and space science STI in the world. English-language translations of foreign
The Program Office is also NASA’s institutional scientific and technical material pertinent to
mechanism for disseminating the results of its NASA’s mission.
research and development activities. These results
are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report Specialized services that complement the STI
Series, which includes the following report types: Program Office’s diverse offerings include creating
custom thesauri, building customized databases,
• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of organizing and publishing research results…even
completed research or a major significant providing videos.
phase of research that present the results of
NASA programs and include extensive data For more information about the NASA STI Program
or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations Office, see the following:
of significant scientific and technical data
and information deemed to be of continuing • Access the NASA STI program home page at
reference value. NASA’s counterpart of peer- <http://www.sti.nasa.gov>
reviewed formal professional papers but has less
stringent limitations on manuscript length and • E-mail your question via the Internet to
extent of graphic presentations. <[email protected]>
• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific • Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 757 –864–9658
specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports,
working papers, and bibliographies that contain • Write to:
minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive NASA STI Information Desk
analysis. Mail Stop 148
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and Hampton, VA 23681–2199, USA
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.
National Aeronautics and NASA/TP—2017–218235
IS02
Huntsville, Alabama 35812

and Verification
J.L. Perry
April 2017

Trace Contaminant Control For The International Space Station's Node 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trace Contaminant Control For The International Space Station's Node 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trace Contaminant Control For The International Space Station's Node 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Aeronautics and NASA/TP—2017–218235

Trace Contaminant Control for the International

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific • Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at

Trace Contaminant Control for the International

National Aeronautics and

Marshall Space Flight Center • Huntsville, Alabama 35812

NASA STI Information Desk

This report is also available in electronic form at

2. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL

2.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 2

3. DETAILED PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF TRACE CONTAMINANT

3.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 12

4. VERIFICATION ANALYSIS OF THE TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL

4.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX A—NASA AND RUSSIAN MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

APPENDIX B—TRACE CHEMICAL CONTAMINANT DESIGN LOAD MODEL ......... 51

APPENDIX C—PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR NODE 1 UPON

APPENDIX D—FLIGHT 2A, 3A, AND 4A TIMELINE ...................................................... 63

APPENDIX E—3% Pt ON ACTIVIATED CHARCOAL PERFORMANCE

APPENDIX F—NODE 1 ENTRY VERIFICATION ANALYSIS MISSION TIMELINE .... 66

APPENDIX G—CABIN AIR CATALYST ELEMENT ASSEMBLIES PACKING

APPENDIX H—TRACE CONTAMINANT GENERATION RATES ................................. 74

APPENDIX I—2% Pt ON CHARCOAL QUALIFICATION TEST PERFORMANCE ....... 76

1. ISSA configuration for flight 5A ................................................................................ 3

2. Cabin concentration profile for 2-propenal during assembly mission 5A .................... 7

3. Cabin concentration profile for dichloromethane during assembly mission 5A .......... 7

4. Cabin concentration profile for 2-butanone during assembly mission 5A ................... 8

6. Node 1 relative contamination buildup ...................................................................... 20

7. Node 1 decontamination on-orbit 47 days after ground purge ................................... 22

8. Node 1 decontamination on-orbit 57 days after ground purge ................................... 22

9. Node 1 decontamination on-orbit 68 days after ground purge ................................... 23

10. Node 1 decontamination on-orbit 78 days after ground purge ................................... 23

12. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during missions 2A, 3A, and 4A

13. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during mission 3A (launch

14. Relative contamination of PMA/Node 1 during mission 4A (launch

15. CACEA features and cross section ............................................................................. 33

16. Relative contamination of Node 1 for a 2,359-kg hardware basis ............................... 43

17. Relative contamination of Node 1 for a 1,361-kg hardware basis ............................... 43

3. Final cabin concentrations in the Shuttle/Node 1 and Russian segment cabins

5. Ingress contamination control ground rules ............................................................... 20

6. Time to reduce Node 1 contamination to acceptable limits ........................................ 21

7. Logistics requirements ................................................................................................ 24

8. Contaminant limits from April 1994 U.S.-Russian protocol ....................................... 28

9. Contaminant concentrations in Shuttle/Node 1 before opening FGB hatch ............... 29

AC/GAC acid-treated granular activated charcoal

ATCO ambient temperature catalytic oxidizer

CACEA cabin air catalyst element assembly

FGB functional cargo block

GAC granular activated charcoal

GFE government-furnished equipment

IMV intermodule ventilation

ISS International Space Station

ISSA International Space Station Alpha

IVA intravehicular activities

JSC Johnson Space Center

KSC Kennedy Space Center

LPC limiting permissible concentration

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center