Volatile Compounds Emitted from the Cat Urine Contaminated Carpet before and after Treatment with Marketed Cleaning Products: A Simultaneous Chemical and Sensory Analysis

Urination on carpet and subflooring can develop into a persistent and challenging problem when trying to mitigate odor. Very little or no information is published on how volatile organic compounds (VOCs) change over time when urine is deposited on a carpet covering a plywood-type subflooring. This research has investigated the VOCs emitted from carpet + subflooring (control), carpet + subflooring sprayed with water (control with moisture), and cat urine-contaminated carpet + subflooring (treatment) over time (day 0 and 15). In addition, the study has recorded the effect of four popular cleaning product applications on VOCs emitted from carpet and evaluated their efficacy in eliminating cat urine related indoor odors over time (days 0 and 15). Carpet-subflooring with all treatments were also contaminated with Micrococcus luteus, a nonmotile obligate aerobe commonly found in household dust, to observe the impact of the aerobe on carpet-subflooring VOCs emission. VOCs emitted from carpet + subflooring receiving different treatments were collected from headspace using solid-phase microextraction (SPME). The VOCs were analyzed using a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry olfactometry (GC-MS-O). Many common VOCs were released from the carpet on day 0 and day 15, specifically from urine contamination. Cleaning products were effective in masking several potent odors of cat urine contaminated carpet VOCs on day 0 but were unable to remove the odor that appeared on day 15 in most cases.

contaminated carpet material over time are noteworthy. Figure 1 illustrates a few of many ways for humans to expose to cat urine or feces when deposited on carpet. Bouillard et al. (2005) reported that in office building carpets, bacterial concentrations ranged from 0.73-185 × 10 5 CFU/g, with 7.28 × 10 5 CFU•g -1 as the median value. Micrococcus luteus was among the most commonly isolated microorganisms [7]. Therefore, M. luteus was selected to represent microbes commonly found on household surfaces that might interact with cat urine. Solid-phase microextraction (SPME), used to extract the VOCs in his study, is a non-invasive, solventless sampling method to extract and characterize volatiles from a source at trace levels [8][9][10][11][12]. The objective of this study is to record VOCs emitted from cat urine contaminated carpet material followed by pet odor-controlling cleaning product treatment impact on those carpet VOCs over time, by using simultaneous chemical and sensory analysis using SPME and multidimensional GC-MS-olfactometry (GC-MS-O). The data presented in the supplementary material can be used to evaluate and assess the indoor air quality in the presence of cat urine contaminated carpetsubflooring over time. The data also contains useful data on the efficacy of four different marketed products that claim to remove cat urine odor from the carpet on the application day and 15 days after application to the carpet.

Data Description (required)
The data provided in the Supplementary Material in Excel spreadsheet 'Carpet-caturinecleaningpdt-final.xlxs,' organized in sheets with names as follows. Figures A1-A4 present examples of the data collected by sampling gases with DVB/CAR/PDMS Stableflex (2 cm) SPME fiber for 60 min at 37 °C:  an overlay of aromagram and total ion chromatogram of the carpet subflooring urine microbe ( Figure A1),  the carpet-subflooring-cat urine-microbe on day 15 ( Figure A2),  the carpet-subflooring-cat urine-microbe Product 3 on day0 ( Figure A3), and  the carpet-subflooring-cat urine-microbe-Product 3 on day 15 ( Figure A4); e. Table S1 contains information of volatile compounds emitted on day zero data (Table 1) as read from left to right: number of volatiles emitted, name of the volatiles, gas chromatography (GC) column retention time (RT; min), MS Spectral Library (NIST & WILEY7) match (%), published odor, Chemical abstract Service number, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet +sub-flooring, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + water, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + water + M. luteus, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring+ cat urine, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring+ cat urine + M. luteus, and Ion abundance (% relative abundance). Table S2 contains information on volatile compounds emitted on day 15 data. Table 2 as read from left to right: number of volatiles emitted, name of the volatiles, gas chromatography (GC) column retention time (RT; min), MS Spectral Library (NIST & WILEY 7) match (%), published odor, Chemical abstract Service number, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + water, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + water + M. luteus (day 15), a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine (day 15), a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine + M. luteus (day 15), and ion abundance (% relative abundance). Table S3 contains information of volatile compounds emitted from commercial odor removal product applied to urine + M. luteus contaminated carpet on day 0 data (Table 3) as read from left to right: the number of volatiles emitted, name of the volatiles, gas chromatography (GC) column retention time (RT; min), MS Spectral Library (NIST & WILEY 7) match (%), Chemical abstract Service number, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine + M. luteus + Product 1 (day 0), a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine + M. luteus + Product 2 (day 0), a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine + M. luteus+ Product 3 (day 0), a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine + M. luteus + Product 4 (day 0), and Ion abundance (% relative abundance). Table S4 contains information of volatile compounds emitted from commercial odor removal product applied to urine + M. luteus contaminated carpet on day 15 data (Table 4) as read from left to right: the number of volatiles emitted, name of the volatiles, gas chromatography (GC) column retention time (RT; min), MS Spectral Library (NIST & WILEY 7) match (%), published odor, Chemical abstract Service number, a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine + M. luteus + Product 1 (day 15), a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring+ cat urine + M. luteus + Product 2 (day 15), a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine + M. luteus + Product 3 (day 15), a relative abundance of the volatile compounds (peak area counts) of carpet + sub-flooring + cat urine + M. luteus + Product 4 (day 15), and Ion abundance (% relative abundance).

28
The carpet and sub-flooring square (2 x 2 cm) were assembled using a rubber band. The cat urine 29 sample was brought to room temperature before applying to the test carpet samples. After gentle 30 inverting the urine sample a few times to homogenize it, 2.5±0.5 mL of urine solution was pipetted 31 within a (38 mm) 1.5-inch circle centered on the test carpet specimen using a stainless-steel staining 32 ring. For a control sample, the same procedure was followed to apply water on the carpet instead of 33 cat urine. The carpet specimen was tied with the specimen subflooring using a latex rubberband for 34 all treatments and control used in this study.

35
M. luteus (1 mL) was pipetted on to the appropriate samples. After waiting for 5 min for the 36 samples to soak in, these contaminated carpet samples were put inside a 500 mL wide mouth (9.1 cm 37 outer diameter) glass jar containing 10 mL of water and a petri dish separator inside ( Figure A5). For 38 the product application, the urine and M. luteus contaminated carpet samples were dried overnight,

39
and then the following morning, cleaning products were applied according to package directions.

40
During the incubation period, all jars were always kept at open atmospheric conditions by removing 41 the green sampling septa out from the jar-lid, to have oxygen exchange for the microbes to be alive.

42
On the sampling day, the green septa were put back on the lid, and the jar was equilibrated to 43 accumulate the VOCs for 1-h before sample extraction. A timer was always used to keep track of the 44 time for each sample. The sampling jar was then put on a digital hot plate set at the desired 45 temperature (37 °C) and an SPME fiber inserted then and exposed for another hour to complete the 46 VOC extraction from headspace (Figure 2, Figure A6).

68
The GC oven temperature was programmed at the initial 40 °C for 3 min, followed by ramping

77
The peaks were identified using PBM-Benchtop software (Wiley7 library) and the NIST database 78 library. Aromagrams for odors were generated using AromaTrax software, recorded and generated 79 by the panelist. Odors recorded/reported by the panelist was verified with published odors [13,14] Table S1, Table S2, Table S3, and Table S4 is presented in the Supplemental Material spreadsheet 82 has the same layout of columns and column description as Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4