Show Resources:
12:03:35 From cliff zlotnik : TRIIA: What is the maximum number of times Friday the 13th can occur in any one year?
12:03:37 From ralphsmacbook : 4
12:03:52 From Danny Gough : 3
12:04:17 From cliff zlotnik : correct Danny, pleas send your contact info to czlotnik@cs.com
12:05:49 From Danny Gough : Dottie stopped pedaling the generator?????
12:09:19 From ralphsmacbook : What about leap years like 2012? (4 Friday 13ths)
12:18:34 From Ed Light : Clearance testing is ongoing with current AIHA guidance and the data continues to be used to draw conclusions on project acceptance. Based on my review of the scientific literature and 40 year field experience, mold testing is inconclusive and often misleading (e.g., failing restored sites and clearing contaminated sites). I respectfully disagree with Joe on his approach. Many environmental professionals and restoration companies continue to make decisions on data interpretation recommended by labs. Joe's refinement of mold testing protocols, does not address the fundamental problems with relying on spore concentrations to differentiate measurements from normal background and the lack of an association with health risk.
12:31:32 From Ed Light : Mold dogs?? I can't find any validation- am I missing something? Visual Inspection?? This is essential and identifies obvious contamination. However, it can fail to detect mold growth that can be found where inspection holes are cut, site history is not considered, or the investigator does not conduct an informed moisture evaluation.
12:35:37 From ralphsmacbook : Until we have a correlation of mold contamination with adverse health effects, we cannot hope to opine on potential health effects.
12:36:15 From cliff zlotnik : Ralphs Mac Book- Please send your contact info, I'll check my sources and if you are correct we will also send you a prize. czlotnik@cs.com
12:57:41 From ralphsmacbook : Not all BEIs are standardized to creatinine, see acetone, aniline, 1,2-Butadiene, etc.
13:10:26 From bmorris : Excellent presentation. Thanks of the insight!
744: Joe Spurgeon PhD - A Perspective on the AIHA White Paper; Mold & Dampness in Built Environments
Re: 744: Joe Spurgeon PhD - A Perspective on the AIHA White Paper; Mold & Dampness in Built Environments
IAQ RADIO+
Show Number: 744 DRAFT BLOG
Joe Spurgeon, PhD
A Perspective on the AIHA White Paper
Mold and Dampness in the Build Environment
Good Day and welcome to IAQ Radio+ episode 744 blog. This week we welcomed back Dr. Joe Spurgeon to provide his perspective on the AIHA White Paper, Mold and Dampness in the Built Environment. We could not think of a better way to end the year than doing a wrap up show with Dr. Spurgeon. He is one of our most popular guests.
Joe Spurgeon, PHD, has a multidisciplinary doctorate degree in Analytical Chemistry and Environmental Health from the University of Pittsburgh; and was a Certified Industrial Hygienist from 1993 – 2013. His career has included working as a research chemist on the NBS Lead-Paint Poisoning Program, directing the FAA’s Combustion Toxicology Laboratory, performing Health Assessments for CDC/ATSDR, implementing US EPA’s Laboratory Exposure Assessment Project, and working as a consultant specializing in microbial indoor air quality for US PHS. He has performed numerous residential and commercial investigations involving water intrusions and microbial contaminants; has taught courses on mold investigations, sampling, and data interpretation methods; and has served as an expert witness in numerous mold cases. His books are available at http://expertonmold.com/
Nuggets mined from today’s episode:
Joe’s general observations about the AIHA White Paper “Mold and Dampness in the Built Environment are:
• It’s a good white paper.
• There is nothing wrong in the paper.
• The paper is consistent with many years of thought.
• The paper makes very safe recommendations.
• And, Joe offered several suggestions for improvement and provided supporting documentation to support his recommendations.
• Joe questions that status quo
• Making perfect is the enemy of the good.
• Improvements to the status quo are not taught, not supported and are driven by fear of liability.
SELECTED MATERIAL FROM JOE’S PRESENTATION
JOE’s 4 Postulates – Basis for his logic and reasoning, Provides you with an insight into his positions and biases.
1. A numerical lab report cannot be interpreted without using numerical guidelines. A “coordinate system” is required. “Professional judgement” is just a set of implicit rather than explicit numerical guidelines
2. Inspection Objective: Mold is always present in indoor spaces Not looking for Mold during an inspection. Looking for the AMPLIFICATION of mold. The excessive growth of mold in the indoor environment. We need methods that can differentiate between “normal” and “amplified” conditions. Using professional judgement based on Implicit, but preferably explicit guidelines and decision criteria
3. The common mold sampling methods and data interpretation methods have significant issues that limit their utility for assessing Building-related Contamination, Occupant Exposure Potentials, and Mold-related Health Risk. AND substantial improvement in assessments of condition if these methods are modified to increase their usefulness and reliability (“SOCS” criteria)
4. Should satisfy the “SOCS” criteria
Reliable methods MUST satisfy at least these criteria:
• Significance of the sample result
Reference system, method for assessing results as Low – High
Measure what you think it is measuring
• Objective guidelines and decision criteria
State the guidelines for interpretation before sampling
• Consistent application between projects & inspectors
If Conditions similar to “A”, then Assessment similar to “A”
• Stable basis for comparing sample results independent of Weather, Geography, etc.
• The facts matter, Joe has facts and uses them. Others only have opinions.
• There is little association between Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples (cites McKintosh). Indoor-Outdoor comparisons often measure the variability of the outdoor air, not the condition of the indoor space
• AIHA White Paper “Results only represent conditions at the time of the inspection and cannot be compared to other data or averages.” Joe Spurgeon-Applies to Single Samples but does not apply to a Distribution of Concentrations
• Joe is an advocate of QPCR analysis of samples taken with swab or Microbac Cassette
• The White Paper Emphasizes assessing Health-related Risk and Discounts the need to assess BRC and OEP Joe opines- Building Related Contamination (BRC) and Occupant Exposure Potential are 2 different things. BRC can be measured with current methods. OEP is limited by current methods, reliable methods are available.
• The White Paper says- “Sampling should only be performed if the results provide an answer to a question or hypothesis.” Joe opines- Since current methods do not provide information on health risks associated with mold exposures, health assessment is primarily based on the extent of water or moisture damage and mold growth. Joe opines- Exposure to nonvisible mold should be a concern. Joe recommends sampling Air Supply Ducts (either boot of duct of exterior of registers).
• The White Paper says- Microbial measurements are not currently useful for estimating dampness or mold-related health risks. Joe opines- What about utility for estimating BRC or OEP?
• Joe opines- When you don’t sample you risk missing problem houses!
• IMPORTANTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING Laboratory “Standard Operating Procedure” (SOP)
Results reported on a Weight-Analyzed Basis
Use a 300 um sieve to remove large debris
Analyze a 5-milligram portion of the “fines”
Without weighing the sample of dust!!
Divide the result by 5 mg
Report “Mold per mg” of dust [analyzed]
BUT the number of mg in the sample is not reported
So, the fungal loading in the sample is unknown!!
Joe points out the SOP of most labs analyzing a surface bulk sample of dust remove a small quantity of the bulk sample (e.g. 5 milligrams) and compare the results to that rather than comparing the comparing the results to the total weight of the bulk material. Joe demonstrated the significant variance in reported results and highly recommend the lab be requested provide the total weight of the bulk sample.
How to improve your assessments
– Measure the area sampled
– Ask the lab to report the total sample weight
– Assess sample results on an Area Basis
• White paper says-“Since current methods do not provide information on health risks associated with mold exposures, health assessment is primarily based on the extent of water or moisture damage and (Joe added visible) mold growth. Microbial measurements are not currently useful for estimating dampness or mold-related health risks.” Joe opines- But are they useful for assessing BRC or OEP?
• White Paper Says- “There are no recognized or accepted quantitative, health-based microbial exposure guidelines or thresholds based on existing methods for air or dust samples.” Joe opines- Agree. If we continue to use current methods, we will never be able to associate mold concentrations with health effects
• Joe queries-Why not use a better method?
“If we continue to use current methods, we will never be able to associate mold concentrations with health effects”
Even when a method isn’t perfect, if it improves the ability to assess BRC and OEP why not use it? Professional organizations are not familiar with and do not support the methods. Mold Inspector excuses- Fear of legal liability and “No one else uses this method”
• Joe opines- N6 samplers are prone to saturation when high levels of mold are present resulting in flawed underestimation of mold levels present, and should not be used to determine occupant exposure. Joe recommends that filter cassettes be used for assessing occupant exposure. (OSHA recommends filter cassettes (PCM), Joe recommends Bi-Air filter cassettes.
• Sample Collection & Interpretation
White Paper Says- “Sampling data must be comprehensive and communicated in a form useful to physicians, other mold professionals, occupants, and decision-makers”
“Samples should not be collected without a clear purpose (hypothesis testing) that has been determined ahead of time”
“A sufficient number of samples must be collected to reliably assess the existing conditions”
Joe queries, When can we collect those samples, and what do we do with them?
• Stratified Sampling of Carpets
Group 1 ≈ 100 cfu/100 cm2
Group 2 ≈ 1,000 cfu/100 cm2
Group 3 ≈ 10,000 cfu/100 cm2
Corresponds to IICRC S-520, Conditions 1,2,&3
• Mycotoxins (White Paper)
None of the agriculturally important mycotoxins are produced by fungi that grow on water damaged building materials
Aflatoxin, fumonisin, deoxynivalenol [DON], zearalenone, ochratoxin
There are validated tests for mycotoxins in animals but not for human serum or urine samples
No reference ranges for mycotoxins in humans
Lab reports include agricultural toxins and are not standardized
Joe says- THERE ARE NO BEI’s FOR MYCOTOXINS. We need standardized data to compare a 22 year old athlete to an 82 year old grandmother.
THE MOLD REPORT
• At a minimum, reports should include
o A statement of purpose and limitations
o Observations, results, conclusions
o Recommendations
• Speculation or medical causation should not be included in the report
• The mold report must provide information that can:
o Be translated into an action plan for remediation
o Provide a basis for protecting the health of occupants and remediation workers
Requirement consistent with guidance that sampling is optional?
o Be useful for the intended audience
• Investigators should provide clear and consistent field notes with sufficient detail and documentation to allow the fieldwork and sampling data to be interpreted, verified, and repeated. Photos only of meter readings are insufficient
• Document Using Field Sheets (template for Field Sheet download form www.expertonmold.com)
Location, Surface, Sampling Parameters. Conditions-why are you sampling.
• DATA FOR INTERPRETING AIR SAMPLES
Data in rank order for dominant contaminant spores
Percentages and/or ratios included in the Table
IICRC Conditional Areas assigned for use by Remediation Contractor
• A QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
A report that converts reliable data into usable, actionable information
• By:
– Using and applying reliable principles and methods
– Documenting the inspection using field sheets
– Assessing and interpreting the results using data tables
– Associating conclusions with specific results and supporting recommendations with specific conclusions
• Communicating that information clearly & effectively using the least technical language possible
SUMMARY OF AIHA POSITIONS (WHITE PAPER-Mold and Dampness in the Built Environment)
• Investigation must be based on an informed visual and olfactory assessment that may be augmented by the judicious use of existing sampling methods
• Observable indicators of dampness and mold are the best surrogates for determining if a problem exists
• Estimates of the extent of visible mold or dampness are the best predictors of short- and long-term health outcomes
– But what about as predictors of BRC or OEP?
–
Since current methods do not provide information on health risks associated with mold exposures, health assessment is primarily based on the extent of water or moisture damage and (visible) mold growth
– Microbial measurements are not currently useful for estimating dampness or mold-related health risks
– But are they useful for assessing BRC or OEP?
SUMMARY OF JOE SPURGEON’S POSITIONS
• A contaminant assessment consists of three parts
– 1. An Exposure Assessment
• Is the contaminant present?
– 32% of problem houses missed without sampling
– 2. A Risk Assessment
• Is the concentration sufficiently elevated to be of concern?
– “Contaminant” vs “Contaminant of Concern”
» As defined by CDC for Health Risk Assessments
• Qualitative parameters alone result in false negatives
– Air supply ducts
– 3. Risk Management: Restoration or remediation
• The White Paper emphasized
• A reliance on qualitative methods (dampness, odors, etc.)
• The limitations of current sampling methods for assessing Mold-related Health Risk
• 1. Minimized consideration of the practical necessity for assessing Building-related Contamination and Occupant Exposure Potential
• 2. I question whether qualitative methods are any more reliable for assessing condition than current sampling methods
WHY NOT USE A BETTER METHOD
• “If we continue to use current methods, we will never be able to associate mold concentrations with health effects”
• Even if a method isn’t perfect, if it improves the ability to assess BRC and OEP why not use it?
– Professional organizations
• Are not familiar with and do not support the methods
– Mold Inspectors
• Fear of legal liability
• “No one else uses this method”
Z-MAN SIGNING OFF
TRIVIA:
What is the maximum number of Friday the 13ths that can occur in a calendar year?
Answer: 3
Answered by:
Danny Gough
Energy Solutions, Inc.
2525 Holly Ridge Rd
Yadkinville, NC. 27055
336 463 2005
Show Number: 744 DRAFT BLOG
Joe Spurgeon, PhD
A Perspective on the AIHA White Paper
Mold and Dampness in the Build Environment
Good Day and welcome to IAQ Radio+ episode 744 blog. This week we welcomed back Dr. Joe Spurgeon to provide his perspective on the AIHA White Paper, Mold and Dampness in the Built Environment. We could not think of a better way to end the year than doing a wrap up show with Dr. Spurgeon. He is one of our most popular guests.
Joe Spurgeon, PHD, has a multidisciplinary doctorate degree in Analytical Chemistry and Environmental Health from the University of Pittsburgh; and was a Certified Industrial Hygienist from 1993 – 2013. His career has included working as a research chemist on the NBS Lead-Paint Poisoning Program, directing the FAA’s Combustion Toxicology Laboratory, performing Health Assessments for CDC/ATSDR, implementing US EPA’s Laboratory Exposure Assessment Project, and working as a consultant specializing in microbial indoor air quality for US PHS. He has performed numerous residential and commercial investigations involving water intrusions and microbial contaminants; has taught courses on mold investigations, sampling, and data interpretation methods; and has served as an expert witness in numerous mold cases. His books are available at http://expertonmold.com/
Nuggets mined from today’s episode:
Joe’s general observations about the AIHA White Paper “Mold and Dampness in the Built Environment are:
• It’s a good white paper.
• There is nothing wrong in the paper.
• The paper is consistent with many years of thought.
• The paper makes very safe recommendations.
• And, Joe offered several suggestions for improvement and provided supporting documentation to support his recommendations.
• Joe questions that status quo
• Making perfect is the enemy of the good.
• Improvements to the status quo are not taught, not supported and are driven by fear of liability.
SELECTED MATERIAL FROM JOE’S PRESENTATION
JOE’s 4 Postulates – Basis for his logic and reasoning, Provides you with an insight into his positions and biases.
1. A numerical lab report cannot be interpreted without using numerical guidelines. A “coordinate system” is required. “Professional judgement” is just a set of implicit rather than explicit numerical guidelines
2. Inspection Objective: Mold is always present in indoor spaces Not looking for Mold during an inspection. Looking for the AMPLIFICATION of mold. The excessive growth of mold in the indoor environment. We need methods that can differentiate between “normal” and “amplified” conditions. Using professional judgement based on Implicit, but preferably explicit guidelines and decision criteria
3. The common mold sampling methods and data interpretation methods have significant issues that limit their utility for assessing Building-related Contamination, Occupant Exposure Potentials, and Mold-related Health Risk. AND substantial improvement in assessments of condition if these methods are modified to increase their usefulness and reliability (“SOCS” criteria)
4. Should satisfy the “SOCS” criteria
Reliable methods MUST satisfy at least these criteria:
• Significance of the sample result
Reference system, method for assessing results as Low – High
Measure what you think it is measuring
• Objective guidelines and decision criteria
State the guidelines for interpretation before sampling
• Consistent application between projects & inspectors
If Conditions similar to “A”, then Assessment similar to “A”
• Stable basis for comparing sample results independent of Weather, Geography, etc.
• The facts matter, Joe has facts and uses them. Others only have opinions.
• There is little association between Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples (cites McKintosh). Indoor-Outdoor comparisons often measure the variability of the outdoor air, not the condition of the indoor space
• AIHA White Paper “Results only represent conditions at the time of the inspection and cannot be compared to other data or averages.” Joe Spurgeon-Applies to Single Samples but does not apply to a Distribution of Concentrations
• Joe is an advocate of QPCR analysis of samples taken with swab or Microbac Cassette
• The White Paper Emphasizes assessing Health-related Risk and Discounts the need to assess BRC and OEP Joe opines- Building Related Contamination (BRC) and Occupant Exposure Potential are 2 different things. BRC can be measured with current methods. OEP is limited by current methods, reliable methods are available.
• The White Paper says- “Sampling should only be performed if the results provide an answer to a question or hypothesis.” Joe opines- Since current methods do not provide information on health risks associated with mold exposures, health assessment is primarily based on the extent of water or moisture damage and mold growth. Joe opines- Exposure to nonvisible mold should be a concern. Joe recommends sampling Air Supply Ducts (either boot of duct of exterior of registers).
• The White Paper says- Microbial measurements are not currently useful for estimating dampness or mold-related health risks. Joe opines- What about utility for estimating BRC or OEP?
• Joe opines- When you don’t sample you risk missing problem houses!
• IMPORTANTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING Laboratory “Standard Operating Procedure” (SOP)
Results reported on a Weight-Analyzed Basis
Use a 300 um sieve to remove large debris
Analyze a 5-milligram portion of the “fines”
Without weighing the sample of dust!!
Divide the result by 5 mg
Report “Mold per mg” of dust [analyzed]
BUT the number of mg in the sample is not reported
So, the fungal loading in the sample is unknown!!
Joe points out the SOP of most labs analyzing a surface bulk sample of dust remove a small quantity of the bulk sample (e.g. 5 milligrams) and compare the results to that rather than comparing the comparing the results to the total weight of the bulk material. Joe demonstrated the significant variance in reported results and highly recommend the lab be requested provide the total weight of the bulk sample.
How to improve your assessments
– Measure the area sampled
– Ask the lab to report the total sample weight
– Assess sample results on an Area Basis
• White paper says-“Since current methods do not provide information on health risks associated with mold exposures, health assessment is primarily based on the extent of water or moisture damage and (Joe added visible) mold growth. Microbial measurements are not currently useful for estimating dampness or mold-related health risks.” Joe opines- But are they useful for assessing BRC or OEP?
• White Paper Says- “There are no recognized or accepted quantitative, health-based microbial exposure guidelines or thresholds based on existing methods for air or dust samples.” Joe opines- Agree. If we continue to use current methods, we will never be able to associate mold concentrations with health effects
• Joe queries-Why not use a better method?
“If we continue to use current methods, we will never be able to associate mold concentrations with health effects”
Even when a method isn’t perfect, if it improves the ability to assess BRC and OEP why not use it? Professional organizations are not familiar with and do not support the methods. Mold Inspector excuses- Fear of legal liability and “No one else uses this method”
• Joe opines- N6 samplers are prone to saturation when high levels of mold are present resulting in flawed underestimation of mold levels present, and should not be used to determine occupant exposure. Joe recommends that filter cassettes be used for assessing occupant exposure. (OSHA recommends filter cassettes (PCM), Joe recommends Bi-Air filter cassettes.
• Sample Collection & Interpretation
White Paper Says- “Sampling data must be comprehensive and communicated in a form useful to physicians, other mold professionals, occupants, and decision-makers”
“Samples should not be collected without a clear purpose (hypothesis testing) that has been determined ahead of time”
“A sufficient number of samples must be collected to reliably assess the existing conditions”
Joe queries, When can we collect those samples, and what do we do with them?
• Stratified Sampling of Carpets
Group 1 ≈ 100 cfu/100 cm2
Group 2 ≈ 1,000 cfu/100 cm2
Group 3 ≈ 10,000 cfu/100 cm2
Corresponds to IICRC S-520, Conditions 1,2,&3
• Mycotoxins (White Paper)
None of the agriculturally important mycotoxins are produced by fungi that grow on water damaged building materials
Aflatoxin, fumonisin, deoxynivalenol [DON], zearalenone, ochratoxin
There are validated tests for mycotoxins in animals but not for human serum or urine samples
No reference ranges for mycotoxins in humans
Lab reports include agricultural toxins and are not standardized
Joe says- THERE ARE NO BEI’s FOR MYCOTOXINS. We need standardized data to compare a 22 year old athlete to an 82 year old grandmother.
THE MOLD REPORT
• At a minimum, reports should include
o A statement of purpose and limitations
o Observations, results, conclusions
o Recommendations
• Speculation or medical causation should not be included in the report
• The mold report must provide information that can:
o Be translated into an action plan for remediation
o Provide a basis for protecting the health of occupants and remediation workers
Requirement consistent with guidance that sampling is optional?
o Be useful for the intended audience
• Investigators should provide clear and consistent field notes with sufficient detail and documentation to allow the fieldwork and sampling data to be interpreted, verified, and repeated. Photos only of meter readings are insufficient
• Document Using Field Sheets (template for Field Sheet download form www.expertonmold.com)
Location, Surface, Sampling Parameters. Conditions-why are you sampling.
• DATA FOR INTERPRETING AIR SAMPLES
Data in rank order for dominant contaminant spores
Percentages and/or ratios included in the Table
IICRC Conditional Areas assigned for use by Remediation Contractor
• A QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
A report that converts reliable data into usable, actionable information
• By:
– Using and applying reliable principles and methods
– Documenting the inspection using field sheets
– Assessing and interpreting the results using data tables
– Associating conclusions with specific results and supporting recommendations with specific conclusions
• Communicating that information clearly & effectively using the least technical language possible
SUMMARY OF AIHA POSITIONS (WHITE PAPER-Mold and Dampness in the Built Environment)
• Investigation must be based on an informed visual and olfactory assessment that may be augmented by the judicious use of existing sampling methods
• Observable indicators of dampness and mold are the best surrogates for determining if a problem exists
• Estimates of the extent of visible mold or dampness are the best predictors of short- and long-term health outcomes
– But what about as predictors of BRC or OEP?
–
Since current methods do not provide information on health risks associated with mold exposures, health assessment is primarily based on the extent of water or moisture damage and (visible) mold growth
– Microbial measurements are not currently useful for estimating dampness or mold-related health risks
– But are they useful for assessing BRC or OEP?
SUMMARY OF JOE SPURGEON’S POSITIONS
• A contaminant assessment consists of three parts
– 1. An Exposure Assessment
• Is the contaminant present?
– 32% of problem houses missed without sampling
– 2. A Risk Assessment
• Is the concentration sufficiently elevated to be of concern?
– “Contaminant” vs “Contaminant of Concern”
» As defined by CDC for Health Risk Assessments
• Qualitative parameters alone result in false negatives
– Air supply ducts
– 3. Risk Management: Restoration or remediation
• The White Paper emphasized
• A reliance on qualitative methods (dampness, odors, etc.)
• The limitations of current sampling methods for assessing Mold-related Health Risk
• 1. Minimized consideration of the practical necessity for assessing Building-related Contamination and Occupant Exposure Potential
• 2. I question whether qualitative methods are any more reliable for assessing condition than current sampling methods
WHY NOT USE A BETTER METHOD
• “If we continue to use current methods, we will never be able to associate mold concentrations with health effects”
• Even if a method isn’t perfect, if it improves the ability to assess BRC and OEP why not use it?
– Professional organizations
• Are not familiar with and do not support the methods
– Mold Inspectors
• Fear of legal liability
• “No one else uses this method”
Z-MAN SIGNING OFF
TRIVIA:
What is the maximum number of Friday the 13ths that can occur in a calendar year?
Answer: 3
Answered by:
Danny Gough
Energy Solutions, Inc.
2525 Holly Ridge Rd
Yadkinville, NC. 27055
336 463 2005