Derrick A. Denis, CIAQP, CIEC, CAC - Wildfire Characterization and IAQ Current Events

Where the IAQ Radio Discussion Continues
Post Reply
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:06 pm

Derrick A. Denis, CIAQP, CIEC, CAC - Wildfire Characterization and IAQ Current Events

Post by admin »

Show Resources: 11:58:46 From Don Weekes : I will bet that almost all in-person conferences will be gone in ten hours.
11:58:59 From Don Weekes : Ten years.
11:59:19 From Don Weekes : The countdown is one!
12:00:18 From Don Weekes : I agree with Derrick that in-person conference are much better.
12:03:30 From cliff zlotnik : was the confidential codename assigned to the preparations or the DDay invasion?
12:03:40 From John Lapotaire : Operation Overlord
12:03:51 From cliff zlotnik : sorry incorrect
12:04:41 From John Lapotaire : Neptune
12:05:07 From cliff zlotnik : sorry incorrect
12:05:44 From ralphsmacbook : bolero
12:05:55 From cliff zlotnik : sorry incorrect
12:05:59 From John Lapotaire : Operation Fortitude
12:06:17 From cliff zlotnik : sorry incorrect
12:06:28 From John Lapotaire : Damn it.
12:07:03 From ralphsmacbook : ceremony
12:07:12 From cliff zlotnik : sorry incorrect
12:07:44 From ralphsmacbook : game
12:08:05 From cliff zlotnik : sorry
12:08:39 From ralphsmacbook : attack
12:08:45 From John Lapotaire : Bodyguard
12:09:00 From cliff zlotnik : sorry still incorect
12:09:08 From ralphsmacbook : kit
12:09:24 From cliff zlotnik : sorry
12:09:30 From ralphsmacbook : youtube
12:09:57 From Bruce : Thunder???
12:10:10 From John Lapotaire : Dragoon
12:10:22 From ralphsmacbook : chicago
12:10:28 From cliff zlotnik : sorry
12:10:41 From Don Weekes : COSSAC
12:11:14 From cliff zlotnik : sorry
12:11:14 From John Lapotaire : Gotta get back to it.
12:17:04 From Don Weekes : Operation Tiger
12:17:39 From cliff zlotnik : sorry
12:19:19 From Don Weekes : https://totalmilitaryinsight.com/codena ... ith-d-day/
12:21:43 From cliff zlotnik : The answer we were looking for is BIGOT
12:23:46 From Bruce : Everyone addresses, when sampling for Char/Soot/Ash. identifying ID and extent. What about after remediation, how does the "owner" know the work is completed accurately? Visual? Resampling? Wipes? Tapes?
12:24:10 From Don Weekes : One of the issues with sampling is: Who should be the individual who collects the sample? Is it someone with a certificate or a certification?
12:29:20 From Don Weekes : A well-trained monkey. 🙂 I do agree that sample results should be intrepeted by a certified individual.
12:34:06 From Don Weekes : Both Cliff and I have 50 years of work experience. BUT: Our expertise is totally different. I wouldn't know restoration like he does, and I believe that I may have more expertise on sampling and lab results, particularly intreperation.
12:36:20 From cliff zlotnik : No disagreement with me Don.
12:42:44 From Don Weekes : With wildfires, it is individual risk versus community risk can be quite different. The individual may be at higher risk due to preconditions such as medical conditions. The community risk can be quite different, as shown over and over with wildfires.
12:47:59 From Don Weekes : For example, their is an air quality advisory today in Ottawa (and elsewhere in Canada). For the elderly, this is an important risk to them. But for most residents, this is more a visual conditions with smoke in the air.
12:50:52 From Thomas Martin III, PhD’s iPhone : Here in Florida at a resort restaurant close to me the cooks complain about VOCs to local government and they send in Fire Dept to inspect for gas..
#indoorenvironmenteducation
13:03:24 From Don Weekes : https://evreporter.com/dealing-with-lit ... 20property.
13:04:15 From Don Weekes : https://www.dhses.ny.gov/system/files/d ... /h_m20.pdf
13:05:54 From Don Weekes : https://www.usfa.fema.gov/a-z/lithium-i ... trategies/
13:07:16 From ralphsmacbook : What about other battery chemistry hazards?

The article I provided comparing the two techniques illustrates why using soot, char and ash analysis can create both false positives and false negatives.
The chart I previously sent, excerpted from the study, shows the findings from the study and the misclassification that results. Here are some key elements of why soot counting is bad science, or at least it will get you in trouble if you are in court attempting to defend it against assemblage analysis.

"Combustion products are not the only black particles in an environment. Tire wear, shoe wear, fretting metal wear, dark minerals, insect debris, fungal debris, decayed plant material, insect and arachnid frass (see Photograph 4), newspaper ink, toner, cosmetics, pencil debris, etc. are always or often black and are not uncommon in indoor environments. The products of combustion are not all black or even dark. When all of the carbon is consumed the result is generally a white, yellow, or red ash. These particles still retain structure and optical characteristics sufficient to be identified as ash if they are carefully lifted from a surface (see Photographs 5 and 6).
Photograph 4: Gnat Fecal Pellet (Frass)
This is frass from a mold eating Gnat on a tapelift from an attic.
Photograph 5: White Ash with Cell Structure
This type of fragile particle is destroyed when a wipe or vacuum sample is taken. This particle is white with reflected light.
Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparative Study
6
The identification of these materials requires a mount of high optical quality. That is not possible with a tapelift unless the plastic backing is removed. The plastic backing is too stiff to conform to particles thicker than about three quarters of the adhesive film thickness. The adhesive film is typically ten to twenty micrometers thick (0.01 to 0.02 millimeters). As a result, particles thicker than about seven micrometers (0.007 millimeters) are often associated with pockets of air that mask their morphology and their optical properties. If the plastic film is removed without significantly disrupting the particles in the adhesive layer then the adhesive will conform to the particles and no optical gaps will be present. With the clear tapes used for SC&A analysis the plastic backing cannot be removed without serious disruption of the particles in the adhesive layer. A tape commonly used when a detailed analysis of surface dust is required is 3M Scotch Brand frosted Magic Tape."

"The proper identification of dark particles becomes very difficult. Tire debris, dark minerals, cenospheres, magnetite spheres, and many other interfering particles can be misidentified as char, false positives. Char can be misidentified as tire wear or rotted biologicals rather than charred biologicals, false negatives."

"The definitions of “Soot” and “Char” are no more well defined than “Ash” which results in the inclusion of many more possible interferences. Many sources produce charred plant biomass that are not wildfire related. Charred wood from fireplaces is much more easily identified than charred bark or fine ash from leaves or other plant parts. Field burning, slash burning, and other non-wildfire combustion sources produce much more of the type of material identified by this approach. The burning of candles is identified in these reports as a possible interference for soot identified as being from wildfire. Basically, the reports indicate that the source of the particulate matter should not be assumed based on this analysis and that they are not responsible for how this information is interpreted. Further, the results are unreliable in that any change in the method could produce very different results of at least equal validity. That leads to the common and appropriate precaution added to most of these reports shown below. It should also be added that there are no “published standard methods” for wildfire analysis although their disclaimer suggests that some exist and they comply. That is a misstatement.

A Common Precaution Attached to “SC&A analysis” Results
The results are obtained using the methods and sampling procedures as described in the report or as stated in the published standard methods, and are only guaranteed to the accuracy and precision consistent with the used methods and sampling procedures. Any change in methods and sampling procedure may generate substantially different results. The laboratory assumes no responsibly or liability for the manner in which the results are used or interpreted.

Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparative Study
The limitations of this approach are not necessarily due to the lack of skill on the part of the analyst but are limitations imposed by the way the analyst is required to perform the analysis."

"“Assemblage Analysis” Quantification is based on the area of a tapelift that must be examined in order to see the required wildfire assemblage. It has the advantage of being independent of the particles that are not related to wildfire."

"Laboratories using “SC&A analysis” use one of three referenced methods. The most common method is “Visual Estimate”. Visual estimate involves looking as the sample and estimating the relative amount of area covered by SC&A compared to the area covered by other types of particles. This is a notoriously inaccurate method when percentages are under ten percent, even when the material being quantified is well defined and being done by “experts”19,20. Differences of at least a factor of two are not uncommon between experts at a level of ten percent and the difference increases as the percentage decreases. Size also affects estimation. The reader is encouraged to look at Photograph 1 and 2. The amount of black material in those images was measured using an image analysis program. Does the amount of black materials in Photograph 2 look like five times as much as the black material in Photograph 1? The human eye is not good at estimating percent coverage in a field of view.
A second method of quantification used by some laboratories using “SC&A analysis” is to count particles and generate a percentage based on count. Although it might sound more scientific than a visual estimate in reality it is not. If all of the particles were the same shape and the same size it would be fine, but they are not. The analysis may be improved a little by only counting particles larger than a certain size, say three micrometers or larger. If the particles were all spheres that would help but do we mean three micrometers in length, in width, in equivalent spherical diameter, an average of six ferrets, or some other measure? Is there an upper limit restriction? Is one three micrometer particle the equivalent of a thirty micrometer particle? Visually estimated area coverage is beginning to sound better.
A third approach attempting to compensate for the defects in the second method is to use a random point array as the basis for counting. That sounds better but it also suffers from problems related to sample size, especially for materials at low percentage coverage or for particles of small size widely distributed"

"Assemblage analysis is the only approach that actually identifies the emissions from a specific wildfire as being present in an indoor environment."

"This study demonstrated that false positives and false negatives can dominate the results of a SC&A analysis. The chart on page 20 shows that values of 5% SC&A are possible when the presence of the wildfire assemblage is absent. It also shows that values of 5% or less SC&A are possible when the wildfire assemblage is present at high levels."

"The use of clear tape where the plastic is not removed doesn’t have sufficient optical quality for this type of analysis. The sample typically used for SC&A analysis is of inferior quality. That significantly limits the confidence in the identification of specific particles."

I understand there may be some inner-industry some controversy:

over the tape lift vs wipe vs micro-vacuum sample collection methods, as well as controversy
over light microscopy alone over light microscopy with advanced microscopy (SEM, TEM, EDX).


For me there is no controversy. The professional assessor should choose the tool they think is best suited to the conditions presented to answer the question they are tasked to answer based on their knowledge, education, and training. I don’t think the IICRC, AIHA, or any body should provide a hard rule (the dreaded “shall”) on collection and analytical tools.



As we discussed, in many cases investigators may be able to answer the question being posed without any sampling or lab analysis at all. (e.g. See a duck, hear a duck, smell a duck, then it is not a fish.).



The question of impacted or not impacted is not a health assessment. It is usually an assessment to determine if cleaning for the given event is warranted or not warranted. We avoid unnecessarily making assessments of this nature science fair projects.



Light microscopy is one of several methods we recommend. Keep in mind the lessons CSC and I learned using light microscopy alone for soot analysis only. This technique yielded “none detect” in around half of the initial samples from structures obviously visually impacted by three-dimensional fire debris in the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski fire samples. The lesson learned was light microscopy for soot alone is not the best choice to determine the presence or absence of fire debris indoors.



We still use light microscopy.

We ask the analyst to look for:
char (burned plant material with cellular characteristics),
soot (high carbon microscopic particles e.g. tiny charcoal), and
ash (salts remaining after burning soot and char completely).


In addition, we have samples analyzed by TEM, SEM, and EDX.



We reserve the option to use tape lifts, but we prefer composite wipes and/or composite micro-vacuum sample collection methods for combustion byproducts. All methods should be available since all methods have pros and cons.



Tape lifts are a viable option.

Advantages are:
Tape lifts are inexpensive to analyze
Tape lifts can better preserve the particle dispersion and morphology of collected particles over wipes and vacuum samples.
Tape lifts are thin, small, and inexpensive to ship or store


Disadvantages are:
You cannot run TEM, SEM or EDX on a tape lift
A tape lift is a very small sample area, so to represent a larger space, you may need to take many.
Tape lifts are more prone to sampler bias.
Tape lifts are not efficient for collecting dust on irregular, rough, or porous surfaces.
The resolution of optical microscopes has limitations.
Tape lifts are able to capture the dust at the surface only, so if time has elapse between fire and sampling, you may miss the lower layer of fire debris by collecting the post-fire settled dust.
Tape lifts are visual estimations and interpretations, so they rely heavily on the expertise of the microscopist. Microscopist experience varies wildly.
In some cases, like an Urban Fire, the assessor may be asked additional questions regarding compounds like lead, asbestos, arsenic, cobalt, or nickel. Direct microscopy is not appropriate in this case.


Wipe and vacuum samples are viable options

Advantages are:
You can represent multiple areas within a structure to determine the average impact.
You can represent multiple locations or an entire system/zone in a single composite sample (cost reductions)
You can collect wipes off smooth and hard surfaces and rough hard surfaces.
You can collect vacuum samples of porous surfaces.


Disadvantages are:
Some morphological characteristics and all dispersion characteristics are not preserved.
Composites do not tell you which of the multiple areas have deposition. Could be all, could be one, could be 3 of 4. You just know an average.
Advanced microscopy is more expensive per sample than direct microscopy alone.
User avatar
CliffZ
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:36 pm

Re: Derrick A. Denis, CIAQP, CIEC, CAC - Wildfire Characterization and IAQ Current Events

Post by CliffZ »

IAQ RADIO+

Show Number: 757 Draft Blog

Derrick A. Denis, CIAQP, CIEC, CAC

Wildfire Characterization and IAQ Current Events

Good Day and welcome to IAQ Radio+ episode 757 blog. This week we welcomed Derrick Denis of Clark Seif Clark, Inc. to discuss wildfire characterization assessment and remediation, hazards related to lithium battery fire and concerns of the mental health of those who routinely encounter traumatic situations and much more.

Derrick A. Denis is a Senior Vice President with Clark Seif Clark, Inc. (CSC). He is a practitioner, inventor, educator, author and volunteer, who has provided industrial hygiene, environmental health and safety, infection control, and indoor environmental quality (IEQ) services for over 32 years. He is also an expert witness for insurance and litigation disputes for both plaintiffs and defendants. Derrick is also an inventor of, and patent holder for, Sewer Gas Solutions®.

Nuggets mined from today’s episode:

How did you enter the environmental field? Derrick seeking work in the environmental field left Oklahoma (where oilfield work dried up) for California. His first job was hanging from a cherry picker and wiping the ledges on the underside of bridges sampling for lead from combusted leaded gasoline.

Derrick what is your primary goal when you start work each day? Derrick readily admits to having a hero complex and firm commitment to preventing others from dying early.

From your experience, which requires more training and experience: mold assessment or structural fire damage assessment, and why? It is all about timing; when CSC was first requested to do mold assessments, they independently researched the subject, obtained resources such as the AIHA Redbook, NYC Guidelines. The CSC approach was to know what to look for and what questions to answer. The short answer is structural fire damage because the heat and pressure of the fire push residues into interstitial spaces.

What is CSC’s history of wildland-urban interface fire residue testing? In 2002 a Public Adjuster asked CSC to inspect 30 buildings following the Rodeo–Chediski wildfire that burned in east-central Arizona beginning on June 18, 2002, and not controlled until July 7. It was the worst forest fire in Arizona's recorded history. Several local communities were threatened and had to be evacuated.

At that time surface sampling was done using the back on an ungloved hand or a chemical sponge. University research had found that soot was identifiable using direct microscopy. While 3-dimensional fire debris was visible within the properties, 50% of the numerous samples taken were non-detect for soot. CSC recommended that the buildings be cleaned. The client was sued for fraud. Derrick explained the science in his trial testimony and opined that soot analysis alone was insufficient and that additionally char and ash analysis also needed to be done. CSC sampling withstood the legal challenge, and their client was awarded a large financial settlement.

Currently, when indicated CSC now in addition to use of wipes and micro wipes recommends use of advanced microscopy.

When the recent Los Angles wildfires broke out; Derrick drove to Altadena, CA in his RV. Derrick refers to the Los Angeles wildfires as urban fires, because 16,200 buildings burned. CSC altered their sampling approach to consider characteristics of urban fires.

Are the terms "impacted" and "damaged interchangeable"? According to Derrick, smoke damage is the altering of something. Impact is like spilling something on the kitchen floor and wiping it up. Derrick gave these other examples of impact: asbestos release, Condition 2 mold, and standing water on a water-resistant floor. (Z-Man cited Martin King’s explanation “that the presence of smoke residue constitutes a damaged condition until removed” as the restoration industry position.)

Is microscopy needed to “confirm” fire impact when the visible and olfactory evidence is overwhelming? Fire damage assessors and restorers are injected into chaos. Fire damage assessors visually identify what’s visually identifiable and do not always need to sample. It is important for assessors to “look for the why”. What restoration response is warranted. Sampling is most useful where there is no visual impact.
Step Out Sampling is used for sampling the soil contamination of sites and involves systematically moving further away from the source contaminated site. Step In Sampling is what Derrick calls systematically sampling while moving closer to source contaminated site.

Reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Take photos, take video, take surface samples and bulk samples and hold.

Franco Seif’s tale of a soiled baby diaper falling onto the floor and the parents requesting sampling for fecal coliform.

Wildfire impact occurs at penetrations (attic eves, windows, doors, etc.) Once the wildfire smoke enters the building the pressure drops and the residue settles quickly. CSC may recommend cleaning 3’-5’ from exterior penetrations. On wildfires CSC samples the HVAC system and clothing separately.

What are the differences between wildland fires, wildland-urban interface fires, urban fires, and structure fires? Every structure fire is unique. Use of a cookie cutter assessment approach is prone to missing things. On structure fires heat and pressure force smoke residue into interstitial spaces. This doesn’t occur on wildfires. It is uncommon for wildfire residue to be found in exterior wall cavities.

Who is qualified to take samples? A monkey could be taught to take samples. A monkey cannot answer the important questions: Why take the sample? Why use a lab? What does sampling mean? The assessor normally goes out solo as a 1 man show. Junior staff may miss something. We can teach the foundation: Written Respiratory Protection Program. Physical exam. Training. Fit testing.

Detectable doesn’t mean dangerous. From birth everything around us is trying to kill us! A can of soda contains lead. We can detect some substances at parts per trillion..

The best way to clear trauma cleanup is to observe the crew doing the work. Is the antimicrobial EPA registered, is the product being applied according to the label instructions, has the antimicrobial had sufficient dwell time. Is it more likely than not that the processes met objectives.

For clearing fire losses is there less than 1% soot, char, ash? Why 1%, because 1% is the level of quantification. Err on the side of safety of the occupants. Derrick considers this approach to be very conservative.

What is the result of the nonexistence of pre-fire event baselines on fire losses, etc.? Clearance is not health based. Clearance is to determine the absence or presence of deposits related to wildfires that were not present before the floss. A scary thought, CSC periodically gets called to sample suspicious powders found in rental cars for fentanyl.

Source Control? It’s hot in Arizona. The gas in gas cans stored in garages evaporates fast, so it’s common for people to bring gas cans indoors.

What do you mean by the term “Ash is Cash”? A money grab mentality similar to “Mold is Gold”. Experts are coming out of the woodwork to do post wildfire testing, remediation, public adjusting and litigation. While it is reasonable to prevent acute chronic illness; neighborhood groups are frightened into frothy frenzy together to conduct neighborhood post wildfire testing for “ethyl-methyl-death”.

Why are lithium battery fires of concern? Lithium ion batteries are all over. There are warehouses full of them. Lithium ion batteries power, tools, cars, buses, tractor trailers, mobility devices, provide backup power for cities, etc. Lithium batteries burn underwater releasing toxic chemical laden steam. Thermal runaway of lithium batteries in series. First responders to electric car fires risk electrocution due to stored energy and must refer to Emergency Response Guides for site specific instructions.
When burning lithium batteries burn molten combination of hazardous chemicals is released (Hydrofluoric Acid and Hydrogen Cyanide, etc.). Burning lithium batteries often explode sending shrapnel over distances. A hazardous black mess is leftover.
No one has an inventory of lithium batteries. Electrical outlets charging multiple lithium powered devices are subject to overload and catching fire.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/b ... 523361002/ McMiken Energy Storage Facility Fire.

Thanks to Don Weekes for providing these added resources in the show chat:
Don Weekes 1:03 PM
https://evreporter.com/dealing-with-lit ... 20property.
https://www.dhses.ny.gov/system/files/d ... /h_m20.pdf
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/a-z/lithium-i ... trategies/

What PPE do you recommend for remediation workers cleaning up lithium fires? Lithium fire cleanups ae 40 hour Hazwoper events. PAPR during cleanup. Capture and dispose of runoff water and spent cleaning solutions. Awareness of the comingled hazards of lithium and lead acid batteries.
Derrick’s advice on lithium battery fires is to let them burn out.

Remediation Recommendations:
Job hazard analysis.
40 hour Hazwoper
Heat Stress may be the biggest risk.
Arc flash suit.
Arc flash gloves
Rubber boots with steel toes
1 hour in, 30 minutes out
Decon setup
Decon attendants
Paramedic
Ice bath

Derrick’s advice on lithium battery risk management:
Use asbestos management program as a potential starting template.
Don’t install chargers next to buildings.
Don’t park vehicles under buildings.
Manage your inventory of lithium batteries.
Periodic inspection.
End of life disposal.

Mental health of restoration workers? Restoration workers are injected into chaos. They cannot unsee what they’ve seen, Unhear what they’ve heard, or Unsmell what they’ve smelled. Seeing hurricane damage closeup. Seeing a baby’s crib in a meth lab. The imprint of a dead person on a floor. Each of these traumatic episodes is a feather. 2,000 pounds of feathers weigh a ton. Graham Dick once told Derrick that “seeing things he’s not okay with”. Derrick teamed up with Dr. Trevor Wilkens aka “the angry Viking therapist” to make a keynote presentation at the recent AIHA convention. https://neurotraumaproject.com/
Acknowledging that restoration industry mental health as an undiscussed topic; RadioJoe and I are sufficiently impressed that we are inviting Derrick and Trevor to do an IAQradio podcast and also advocating that they be invited to the 2026 RIA convention to make a keynote presentation.

RoundUp

• Tired of early morning calls to investigate natural gas leaks at evacuated hospitals and finding the cause of the complaint was sewer gas coming out of dry traps; Derrick invented a mechanical Sewer Gas Solution. The solution is to treat unused drains which dry out overtime. The solution provides a liquid barrier to sewer gas in the drain trap. Learn more at: sewergassolutions.com The treatment lasts 1 year.
• From the moment you are born everything is trying to kill you (UV light, radon, mold, viruses, bacteria, naturally occurring asbestos, apex predators, other people) You must be resilient, or you wouldn’t be here today.
• You are going to die. So, get busy doing what you think you need to do.

Z-Man signing off

Trivia: What was the confidential codename assigned to preparations for the D-day Invasion?
Answer: Bigot
User avatar
RadioJoe
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:58 pm

Re: Derrick A. Denis, CIAQP, CIEC, CAC - Wildfire Characterization and IAQ Current Events

Post by RadioJoe »

A very interesting show with Derrick Denis. It's nice to see a common sense approach to what can be very difficult decisions. Wildfires are not going away and if we do not want to see a repeat of the mold is gold era we need more consultants like CSC. I hope "ash is cash" goes into the dustbin of bad ideas in the history of this countries response to disaster events.
Post Reply