Re: Rapidly identify allergenic & pathogenic molds env air by oli...

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Wei.

That makes sense because I believe this paper was written to be used for the immuno-compromised and I understand that it is necessary to know quantities to understand exposures. So back to the chicken and the egg. Define immuno-compromised and who is susceptible at what levels.

So, would this information be of value in understanding the indoor environment of a WDB if it were coupled with other tests? And if so, what others?

Sharon

Sharon,

If I read it correctly, it's a absence/presence test for 21 fungi using short unique sequences of their DNA.

In most cases, I would think it's also important to know their quantities. Unless it's in health care facilities or the residence of people with immuno-deficiency (or other illness), then the absence of certain fungi may be enough to people to take actions.

For indoor mold growth investigation, it's important to know the quantity.

Wei

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

40% of homes having mold issues is not logical. Do 2 out of every 5 of your friends and associates have mold issues in their homes?

I have seen that 40% number before. Where I have seen it applied is the claim that 40% of homes have some sort of environmental exposure occurring. I took that to mean chemicals in carpet, etc. Even with that, that number seems like a pretty high estimate to me.

Sharon

PS. If any one wants a piece of me, I am doing an Internet call in radio program, "Truth Squad" in about 30 minutes! Its call in friendly

Truth Squad Radio: Whistleblower Sharon Noonan Kramer is Back! « The PPJ Gazette

,

I am a property inspector here in the San Joaquin Valley, CA. I have inspected something approaching 4,000 houses in the last 20 years or so. In my area it is the exception to find enough mold in a home to suspect a "contamination." Out of that I do about 2 complete mold investigations each month and out of those maybe two or three per year I would consider a health issue. Mostly it is hysterical mothers or hypochondriacs. The conditions are almost almost always related to housekeeping. But occasionally I come accross somebody who I can really helpwhich keeps me in the game.

The San Joaquin Valley is semi arid with about 12" of rain each year. I suspect mold contminations would be directly proportional to areas with high humidity. However, I suspect 40% is coming from somebody with a conflict of interest.

Brad Deal CIEC

www.homeinspect2020.com

Rapidly identify allergenic & pathogenic molds env air by oligonucleotide array

Okay. This sounds worthy of understanding, but I have no clue what this means! Does anyone else?

Rapid identification of allergenic and pathogenic molds in environmental air by an oligonucleotide array

An array of oligonucleotides that can quickly and accurately identify 21 airborne fungi that may cause health problems. The array consists of a panel of short DNA sequences that are species specific and are fixed to a nylon substrate. Hybridisation of PCR amplified DNA fragments derived from mould samples to the panel provides a rapid and cheap method of assessing which fungi are present . Given the ease and accuracy with which this can now be done it is possible the research on the effect of fungi on human health will progress more rapidly.

Sharon

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

Shane wrote: "Given that the IOM and WHO agree on damp buildings, I wonder if a broad consensus could be reached, or at least spoken to, by this group."

,

I don't think there is likely to be consensus, but I'll speak to my own opinion about what a broad definition of "mold contamination" should be for practical building investigation and health consulting purposes. I consider concerns about mold contamination to be about any microbial growth occurring inside a structure where it should not be growing. When it is growing there it is because of a water problem (in liquid or vapor form) that causes building materials and contents that shouldn't be getting wet (or damp) to get wet. The health concern stems from acute or chronic exposure to immunoactive biogenic substances which upregulate immune system activity and increase the potential for permanent (adaptive immune system) sensitization. There is no line to be drawn on the basis of health risk because the risk is not based upon dose-response toxicologic effects but upon individual immunologic (and neurologic) effects. You can draw lines with regard to what is acceptable as an industry standard or a best practices guide, but not on the basis of (safe or unsafe) health risk.

IMO, "mold contamination" should never be thought of by professionals as being just about mold growth, and especially not just about mold spores. Mold spore testing can be very informative about the presence of indoor microbial contamination in general. It cannot be considered a health risk assessment. It has been my observation that many of the reported symptoms associated with indoor mold growth are caused by sensitization to MVOCs. MVOCs don't get around or clean up like spores do.

I don't think I'm being biased when I say that, for all of the calls and complaints we do get about health effects attributed to indoor mold contamination, there are many more completely unaware people who suffer from "sub-clinical" symptoms caused by indoor contaminants (upper respiratory symptoms like sinus congestion and cough, irritant neurologic symptoms such as brain fog, headache, increased heart rate or BP, etc.).

Steve Temes

All,

Interesting comments so far. "Mold Contamination" gets at the root of a really thorny problem as demonstrated on this list.

Regardless of how someone thinks of what occupants are saying or why homes are tested, can we get some kind of estimate of what kind of a problem this is.

The IOM "damp spaces" book indicates that almost all the 119 million homes and 4.7 million commercial spaces have experienced leaks or flooding at some time. Of course, there is no indication of how quickly the water was discovered or how quickly it was cleaned up. Missing also are data about if that water intrusion was obvious or not.

Also, there is a disproportionate amount of substandard housing in low income units and so we likely don't often get to see what is going on there because they are not likely to call anyone besides their landlords. Besides, I would venture to guess that a large num ber of people (probably the majority of people) don't equate damp buildings with symptoms. Low income homes are 3 times as likely to have substandard housing. We do hear from a number of outspoken people (either hysteria, hypochondriac, or better informed).

Robust datasets are almost never gathered so getting really good data is hard. Testing laboratories have big datasets, but they are not shared and general agreement has not been much spoken about as to what is a problem building and what is not. The very nature of drawing a line in the sand is itself a problem. Once you do, there will be lots of data near the boundary that will be problematic.

Given that the IOM and WHO agree on damp buildings, I wonder if a broad consensus could be reached, or at least spoken to, by this group.

john shane

Brad,

I'd be interested in how you define or otherwise determine "mold contamination," "hysterical" whether mothers or fathers or children, and "hypochondriacs."

1. If occupants have complaints while indoors and the conditions don't qualify for "mold contamination" might the cause be something other than mold? If so, then they would be neither hysterical nor hypochondriacs. If not, then either they truly are hysterical or the inspection has not been sufficient. How to determine which of those possibilities is most likely?

2. Denver, for example, is also semi-arid and we had (continue to have) horrible mold contamination problems (however we might define it) because of how houses are being built. Indoor environments and indoor micro-environments can be independant of the outdoor environment, especially if the building envelop is constructed proprerly but the interior systems aren't.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

,

I am a property inspector here in the San Joaquin Valley, CA. I have inspected something approaching 4,000 houses in the last 20 years or so. In my area it is the exception to find enough mold in a home to suspect a "contamination." Out of that I do about 2 complete mold investigations each month and out of those maybe two or three per year I would consider a health issue. Mostly it is hysterical mothers or hypochondriacs. The conditions are almost almost always related to housekeeping. But occasionally I come accross somebody who I can really help

which keeps me in the game.

The San Joaquin Valley is semi arid with about 12" of rain each year. I suspect mold contminations would be directly proportional to areas with high humidity. However, I suspect 40% is coming from somebody with a conflict of interest.

Brad Deal CIEC

www.homeinspect2020.com

Re: Rapidly identify allergenic & pathogenic molds env air by oligonucleotide array

Question for the group. Does anyone have a feel or documentation for how many homes/buildings have a been reported or suspected to have "mold contamination"? I know that "mold contamination" is not a good term to use, but I use it here in the very broadest sweep possible. I realize that homes are not, strictly speaking, spaces designed to prevent mold

spore entry or even mold growth.

It was posited today in a conference call that 40% of all the homes in the US have a "contamination".

I really don't have a good feel for if that is true or not.

john shane

Sharon,

If I read it correctly, it's a absence/presence test for 21 fungi using short unique sequences of their DNA.

In most cases, I would think it's also important to know their quantities. Unless it's in health care facilities or the residence of people with immuno-deficiency (or other illness), then the absence of certain fungi may be enough to people to take actions.

For indoor mold growth investigation, it's important to know the quantity.

Wei

Sincerely,

Wei Tang, Ph.D. Laboratory Director, QLab

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

"So, would this information be of value in understanding the indoor environment of a WDB if it were coupled with other tests? And if so, what others?"

I would say a complete building investigation performed by a qualified professional.

You can detect the DNA of dead fungi, but they can't infect immuno-compromised people because they are dead. Culture method can reveal whether they are viable or not, but they may not be sufficient. Driect exam can detect both non-viable and viable fungi, which is more useful for building mold growth investigation. It can provide additional information for consultants to find the source.

About the "level", one viable spore of Aspergillus fumigatus detected in the air sample collected in a health care facility or the residence of immuno-compromised people may exceed the action level used by many consultants. The consultant will determine what action is necessary.

Sincerely, Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Laboratory Director, QLab

QLab - Grow Your Business With Our Premium Analysis

5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: 888-QLab-Wei ()Local:

www.QLabUSA.com

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended reader and have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone.

To: iequality Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 2:29:27 PMSubject: Re: Rapidly identify allergenic & pathogenic molds env air by oli...

Thanks, Wei.

That makes sense because I believe this paper was written to be used for the immuno-compromised and I understand that it is necessary to know quantities to understand exposures. So back to the chicken and the egg. Define immuno-compromised and who is susceptible at what levels.

So, would this information be of value in understanding the indoor environment of a WDB if it were coupled with other tests? And if so, what others?

Sharon

Sharon,

If I read it correctly, it's a absence/presence test for 21 fungi using short unique sequences of their DNA.

In most cases, I would think it's also important to know their quantities. Unless it's in health care facilities or the residence of people with immuno-deficiency (or other illness), then the absence of certain fungi may be enough to people to take actions.

For indoor mold growth investigation, it's important to know the quantity.

Wei

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Wei. I kind of understand what you are saying.

My eldest has aspergillosis. She recently had to go into the hospital for a "tune up". This was her first time to go in to the hospital in over 5 years and she is back up to snuff again.

Boy, things have changed in the past five years that indicate there is an increased understanding of fungal induced illness. Because she has aspergillosis, they had a biohazard sign on her room door.

The nurses had to wear masks and gowns when they came in the room. This was so they would not take any "biohazard" from my daughter and spread it to other who are immunocompromised to the point that they required hospitalization.

You never would have seen that 5 years ago. I like to think that many of us on this board (who write books, sit on committees, give speeches, attend conferences, write guidelines and protocols, get media attention, etc) have helped to raise this awareness in the medical profession and have made a difference in the lives of many.

I am pretty sure we collectively have!

Sharon

Sharon,

"So, would this information be of value in understanding the indoor environment of a WDB if it were coupled with other tests? And if so, what others?"

I would say a complete building investigation performed by a qualified professional.

You can detect the DNA of dead fungi, but they can't infect immuno-compromised people because they are dead. Culture method can reveal whether they are viable or not, but they may not be sufficient. Driect exam can detect both non-viable and viable fungi, which is more useful for building mold growth investigation. It can provide additional information for consultants to find the source.

About the "level", one viable spore of Aspergillus fumigatus detected in the air sample collected in a health care facility or the residence of immuno-compromised people may exceed the action level used by many consultants. The consultant will determine what action is necessary.

Sincerely, Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Laboratory Director, QLab

QLab - Grow Your Business With Our Premium Analysis

5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: 888-QLab-Wei ()Local:

www.QLabUSA.com

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended reader and have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone.

To: iequality Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 2:29:27 PMSubject: Re: Rapidly identify allergenic & pathogenic molds env air by oli...

Thanks, Wei.

That makes sense because I believe this paper was written to be used for the immuno-compromised and I understand that it is necessary to know quantities to understand exposures. So back to the chicken and the egg. Define immuno-compromised and who is susceptible at what levels.

So, would this information be of value in understanding the indoor environment of a WDB if it were coupled with other tests? And if so, what others?

Sharon

Sharon,

If I read it correctly, it's a absence/presence test for 21 fungi using short unique sequences of their DNA.

In most cases, I would think it's also important to know their quantities. Unless it's in health care facilities or the residence of people with immuno-deficiency (or other illness), then the absence of certain fungi may be enough to people to take actions.

For indoor mold growth investigation, it's important to know the quantity.

Wei

Sharon Noonan Kramer

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

Steve,

You write, "there are many more completely unaware people who suffer from "sub-clinical" symptoms caused by indoor contaminants (upper respiratory symptoms like sinus congestion and cough, irritant neurologic symptoms such as brain fog, headache, increased heart rate or BP, etc.)."

Exactly. If the public and physicians were made aware that when people have these types of symptoms, they should examine their indoor environment as a possible cause; it would go a long way to curtailing long term and sometimes permanently debilitating illness in this country. This is because if one stops the exposure that causes the symptoms early on then it appears to be people make near full recoveries as a general rule.

The Federal GAO has deemed that "Indoor Mold: Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent Guidance Would Improve Federal Efforts". The Federal CIAQ is working very hard to send consistent messaging.

So what is it that stops this information from reaching the private sector physicians and the public? It is the concern of increased liability for financial stakeholders of water damaged buildings and those who make their livings staving off the liability by promoting garbage science within the medical community, primarily occupational medicine, which filters out to other specialties. Message from a friend to recently attended ACOEM's "educational" session regarding illness from WDB. The presenter of the session is a prior affiliate of the corporation who authored the original ACOEM Mold Misstatement in 2002 and the accompanying US Chamber's in 2003. The presenter generates income as a professional defense witness for financial stakeholders of WDB:

Subject: an impression - Looking every night into the stars does not make you an astronomer: ACOEM 2011 Occupational Health Conference - Mold and Damp Indoor Enviroment -

FYI - Yesterday I attended:

(From AOHC 2011 Program)

Session 2207 .................... CME/MOC: 1.5

Mold and Damp Indoor Environments

TRACK: Environmental Health and Risk Management

Moderator

Beth A. Baker, MD, MPH, FACMT, FACOEM*, Specialists

in OEM, Eden Prairie, MN

Faculty

G. Holland, MD, FACOEM, FAACT, FACMT,

FACEP*, Glens Falls Hospital Center for Occupational

Health, Saratoga Springs, NY

This session will review current scientific literature regarding health effects due to mold and damp indoor environments. We will review the 2009 World Health Organization review, the Institute of Medicine Report from 2004 (10M Report), and the revised ACOEM mold guidance document from 2010. We will discuss how to address patients' concerns about mold exposures in damp indoor environments and diagnosis and treatment of related conditions. We will review current data regarding exposure assessment to damp indoor environments. This session may be of particular interest to residents and recent graduates.

G. Holland, MD, FACOEM, FAACT, FACMT,

FACEP*

Glens Falls Hospital Center for Occupational Health, Saratoga

Springs, NY

Session(s): 2207, 2303

Disclosure: Expert witness mold litigation (Hourly compensation, expert witness)

Beth A. Baker, MD, MPH, FACMT, FACOEM*

Specialists in OEM, Eden Prairie, MN

Session(s): 2106, 2207

Disclosure: has nothing to disclose

Here my impression:

Although all sessions were recorded - only two sessions were not recorded "because the presenters did not agree to this" - one of these happens to be the one session with Dr. Baker and Dr. Holland !?

· Dr. Baker - started the session with saying that this is not a session to discuss the ACOEM "mold evidence statement" - she will not allow any questions or comments regarding the procedure and policy position

· Also there were no microphones in the room for the people with questions and comments - (other rooms had audience microphones)

· After the two presentations only 10 minutes or so where left for Q & A

· Most of the attendants (50+) appeared not to be in disagreement with what was said and opined

Dr. M. Holland (a "toxicologist" and OccEnv Doc) presented for about 45 min mainly his opinion about the topic - he claimed he has worked on both sides for plaintiff and defense (!?) - His presentation was very unbalanced and unscientific - most of his summary statements were not referenced or supported by any specific scientific articles / references - he appeared very judgmental and condescending about the existing literature that document and investigates health effects and investigations.

His key points were that mold is everywhere - also mycotoxins can be found everywhere - but it is only relevant in agricultural settings - "there are good mycotoxins (antibiotic precursor) and make sure that you have the good mycotoxins in your house"

He did not have many facts right, mischaracterized the literature and suggested that most studies are driven by litigation and people with secondary motives (Union issues, worker's compensation claims…etc): - "mycotoxins can only be found in spores" "these have to be airborne to be of concern" "hazards only in ingested in large quantities" "mycotoxins is normally in many food items and no problem"…. "quantities are too low in indoor environments of damp houses to be a concern"….etc. - he claims there is evidence against mycotoxins as a disease agent in damp houses - "glucans is a new darling of the investigators" -

He specifically focused and discussed the assumed weaknesses and faults ("recall bias, methodological limitations and mistakes, sampling error, no control group use, questionable bio-marker use, etc, etc) that he sees in the studies by Dearborn et al, Hodgson et al 1998, Johanning et al 1996, Kilburn 2003, Shoemaker 2005 and 2006, Straus 2009 -

His answer to these studies was to consider issues of MCS, fibromyalgia and depression as a cause of the health complaints by building occupants. And he listed as the authoritative and good reference papers:

Page & Trout 2000

Fung & Hughson 2003

Bardana 2003

Chapman & Terr

Abba I. Terr,

Kuhn- Ghannoun

- As you know most of them are known as defense experts.

He did not reference any other summary paper such as the EPA, EU WHO or Scandinavian literature, or NIOSH studies…

He particularly picked on Dr. Shoemaker's "unproven causation claims", his questionable studies and his association with the Policy Holder of America association - which he characterized as "having a bias toward getting money from insurance companies" - which he suggested to be the underlying issue in most cases… He showed media pictures of M. Ballard and others… as proof.

Dr. Baker - talked in her presentation about two (!?) specific cases that she was directly involved in as a physician - and summarized that health complaints are non-specific - medical evaluations are difficult and current laboratory tests have limitations etc., etc. subjects have co-morbidity, - ….da,da,da….

She did mention the EU WHO 2009 summary paper in respect to environmental testing "you need to do 27-36 or so testing inside a building to get a good understanding of the mold levels…" -

She did mention the EPA / Dr. Storey etal clinical guidelines, the NYCity DOH guidelines, Gots et al 2003, Lee et al 2004, the AAAAI position paper, and some other studies -

None of both speakers did review and specifically talk about the "new" ACOEM mold position paper - (which has no new references listed or reviewed) -

In sum - no balance, no detail, nothing new - mostly attitudes and opinions supported with sound bites from literature that fit the theory - at the end of the presentations I tried to make some comments about the unbalance, incorrect statements and literature citations, and suggested to the audience to read the original articles and paper to get the true facts - but I had no microphone and both Dr. Holland and Dr. Baker became very defensive and started talking with their microphone amplifyer power over me.

How this biased and unscientific event can be supported with CME credits puzzles me.

Looking every night into the stars does not make you an astronomer, right?

It is evident that the ACOEM leadership and its agents do not like any critical or dissenting participation of its position - the impetus has to come from somewhere else."

*****************

Its the same old problem. Break the deceit of the well connected, conflicted and the health/life saving information you all know of how, when and why to investigate a building will get to where it needs to go.

http://blip.tv/file/5057608

Shane wrote: "Given that the IOM and WHO agree on damp buildings, I wonder if a broad consensus could be reached, or at least spoken to, by this group.",I don't think there is likely to be consensus, but I'll speak to my own opinion about what a broad definition of "mold contamination" should be for practical building investigation and health consulting purposes. I consider concerns about mold contamination to be about any microbial growth occurring inside a structure where it should not be growing. When it is growing there it is because of a water problem (in liquid or vapor form) that causes building materials and contents that shouldn't be getting wet (or damp) to get wet. The health concern stems from acute or chronic exposure to immunoactive biogenic substances which upregulate immune system activity and increase the potential for permanent (adaptive immune system) sensitization. There is no line to be drawn on the basis of health risk because the risk is not based upon dose-response toxicologic effects but upon individual immunologic (and neurologic) effects. You can draw lines with regard to what is acceptable as an industry standard or a best practices guide, but not on the basis of (safe or unsafe) health risk.IMO, "mold contamination" should never be thought of by professionals as being just about mold growth, and especially not just about mold spores. Mold spore testing can be very informative about the presence of indoor microbial contamination in general. It cannot be considered a health risk assessment. It has been my observation that many of the reported symptoms associated with indoor mold growth are caused by sensitization to MVOCs. MVOCs don't get around or clean up like spores do.I don't think I'm being biased when I say that, for all of the calls and complaints we do get about health effects attributed to indoor mold contamination, there are many more completely unaware people who suffer from "sub-clinical" symptoms caused by indoor contaminants (upper respiratory symptoms like sinus congestion and cough, irritant neurologic symptoms such as brain fog, headache, increased heart rate or BP, etc.).Steve Temes

All,Interesting comments so far. "Mold Contamination" gets at the root of a really thorny problem as demonstrated on this list.Regardless of how someone thinks of what occupants are saying or why homes are tested, can we get some kind of estimate of what kind of a problem this is.The IOM "damp spaces" book indicates that almost all the 119 million homes and 4.7 million commercial spaces have experienced leaks or flooding at some time. Of course, there is no indication of how quickly the water was discovered or how quickly it was cleaned up. Missing also are data about if that water intrusion was obvious or not.Also, there is a disproportionate amount of substandard housing in low income units and so we likely don't often get to see what is going on there because they are not likely to call anyone besides their landlords. Besides, I would venture to guess that a large num ber of people (probably the majority of people) don't equate damp buildings with symptoms. Low income homes are 3 times as likely to have substandard housing. We do hear from a number of outspoken people (either hysteria, hypochondriac, or better informed).Robust datasets are almost never gathered so getting really good data is hard. Testing laboratories have big datasets, but they are not shared and general agreement has not been much spoken about as to what is a problem building and what is not. The very nature of drawing a line in the sand is itself a problem. Once you do, there will be lots of data near the boundary that will be problematic.Given that the IOM and WHO agree on damp buildings, I wonder if a broad consensus could be reached, or at least spoken to, by this group.john shane

Brad,I'd be interested in how you define or otherwise determine "mold contamination," "hysterical" whether mothers or fathers or children, and "hypochondriacs." 1. If occupants have complaints while indoors and the conditions don't qualify for "mold contamination" might the cause be something other than mold? If so, then they would be neither hysterical nor hypochondriacs. If not, then either they truly are hysterical or the inspection has not been sufficient. How to determine which of those possibilities is most likely? 2. Denver, for example, is also semi-arid and we had (continue to have) horrible mold contamination problems (however we might define it) because of how houses are being built. Indoor environments and indoor micro-environments can be independant of the outdoor environment, especially if the building envelop is constructed proprerly but the interior systems aren't. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC-----, I am a property inspector here in the San Joaquin Valley, CA. I have inspected something approaching 4,000 houses in the last 20 years or so. In my area it is the exception to find enough mold in a home to suspect a "contamination." Out of that I do about 2 complete mold investigations each month and out of those maybe two or three per year I would consider a health issue. Mostly it is hysterical mothers or hypochondriacs. The conditions are almost almost always related to housekeeping. But occasionally I come accross somebody who I can really helpwhich keeps me in the game. The San Joaquin Valley is semi arid with about 12" of rain each year. I suspect mold contminations would be directly proportional to areas with high humidity. However, I suspect 40% is coming from somebody with a conflict of interest. Brad Deal CIEC www.homeinspect2020.com Re: Rapidly identify allergenic & pathogenic molds env air by oligonucleotide array Question for the group. Does anyone have a feel or documentation for how many homes/buildings have a been reported or suspected to have "mold contamination"? I know that "mold contamination" is not a good term to use, but I use it here in the very broadest sweep possible. I realize that homes are not, strictly speaking, spaces designed to prevent mold spore entry or even mold growth. It was posited today in a conference call that 40% of all the homes in the US have a "contamination". I really don't have a good feel for if that is true or not. john shane Sharon, If I read it correctly, it's a absence/presence test for 21 fungi using short unique sequences of their DNA. In most cases, I would think it's also important to know their quantities. Unless it's in health care facilities or the residence of people with immuno-deficiency (or other illness), then the absence of certain fungi may be enough to people to take actions. For indoor mold growth investigation, it's important to know the quantity. Wei Sincerely,Wei Tang, Ph.D. Laboratory Director, QLab