Synergist: mold as hazmat refuted + ACOEM

[Guest guest]

Hi all:

I just read through an article from the May/June issue of The

Synergist, and found an article of particular interest. perhaps you

can help me with authoritative works in this matter.

specifically, I refer to a column on the AIHce Education Sessions

authored by Coreen Robbins (v15,n5/6,p.32). in the column, Robbins

summarizes the proceedings of a particular AIHce roundtable,

including this statement:

" Coreen Robbins....discussed her interpretation of why industrial

hygienists and others continue to treat mold as a hazardous material

in indoor environments even though the evidence for this has been

refuted. "

this statement appears to be going well beyond the current state of

knowledge as reflected in the literature with which I am familiar.

If the " hazardous properties " of fungi in the indoor environment (and

by this, I assume she is referring to the effects of mycotoxins) have

indeed been refuted, please direct me to the appropriate,

authoritative source of this information.

does this mean that the recent IOM report is flawed, inaccurate or

just plain wrong? the IOM seemed to be saying that we just don't

know enough about these properties of fungi at this time. perhaps

I'm taking too literal an approach to one or the other of these

publications......?

in the same column, Robbins goes on to describe her colleague's

overview of the ACOEM evidence-based statement ( " Adverse Human Health

Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment " , October

2002), concluding that " ...inhalation of a toxic dose of mycotoxins

in the indoor environment is highly unlikely... " .

Is anyone else troubled by the numerical comparisons near the end of

the ACOEM paper in which they have freely mixed units of measure in

comparing airborne fungal concentrations? specifically, in the lower

half of page 5, just before Recommendations, the ACOEM paper makes

these comparisons:

" The no-effect dose in rats (3 x 10^6 spores/kg) corresponds to

continuous 24-hour exposure to 2.1 x 10^6 spores/m3 for infants, 6.6

x 10^6 spores/m3 for a school-age child, or 15.3 x

10^6 spores/m3 for an adult. "

" ...achieving the same dose rate in humans (using the same default

assumptions as previously) would require airborne concentrations of

3.0 x 10^9 spores/m3 for an infant, 9.5 x 10^9 spores/m3 for a

child, or 22.0 x 10^9 spores/m3 for an adult. "

" ...airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver the

nonhemorrhagic cumulative three-week dose of 2.8 x 10^5 spores/kg can

be estimated as 9.4 x 10^3 spores/m3 for infants, 29.3 x 10^3

spores/m3 for a school-age child, and 68.0 x 10^3 spores/m3 for

adults (assuming exposure for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and

100% retention of spores). "

and finally, " Those concentrations are not infeasible, but they are

improbable and inconsistent with reported spore concentrations. For

example, in data from 9,619 indoor air samples from 1,717 buildings,

when S. chartarum was detected in indoor air (6% of the buildings

surveyed) the median airborne concentration was 12 CFU/m3 (95% CI 12

to 118 CFU/m3). "

I find the transition from spores/m3 to CFU/m3 to be problematic for

a variety of reasons.

I can't believe I'm the only one who has noted this troublesome

inconsistency. what comments or additional observations might you

share along these lines?

thanks in advance.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH, RPIH

Director, Air Quality Services

" Bad air gets you down "

MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

PO Box 2377

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

mailto:wab@...

On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be

more fun? "

- Graham

[Guest guest]

While it is a

valid and worthwhile exercise to calculate potential doses of mycotoxins

(problems with units aside, Wane), I find it disturbing to makes statements

implying there is no hazard, while completely ignoring allergenic effects that

can certainly disrupt a workplace even if affecting only one or two

individuals, and in extreme cases be very debilitating.

I discounted the

toxic effects of molds long ago for lack of evidence, but still believe

engineering controls are entirely appropriate for mold remediation in order to

contain the wholesale distribution of a known allergen during demolition of

moldy building materials. Is this "treating mold as a hazardous material"

as Ms. Robbins accuses?

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

Synergist:

mold as hazmat refuted + ACOEM

Hi all:

I just read through an article from the May/June

issue of The

Synergist, and found an article of particular

interest. perhaps you

can help me with authoritative works in this

matter.

specifically, I refer to a column on the AIHce

Education Sessions

authored by Coreen Robbins

(v15,n5/6,p.32). in the column, Robbins

summarizes the proceedings of a particular AIHce

roundtable,

including this statement:

" Coreen Robbins....discussed her

interpretation of why industrial

hygienists and others continue to treat mold as

a hazardous material

in indoor environments even though the evidence

for this has been

refuted. "

this statement appears to be going well beyond

the current state of

knowledge as reflected in the literature with

which I am familiar.

If the " hazardous properties " of fungi

in the indoor environment (and

by this, I assume she is referring to the

effects of mycotoxins) have

indeed been refuted, please direct me to the

appropriate,

authoritative source of this information.

does this mean that the recent IOM report is

flawed, inaccurate or

just plain wrong? the IOM seemed to be

saying that we just don't

know enough about these properties of fungi at

this time. perhaps

I'm taking too literal an approach to one or the

other of these

publications......?

in the same column, Robbins goes on to describe

her colleague's

overview of the ACOEM evidence-based statement

( " Adverse Human Health

Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor

Environment " , October

2002), concluding that " ...inhalation of a

toxic dose of mycotoxins

in the indoor environment is highly

unlikely... " .

Is anyone else troubled by the numerical

comparisons near the end of

the ACOEM paper in which they have freely mixed

units of measure in

comparing airborne fungal concentrations?

specifically, in the lower

half of page 5, just before Recommendations, the

ACOEM paper makes

these comparisons:

" The no-effect dose in rats (3 x 10^6

spores/kg) corresponds to

continuous 24-hour exposure to 2.1 x 10^6

spores/m3 for infants, 6.6

x 10^6 spores/m3 for a school-age child, or 15.3

x

10^6 spores/m3 for an adult. "

" ...achieving the same dose rate in humans

(using the same default

assumptions as previously) would require

airborne concentrations of

3.0 x 10^9 spores/m3 for an infant, 9.5 x 10^9

spores/m3 for a

child, or 22.0 x 10^9 spores/m3 for an

adult. "

" ...airborne S. chartarum spore

concentrations that would deliver the

nonhemorrhagic cumulative three-week dose of 2.8

x 10^5 spores/kg can

be estimated as 9.4 x 10^3 spores/m3 for

infants, 29.3 x 10^3

spores/m3 for a school-age child, and 68.0 x

10^3 spores/m3 for

adults (assuming exposure for 24 hours per day,

7 days per week, and

100% retention of spores). "

and finally, " Those concentrations are not

infeasible, but they are

improbable and inconsistent with reported spore

concentrations. For

example, in data from 9,619 indoor air samples

from 1,717 buildings,

when S. chartarum was detected in indoor air (6%

of the buildings

surveyed) the median airborne concentration was

12 CFU/m3 (95% CI 12

to 118 CFU/m3). "

I find the transition from spores/m3 to CFU/m3

to be problematic for

a variety of reasons.

I can't believe I'm the only one who has noted

this troublesome

inconsistency. what comments or additional

observations might you

share along these lines?

thanks in advance.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH, RPIH

Director, Air Quality Services

" Bad air gets you down "

MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

PO Box 2377

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

mailto:wab@...

On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

" To love what you do and feel that it

matters - how could anything be

more fun? "

- Graham

[Guest guest]

In a 2000 publication prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) of the US EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) titled Risk Assessment/Management of Exposure to the Toxic Mold Stachybotrys: Information Collection and Analysis, it states:

Stachybotrys chartarum (S. chartarum) is perhaps the most hazardous of the toxigenic fungi found in indoor environments. This fungus can grow on a variety of wet cellulose-based products, like wood, cardboard, and dry wall. It can produce several different mycotoxins, including highly toxic trichothecenes and certain immunosuppressive agents. Its presence in large quantities has been implicated in a number of serious health problems in infants, children, and adults.

What caught my eye about this research is the production of "immunosuppressive agents". For years we have been asking, how immune-compromised do you have to be before a fungal exposure causes serious health issues? To date no one has been able to answer that question to any sort of satisfaction. Now we find a report from 2000 that states the fungus produces immunosuppressive agents!

I think as further research is conducted and other research already completed comes to light (go to www.iseepi.org for more information about environmental epidemiology research), we will see the need for engineering controls. Keep in mind that while work is being conducted in an effected building, the counts go up. If for no other reason than to protect the workers, engineering controls need to be in place.

Yes, much more needs to be done in this area before we can fully understand, however, does that mean that people should suffer while we fight among ourselves? Can we not act with prudence in the meantime? "First do no harm" should be everyone's motto when doing investigations and remediation.

Larkin, Executive Director

Mold Relief, Inc.

www.moldrelief.org

RE: Synergist: mold as hazmat refuted + ACOEM

While it is a valid and worthwhile exercise to calculate potential doses of mycotoxins (problems with units aside, Wane), I find it disturbing to makes statements implying there is no hazard, while completely ignoring allergenic effects that can certainly disrupt a workplace even if affecting only one or two individuals, and in extreme cases be very debilitating.

I discounted the toxic effects of molds long ago for lack of evidence, but still believe engineering controls are entirely appropriate for mold remediation in order to contain the wholesale distribution of a known allergen during demolition of moldy building materials. Is this "treating mold as a hazardous material" as Ms. Robbins accuses?

D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

Liesch Associates, Inc.

-----Original Message-----From: Wane A. Baker Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:15 PMTo: iequality Subject: Synergist: mold as hazmat refuted + ACOEM

Hi all:I just read through an article from the May/June issue of The Synergist, and found an article of particular interest. perhaps you can help me with authoritative works in this matter.specifically, I refer to a column on the AIHce Education Sessions authored by Coreen Robbins (v15,n5/6,p.32). in the column, Robbins summarizes the proceedings of a particular AIHce roundtable, including this statement:"Coreen Robbins....discussed her interpretation of why industrial hygienists and others continue to treat mold as a hazardous material in indoor environments even though the evidence for this has been refuted."this statement appears to be going well beyond the current state of knowledge as reflected in the literature with which I am familiar. If the "hazardous properties" of fungi in the indoor environment (and by this, I assume she is referring to the effects of mycotoxins) have indeed been refuted, please direct me to the appropriate, authoritative source of this information. does this mean that the recent IOM report is flawed, inaccurate or just plain wrong? the IOM seemed to be saying that we just don't know enough about these properties of fungi at this time. perhaps I'm taking too literal an approach to one or the other of these publications......?in the same column, Robbins goes on to describe her colleague's overview of the ACOEM evidence-based statement ("Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment", October 2002), concluding that "...inhalation of a toxic dose of mycotoxins in the indoor environment is highly unlikely...". Is anyone else troubled by the numerical comparisons near the end of the ACOEM paper in which they have freely mixed units of measure in comparing airborne fungal concentrations? specifically, in the lower half of page 5, just before Recommendations, the ACOEM paper makes these comparisons:"The no-effect dose in rats (3 x 10^6 spores/kg) corresponds tocontinuous 24-hour exposure to 2.1 x 10^6 spores/m3 for infants, 6.6 x 10^6 spores/m3 for a school-age child, or 15.3 x10^6 spores/m3 for an adult.""...achieving the same dose rate in humans (using the same default assumptions as previously) would require airborne concentrations of 3.0 x 10^9 spores/m3 for an infant, 9.5 x 10^9 spores/m3 for achild, or 22.0 x 10^9 spores/m3 for an adult.""...airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver the nonhemorrhagic cumulative three-week dose of 2.8 x 10^5 spores/kg can be estimated as 9.4 x 10^3 spores/m3 for infants, 29.3 x 10^3 spores/m3 for a school-age child, and 68.0 x 10^3 spores/m3 for adults (assuming exposure for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 100% retention of spores)." and finally, "Those concentrations are not infeasible, but they are improbable and inconsistent with reported spore concentrations. For example, in data from 9,619 indoor air samples from 1,717 buildings, when S. chartarum was detected in indoor air (6% of the buildings surveyed) the median airborne concentration was 12 CFU/m3 (95% CI 12 to 118 CFU/m3)."I find the transition from spores/m3 to CFU/m3 to be problematic for a variety of reasons. I can't believe I'm the only one who has noted this troublesome inconsistency. what comments or additional observations might you share along these lines?thanks in advance. Wane<><><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH, RPIH Director, Air Quality Services "Bad air gets you down" MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC. 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100 PO Box 2377 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602 Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax mailto:wab@... On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?" - Graham

FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve:

thanks for sharing your thoughts - well put, sir.

the distinction, as I read the column, was in treating mold

as " hazardous material " . Robbins does not provide her definition

thereof. as I mentioned, I assume (I know, I need be careful here)

that she refers to the potential toxigenic properties. I think

everyone has acknowledged the allergenic potential of fungi.

in my reading, the available technical literature remains

inconclusive on the issue of toxicity; additional research is needed,

and is underway. one of the most problematic aspects of this

research, IMO, is the question of combinations of mycotoxins and

human health effects in very wet buildings. are the relationships

additive, synergistic or antagonistic? like mixtures of VOCs, we may

spend many, many years trying to solve this riddle.

any other comments from the group on mixing measurements of spores/m3

and CFU/m3, especially for an organism like S. chartarum?

best regards,

Wane

> While it is a valid and worthwhile exercise to calculate potential

doses of

> mycotoxins (problems with units aside, Wane), I find it disturbing

to makes

> statements implying there is no hazard, while completely ignoring

allergenic

> effects that can certainly disrupt a workplace even if affecting

only one or

> two individuals, and in extreme cases be very debilitating.

>

> I discounted the toxic effects of molds long ago for lack of

evidence, but

> still believe engineering controls are entirely appropriate for mold

> remediation in order to contain the wholesale distribution of a

known

> allergen during demolition of moldy building materials. Is

this " treating

> mold as a hazardous material " as Ms. Robbins accuses?

>

> D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS

> Liesch Associates, Inc.

>

> Synergist: mold as hazmat refuted + ACOEM

>

> Hi all:

>

> I just read through an article from the May/June issue of The

> Synergist, and found an article of particular interest. perhaps

you

> can help me with authoritative works in this matter.

>

> specifically, I refer to a column on the AIHce Education Sessions

> authored by Coreen Robbins (v15,n5/6,p.32). in the column, Robbins

> summarizes the proceedings of a particular AIHce roundtable,

> including this statement:

>

<snip>

>

> <><><><><><><><><><><><>

> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH, RPIH

> Director, Air Quality Services

> " Bad air gets you down "

> MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

> 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

> PO Box 2377

> La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

>

> Phone , ext. 484

> Cell

> Fax

>

> mailto:wab@m...

> On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

> <http://www.michaelsengineering.com>

>

> " To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything

be

> more fun? "

> - Graham

>

>

>

>

>

> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?

M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=grphealth

> /S=:HM/A=2128215/rand=569642637>

[Guest guest]

Wane: re " Mixing Measurements "

This can be a very big deal according to some research on total vs viable

counts of some fungi. Unfortunately, Stachybotrys chartarum seems to be one

with an often (but not always) huge difference between viable counts (in the

order of tens per cubic metre) and total counts (sometimes in the order of

thousands when the viable is only tens). If the toxin is present in both

viable and non-viable spores then the total count is important, not the

viable count. If, as well, the toxin is present in equivalent concentrations

in mycelial debris, then neither of the above are the correct measurement.

I continue to be impressed with how much we do not know in this area. I do

not see our lack of concrete information preventing us from asking that due

care be applied, however, since there is enough anecdotal evidence available

to make the concerned investigator really wonder if there is not a

cause/effect relationship here, but also the lack of an adequate measure of

real exposure and dose. I have no trouble with this because I react strongly

to heavy Stachy exposure, becoming unable to 'get the right words out' on

site, then having trouble writing well for day afterwards (no snide comments

about ever writing well, please).

At the moment we may be measuring the wrong things and asking the wrong

questions. Is it any wonder, then, that we are not getting good

dose/response relationships?

Jim H. White SSAL

Synergist: mold as hazmat refuted + ACOEM

> >

> > Hi all:

> >

> > I just read through an article from the May/June issue of The

> > Synergist, and found an article of particular interest. perhaps

> you

> > can help me with authoritative works in this matter.

> >

> > specifically, I refer to a column on the AIHce Education Sessions

> > authored by Coreen Robbins (v15,n5/6,p.32). in the column, Robbins

> > summarizes the proceedings of a particular AIHce roundtable,

> > including this statement:

> >

> <snip>

> >

> > <><><><><><><><><><><><>

> > Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH, RPIH

> > Director, Air Quality Services

> > " Bad air gets you down "

> > MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

> > 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

> > PO Box 2377

> > La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

> >

> > Phone , ext. 484

> > Cell

> > Fax

> >

> > mailto:wab@m...

> > On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

> > <http://www.michaelsengineering.com>

> >

> > " To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything

> be

> > more fun? "

> > - Graham

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?

> M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=grphealth

> > /S=:HM/A=2128215/rand=569642637>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always

been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,

political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice

issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such

copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your

own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

>

[Guest guest]

Wane,

There are so many more variables to consider in addition. The viability of the Stachybotrys spores will be a function of their age and level of dessication. The ability of these "sticky", relatively large (for mold) spores to be rendered airborne will also be related to the level of dessication of the colony on the substrate. So you could say that the higher the airborne concentrations of total Stachy spores recovered using spore trap methods, the lower the percentage of culturable (viable) spores. Or, the other way around, the lower the airborne concentration of culturable airborne S. chartarum spores, the higher the levels of total Stachy spores (hey, that's scary and illustrates why spore traps are so important for assessment of Stachy). Of course, the physical disturbance of the colonies and air currents will also be a very important variable. Choice of culture media is another major consideration.

Whether the spores from a given colony are even producing mycotoxins, and which ones at what concentration, is another issue in question.

The capture efficiency of the spore trap vs. the culture sampling method also makes the methods less comparable.

I wouldn't fret too much about what these numerical values represent. We are a long way from anything becoming truly meaningful with regard to exposure (dose) and health effects. The predisposition of an individual to develop a sensitivity (to mycotoxins or whatever) still seems to be the most important variable -- and it's a total "wild card".

I am continually amazed at how many mold remediators, who are probably some of the most highly exposed people (in known high mold spore count environments on a daily basis), do not have problems. How many times do these workers not wear their respirators when they should because the mold (including Stachy) "doesn't bother them" (or doesn't bother them yet)? I guess we will see what medical surveillance of these workers shows over time. Should it include neuropsych testing? We'd better start the baseline testing ASAP or we won't know which came first, the mold exposure or the stupidity.

Steve Temes

thanks for your comments -- good to hear from you. your observations

accurately reflect my specific concerns regarding the ACOEM numerical

analysis.

as I recall, the literature (sorry, out of the office without my

references at hand) indicates that S. chartarum is understated in

culture-based sampling as it is somewhat difficult to culture, and

perhaps 90-95% of the airborne propagules may be nonculturable

(perhaps simply non-viable).

going back to the excerpts from the ACOEM statement for a moment:

"...airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver the

nonhemorrhagic cumulative three-week dose of 2.8 x 10^5 spores/kg can

be estimated as 9.4 x 10^3 spores/m3 for infants, 29.3 x 10^3

spores/m3 for a school-age child, and 68.0 x 10^3 spores/m3 for

adults (assuming exposure for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and

100% retention of spores)."

"Those concentrations are not infeasible, but they are

improbable and inconsistent with reported spore concentrations. For

example, in data from 9,619 indoor air samples from 1,717 buildings,

when S. chartarum was detected in indoor air (6% of the buildings

surveyed) the median airborne concentration was 12 CFU/m3 (95% CI 12

to 118 CFU/m3)."

then for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that culture-based

sampling has found, at least in some cases of very wet structures,

100 (i.e., 10^2) CFU/m3 of S. chartarum. let's further assume for

the moment that 90% of the actual airborne load is non-culturable.

The actual TOTAL spore load is then 10^3 spores/m3.

if in reality, the percentage of non-culturable spores is closer to

99% (supported by some published treatises), then the actual TOTAL

spore load (culturable + non-culturable) is on the order of 10^4

spores/m3. we are now well within, if not above, the range

identified by the ACOEM as "...the nonhemorrhagic cumulative three-

week dose..." These simple, decimal-order-of-magnitude calculations

have troubled me since the ACOEM statement was issued.

perhaps I need a remedial mathematics course, or I've overlooked

something that is evident to others in the group. please advise

accordingly.

thanks again.

Wane

[Guest guest]

Hi Jim:

thanks for your comments -- good to hear from you. your observations

accurately reflect my specific concerns regarding the ACOEM numerical

analysis.

as I recall, the literature (sorry, out of the office without my

references at hand) indicates that S. chartarum is understated in

culture-based sampling as it is somewhat difficult to culture, and

perhaps 90-95% of the airborne propagules may be nonculturable

(perhaps simply non-viable).

going back to the excerpts from the ACOEM statement for a moment:

" ...airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver the

nonhemorrhagic cumulative three-week dose of 2.8 x 10^5 spores/kg can

be estimated as 9.4 x 10^3 spores/m3 for infants, 29.3 x 10^3

spores/m3 for a school-age child, and 68.0 x 10^3 spores/m3 for

adults (assuming exposure for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and

100% retention of spores). "

" Those concentrations are not infeasible, but they are

improbable and inconsistent with reported spore concentrations. For

example, in data from 9,619 indoor air samples from 1,717 buildings,

when S. chartarum was detected in indoor air (6% of the buildings

surveyed) the median airborne concentration was 12 CFU/m3 (95% CI 12

to 118 CFU/m3). "

then for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that culture-based

sampling has found, at least in some cases of very wet structures,

100 (i.e., 10^2) CFU/m3 of S. chartarum. let's further assume for

the moment that 90% of the actual airborne load is non-culturable.

The actual TOTAL spore load is then 10^3 spores/m3.

if in reality, the percentage of non-culturable spores is closer to

99% (supported by some published treatises), then the actual TOTAL

spore load (culturable + non-culturable) is on the order of 10^4

spores/m3. we are now well within, if not above, the range

identified by the ACOEM as " ...the nonhemorrhagic cumulative three-

week dose... " These simple, decimal-order-of-magnitude calculations

have troubled me since the ACOEM statement was issued.

perhaps I need a remedial mathematics course, or I've overlooked

something that is evident to others in the group. please advise

accordingly.

thanks again.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH, RPIH

Director, Air Quality Services

" Bad air gets you down "

MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

PO Box 2377

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

mailto:wab@m...

On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be

more fun? "

- Graham

> Wane: re " Mixing Measurements "

> This can be a very big deal according to some research on total vs

viable

> counts of some fungi. Unfortunately, Stachybotrys chartarum seems

to be one

> with an often (but not always) huge difference between viable

counts (in the

> order of tens per cubic metre) and total counts (sometimes in the

order of

> thousands when the viable is only tens). If the toxin is present in

both

> viable and non-viable spores then the total count is important, not

the

> viable count. If, as well, the toxin is present in equivalent

concentrations

> in mycelial debris, then neither of the above are the correct

measurement.

>

> I continue to be impressed with how much we do not know in this

area. I do

> not see our lack of concrete information preventing us from asking

that due

> care be applied, however, since there is enough anecdotal evidence

available

> to make the concerned investigator really wonder if there is not a

> cause/effect relationship here, but also the lack of an adequate

measure of

> real exposure and dose. I have no trouble with this because I react

strongly

> to heavy Stachy exposure, becoming unable to 'get the right words

out' on

> site, then having trouble writing well for day afterwards (no snide

comments

> about ever writing well, please).

>

> At the moment we may be measuring the wrong things and asking the

wrong

> questions. Is it any wonder, then, that we are not getting good

> dose/response relationships?

> Jim H. White SSAL

>

[Guest guest]

EML has published background levels of various spores in the atmosphere

from around the countries by state. (Air o cel) data

Their analysis shows that background levels in the outside atmosphere in

the south east US, stachy is very common with NORMAL levels reaching as

high as 280 s/m3. (range 7 to 280)

Using the agruement that 99% of spores are non viable would mean that

everyone in the southeasst should be regularly bleeding during certain

times of the year.

Well, we know that does not happen.

HAS ANYONE MEASURED ELEVATED STACHY AND HAS SEEN BLEEDING PROBLEMS IN

THE OCCUPANTS?

Other than the Cleveland and Chicago kid cases which have been

discounted, does any one know of any adult published Or WITNESSED

hemosiderosis cases.?

BOB