Guest guest Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Randy, If mold (mould) was suspected, why wouldn't you LOOK for the source BEFORE sampling the air? If you suspect mold, but air sampling doesn't confirm, now what? Do you REALLY think that you will always find mold spore in the air if you've got spore on a surface? Curtis Redington, RS Environmental Quality Specialist City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health Wichita, KS Re: Re: Clearance testing Being a laboratory person, I would like to know how surface sampling is conducted for clearance purposes. A major advantage of surface sampling is that it targets the source. But how is it conducted to ensure that the samples taken are a true representative of the remediated surface? Also, are samples taken from the same spots before and after remediation and how are the results compared? Kung'u, PhD. Mold & Bacteria Consulting Laboratories (MBL) Inc. 1020 Brevik Place, Unit 1A Mississauga, ON L4W 4N7 Canada Tel: Email: jkungu@... http://www.moldbacteria.com --- Cassidy Kuchenbecker wrote: > > > > Hello, Steve: > > I have to say that I am on the other side of the > camp by thinking > that surface sampling is superior to air sampling > for clearance > purposes. > > Here are just three reasons I prefer surface > sampling for post- > remediation verification: > > 1. Oftentimes we have found that semi-porous > materials, such as wood, > can appear clean and be free of dust (in other > words, most of the > spores are removed and the air samples would be > acceptable), but > hyphae have been left behind from lack of adaquate > scrubbing/sanding. > > 2. If spot A,B, and C fail a visual or sampling, > just A,B, and C need > to be cleaned. If air sampling fails, where does > the remediator > start and end??? In this case, surface sampling can > give very > straight forward instructions to the remediator. > > 3. And the biggie: statistical variability with air > sampling. I > don't want to be the one who says the job is done > when really I just > wasn't allotted enough funds to take the proper > amount of samples. > > Now I'm not 100% against bioaerosol sampling, we do > it all time. > However, given the choice (yes, sometimes the client > requires air > samples) I'd choose a good visual assessment and > surface sampling > every time. > > Cassidy L. Kuchenbecker > > > > > BOB, > > > > I'm not so sure that ALL of the speakers were > saying that air > sampling for > > post-remediation clearance was not necessary. I > think most of them > were biting > > their tongues and deferring to just a few. I > would be willing to > bet that > > those few would do testing themselves every time > if they were asked > to clear a > > remediation project. > > > > In my discussions with many of the attendees, it > was obvious that > everyone is > > doing something different when it comes to > clearance testing and > > interpretation of the results. > > > > Just to keep it short, my opinion is that when > documentation of > acceptable > > performance of a remediation procedure is > necessary, testing is > necessary. My > > preference is to use an aggressive or > semi-aggressive air sampling > method(s) to > > suspend settled spores so that the air sampling is > reasonably > representative > > of as much SURFACE AREA as possible in the > remediation work area. > > > > I don't like surface sampling at all for > clearance. It ALWAYS > places the IEP > > in the position of testing a surface that is > either more or less > likely to > > have been cleaned. S/He is consciously or > subconsciously trying to > pass or fail > > the job. The IEP should not be in this position. > The testing must > be > > objective. I can go into a typical remediated > work area and find > one square inch > > somewhere that will fail. If I go in after > someone else did > surface clearance > > testing and " passed " the job, does that mean the > first IEP was > negligent for > > not finding that one square inch that I did? > > > > The only surface sampling I would consider doing > is if the > contractors > > removed the negative air machines and/or scrubbers > and " let > everything settle " . > > This is the time to do surface sampling. Air > sampling after > everything has > > settled seems to me like the wrong thing to do, > even though it is > commonly being > > done. > > > > I could go on and on and on. By the way, it isn't > post-remediation > > assessment or clearance or verification testing > any more. > Evidently, the term of art > > preferred at the symposium is now " close out " . > > > > I share your frustration and agree with you that > there was a lot of > avoidance > > of controversy and " double speak " at the > symposium. I was not as > > disappointed as many of the attendees, however, > because I have come > to expect nothing > > else. I spoke to some who attended the > verification track who > actually thought > > they would learn about ways to do clearance > testing. All I heard > was one > > infomercial about one type of surface sampling > being the only valid > method. > > > > As long as the " ultimate criterion " is the ability > of the occupants > to return > > to the remediated environment without health > complaints, no matter > what you > > do to document that the cleaning was effective, > someone can just > SAY they have > > a problem upon re-occupancy and that trumps all > your testing anyway. > > > > Other than " the usual politics and controversy " , I > thought it was a > great > > conference. I would certainly want to attend the > next one of its > kind. I just > > wish that we weren't forced to choose between so > many concurrent > sessions. > > > > Steve Temes > > > > > > In a message dated 11/13/2004 10:54:26 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > > BobB@s... writes: > > > I have just returned from the LV Conference > titled " Advanced > Perspectives > > > on Mold Remediation. " It was useful to me > because I was able to > get more > > > information on mold exposure standards from > other countries to > update my book. > > > More importantly > > > > > > > > > There appeared to be significant controversy > about whether there > is a " need " > > > to do clearance air testing. > > > > > > > > > ALL of the " expert " speakers were all saying > that clearance air > testing is > === message truncated === ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Greg, I think your suggestion are very interesting. In the ranges I would expect. I am curious though about your logic of subtracting out various genera. Granted, I understand nearly all are associated with outddoor sources for total spores. And for the viable, the list is mainly tertiary colonizers that require high water activity. Is there other reasons? Also, the rain concept is also interesting and a real biasing factor. Any justification for the 2 days? or is it just experience? It is my experience also! Again, good constructive suggestions.. I am going to include some stuff on the statistics of limited sample sizes. BOB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Hello Mr. Redington; We were talking about clearance, the mould was already identified as far as my understanding. Please note for future reference capitalization is considered to be rude on the Internet. Sincerely; Randy Ontario Building Solutions Solving Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Issues www.buildingoperation.com <http://www.buildingoperation.com> info@... Re: Re: Clearance testing Being a laboratory person, I would like to know how surface sampling is conducted for clearance purposes. A major advantage of surface sampling is that it targets the source. But how is it conducted to ensure that the samples taken are a true representative of the remediated surface? Also, are samples taken from the same spots before and after remediation and how are the results compared? Kung'u, PhD. Mold & Bacteria Consulting Laboratories (MBL) Inc. 1020 Brevik Place, Unit 1A Mississauga, ON L4W 4N7 Canada Tel: Email: jkungu@... http://www.moldbacteria.com --- Cassidy Kuchenbecker wrote: > > > > Hello, Steve: > > I have to say that I am on the other side of the > camp by thinking > that surface sampling is superior to air sampling > for clearance > purposes. > > Here are just three reasons I prefer surface > sampling for post- > remediation verification: > > 1. Oftentimes we have found that semi-porous > materials, such as wood, > can appear clean and be free of dust (in other > words, most of the > spores are removed and the air samples would be > acceptable), but > hyphae have been left behind from lack of adaquate > scrubbing/sanding. > > 2. If spot A,B, and C fail a visual or sampling, > just A,B, and C need > to be cleaned. If air sampling fails, where does > the remediator > start and end??? In this case, surface sampling can > give very > straight forward instructions to the remediator. > > 3. And the biggie: statistical variability with air > sampling. I > don't want to be the one who says the job is done > when really I just > wasn't allotted enough funds to take the proper > amount of samples. > > Now I'm not 100% against bioaerosol sampling, we do > it all time. > However, given the choice (yes, sometimes the client > requires air > samples) I'd choose a good visual assessment and > surface sampling > every time. > > Cassidy L. Kuchenbecker > > > > > BOB, > > > > I'm not so sure that ALL of the speakers were > saying that air > sampling for > > post-remediation clearance was not necessary. I > think most of them > were biting > > their tongues and deferring to just a few. I > would be willing to > bet that > > those few would do testing themselves every time > if they were asked > to clear a > > remediation project. > > > > In my discussions with many of the attendees, it > was obvious that > everyone is > > doing something different when it comes to > clearance testing and > > interpretation of the results. > > > > Just to keep it short, my opinion is that when > documentation of > acceptable > > performance of a remediation procedure is > necessary, testing is > necessary. My > > preference is to use an aggressive or > semi-aggressive air sampling > method(s) to > > suspend settled spores so that the air sampling is > reasonably > representative > > of as much SURFACE AREA as possible in the > remediation work area. > > > > I don't like surface sampling at all for > clearance. It ALWAYS > places the IEP > > in the position of testing a surface that is > either more or less > likely to > > have been cleaned. S/He is consciously or > subconsciously trying to > pass or fail > > the job. The IEP should not be in this position. > The testing must > be > > objective. I can go into a typical remediated > work area and find > one square inch > > somewhere that will fail. If I go in after > someone else did > surface clearance > > testing and " passed " the job, does that mean the > first IEP was > negligent for > > not finding that one square inch that I did? > > > > The only surface sampling I would consider doing > is if the > contractors > > removed the negative air machines and/or scrubbers > and " let > everything settle " . > > This is the time to do surface sampling. Air > sampling after > everything has > > settled seems to me like the wrong thing to do, > even though it is > commonly being > > done. > > > > I could go on and on and on. By the way, it isn't > post-remediation > > assessment or clearance or verification testing > any more. > Evidently, the term of art > > preferred at the symposium is now " close out " . > > > > I share your frustration and agree with you that > there was a lot of > avoidance > > of controversy and " double speak " at the > symposium. I was not as > > disappointed as many of the attendees, however, > because I have come > to expect nothing > > else. I spoke to some who attended the > verification track who > actually thought > > they would learn about ways to do clearance > testing. All I heard > was one > > infomercial about one type of surface sampling > being the only valid > method. > > > > As long as the " ultimate criterion " is the ability > of the occupants > to return > > to the remediated environment without health > complaints, no matter > what you > > do to document that the cleaning was effective, > someone can just > SAY they have > > a problem upon re-occupancy and that trumps all > your testing anyway. > > > > Other than " the usual politics and controversy " , I > thought it was a > great > > conference. I would certainly want to attend the > next one of its > kind. I just > > wish that we weren't forced to choose between so > many concurrent > sessions. > > > > Steve Temes > > > > > > In a message dated 11/13/2004 10:54:26 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > > BobB@s... writes: > > > I have just returned from the LV Conference > titled " Advanced > Perspectives > > > on Mold Remediation. " It was useful to me > because I was able to > get more > > > information on mold exposure standards from > other countries to > update my book. > > > More importantly > > > > > > > > > There appeared to be significant controversy > about whether there > is a " need " > > > to do clearance air testing. > > > > > > > > > ALL of the " expert " speakers were all saying > that clearance air > testing is > === message truncated === ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2004 Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 Pat, I enjoyed reading your post and thought you brought up some excellent points in relation to stachy. Your statement about treating stachy similary to other fungi in most cases is straight from the CDC website and am pleased to note that. They said it-you backed it, and the CDC appears to be a very solid reference(1). As far as firms milking jobs goes, it happens alot in the Northwest too. I suppose it is safe to say that this "milking" it is a nation wide problem. Shane (1) excerpt from http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/mold/stachy.htm Q 1. I heard about "toxic molds" that grow in homes and other buildings. Should I be concerned about a serious health risk to me and my family? A 1. The term "toxic mold" is not accurate. While certain molds are toxigenic, meaning they can produce toxins (specifically mycotoxins), the molds themselves are not toxic, or poisonous. Hazards presented by molds that may produce mycotoxins should be considered the same as other common molds which can grow in your house. RE: Re: Clearance testing Assuming that each Stachy spore consists of water and is an oblong box 3 x 3 x 12 um, each spore weighs roughly 1.08E-7 mg, meaning that you could fit nearly 10 million Stachy spores in a milligram. That said, I agree with Steve in that there has to be a line between scientific accuracy and project cost. It simply isn’t possible on most projects to spec out the most precise analysis for anything. For instance, I’m not necessarily going to speciate every organism I find on a project—it costs WAY too much and requires too much time. Sometimes analysis to the genus level is adequate for my purposes and those of my clients, because it has a good balance of precision, speed, and cost. I’ve seen the “zero tolerance” for Stachy before and I think it’s ludicrous. First, many of the problems attributed to Stachy exposure have been disproven. Second, a single spore is often below the detection limit and is within experimental error for most samplers. Third, you cannot selectively clean for a specific mold. It’s just not possible given the current level of technology available. It might be one thing if Stachy was rare, which is isn’t, or if it had a huge spore that was easily filtered out during air scrubbing (a la Peronospora), which it doesn’t. Its aerodynamic diameter is the same as that of Asp/Pen! I treat it similarly to other fungi in most cases. Otherwise, one logical terminus is: “Ma’am, your basement is cleared.” “There’s no more mold down there?” “Well, the Stachy’s all gone.” “Oh, that’s good. What about the half million Asp/Pen spores still floating around down there?” “Uh, the Stachy’s gone.” “And?” “And we’re done. Bye!” (Homeowner calls lawyer.) I think a lot of the basis for “zero tolerance” comes from some firms milking jobs. Happens a lot in the Northeast, I’ve found. A. Walsh MS, CIE -----Original Message----- The S520 standard calls for a return to Condition 1 status after remediation. How does a gravimetric test method enable an IEP to determine whether fungal contamination is "normal" or "background"? For that matter, how does one determine Condition 1 status based on mold testing?Some clearance specs I have seen consider the presence of one spore of Stachy to constitute failure. Someone do the math -- how many spores could there be in one mg of dust?The "cleaning spec" approach won't work for mold remediation if you are going to follow S520 guidelines. Besides, the "white glove test" should be adequate to determine whether there is too much dust on surfaces, and it's quicker and cheaper.Someone should be thinking about these things before introducing new terms and concepts. I don't have a problem with keeping it simple, but let's keep it consistent.There is too much paradigm shifting going on without using the clutch. I hear gears grinding. Texas, here we come.Steve Temes 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Randy, In your post, you discussed sampling (in air) to " confirm " the presence of suspected mold, then looking for mold, then remediation, followed by more sampling, and then evaluating the cause of the problem. This clearly seems far more inclusive than just " clearance " , but the questions would still be the same. If you suspect mold (even after remediation), why would you collect air samples before simply looking? What would you do if you suspected mold, but the air samples did not " confirm " this suspicion? Please don't take my questions personally - my reply to your post was intended to highlight what I believe is a pervasive problem with mold investigations (pre and post-remediation). Contrary to what we commonly accept as our " guidance documents " and " industry standards " , mold sampling is chronically used for purposes that can not be justified. Mold sampling should never be a substitute for a thorough walk-through inspection, yet an alarming number of " mold professionals " commonly begin (or even limit) their investigations by collecting air samples. In the recently published " Guidance for Clinicians on the Recognition and Management of Health Effects Related to Mold Exposure and Moisture Indoors " , it is pointed out that " Air sampling is limited, and negative results do not document the absence of mold exposure. " Despite the universal agreement that sampling can not be used to " prove a negative " , samples are routinely collected for just exactly this purpose as a means of " documenting clearance " . Much of the debate on this List focuses on scientific minutia (often probably well past the point of diminishing return), yet I think we may often be missing the big picture. Recent discussion, for example, debated how long to have air scrubbers shut down (if at all) before collecting air samples. My point is, the first question should have been " do we need to collect these samples at all? " If there is a valid " yes " (something better than " because the insurance company wanted it " , I hope), then a sampling plan should be agreed upon that specifically answers any questions that can't be answered by any other means. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves, " did the sampling provide anything of real value, or are we just putting on a good show? " Curtis P.S. Thanks for the tip on Internet etiquette. I had never before heard that capitalizing words was considered rude, nor had anyone else I subsequently checked with - including some of our IT staff. My format/font selection is not available to underline, italicize, or change color of words in a reply. Could you recommend a method for adding emphasis to words in a sentence that would be considered polite and acceptable on the Internet? Curtis Redington, RS Environmental Quality Specialist City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health Wichita, KS Re: Re: Clearance testing Being a laboratory person, I would like to know how surface sampling is conducted for clearance purposes. A major advantage of surface sampling is that it targets the source. But how is it conducted to ensure that the samples taken are a true representative of the remediated surface? Also, are samples taken from the same spots before and after remediation and how are the results compared? Kung'u, PhD. Mold & Bacteria Consulting Laboratories (MBL) Inc. 1020 Brevik Place, Unit 1A Mississauga, ON L4W 4N7 Canada Tel: Email: jkungu@... http://www.moldbacteria.com --- Cassidy Kuchenbecker wrote: > > > > Hello, Steve: > > I have to say that I am on the other side of the > camp by thinking > that surface sampling is superior to air sampling > for clearance > purposes. > > Here are just three reasons I prefer surface > sampling for post- > remediation verification: > > 1. Oftentimes we have found that semi-porous > materials, such as wood, > can appear clean and be free of dust (in other > words, most of the > spores are removed and the air samples would be > acceptable), but > hyphae have been left behind from lack of adaquate > scrubbing/sanding. > > 2. If spot A,B, and C fail a visual or sampling, > just A,B, and C need > to be cleaned. If air sampling fails, where does > the remediator > start and end??? In this case, surface sampling can > give very > straight forward instructions to the remediator. > > 3. And the biggie: statistical variability with air > sampling. I > don't want to be the one who says the job is done > when really I just > wasn't allotted enough funds to take the proper > amount of samples. > > Now I'm not 100% against bioaerosol sampling, we do > it all time. > However, given the choice (yes, sometimes the client > requires air > samples) I'd choose a good visual assessment and > surface sampling > every time. > > Cassidy L. Kuchenbecker > > > > > BOB, > > > > I'm not so sure that ALL of the speakers were > saying that air > sampling for > > post-remediation clearance was not necessary. I > think most of them > were biting > > their tongues and deferring to just a few. I > would be willing to > bet that > > those few would do testing themselves every time > if they were asked > to clear a > > remediation project. > > > > In my discussions with many of the attendees, it > was obvious that > everyone is > > doing something different when it comes to > clearance testing and > > interpretation of the results. > > > > Just to keep it short, my opinion is that when > documentation of > acceptable > > performance of a remediation procedure is > necessary, testing is > necessary. My > > preference is to use an aggressive or > semi-aggressive air sampling > method(s) to > > suspend settled spores so that the air sampling is > reasonably > representative > > of as much SURFACE AREA as possible in the > remediation work area. > > > > I don't like surface sampling at all for > clearance. It ALWAYS > places the IEP > > in the position of testing a surface that is > either more or less > likely to > > have been cleaned. S/He is consciously or > subconsciously trying to > pass or fail > > the job. The IEP should not be in this position. > The testing must > be > > objective. I can go into a typical remediated > work area and find > one square inch > > somewhere that will fail. If I go in after > someone else did > surface clearance > > testing and " passed " the job, does that mean the > first IEP was > negligent for > > not finding that one square inch that I did? > > > > The only surface sampling I would consider doing > is if the > contractors > > removed the negative air machines and/or scrubbers > and " let > everything settle " . > > This is the time to do surface sampling. Air > sampling after > everything has > > settled seems to me like the wrong thing to do, > even though it is > commonly being > > done. > > > > I could go on and on and on. By the way, it isn't > post-remediation > > assessment or clearance or verification testing > any more. > Evidently, the term of art > > preferred at the symposium is now " close out " . > > > > I share your frustration and agree with you that > there was a lot of > avoidance > > of controversy and " double speak " at the > symposium. I was not as > > disappointed as many of the attendees, however, > because I have come > to expect nothing > > else. I spoke to some who attended the > verification track who > actually thought > > they would learn about ways to do clearance > testing. All I heard > was one > > infomercial about one type of surface sampling > being the only valid > method. > > > > As long as the " ultimate criterion " is the ability > of the occupants > to return > > to the remediated environment without health > complaints, no matter > what you > > do to document that the cleaning was effective, > someone can just > SAY they have > > a problem upon re-occupancy and that trumps all > your testing anyway. > > > > Other than " the usual politics and controversy " , I > thought it was a > great > > conference. I would certainly want to attend the > next one of its > kind. I just > > wish that we weren't forced to choose between so > many concurrent > sessions. > > > > Steve Temes > > > > > > In a message dated 11/13/2004 10:54:26 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > > BobB@s... writes: > > > I have just returned from the LV Conference > titled " Advanced > Perspectives > > > on Mold Remediation. " It was useful to me > because I was able to > get more > > > information on mold exposure standards from > other countries to > update my book. > > > More importantly > > > > > > > > > There appeared to be significant controversy > about whether there > is a " need " > > > to do clearance air testing. > > > > > > > > > ALL of the " expert " speakers were all saying > that clearance air > testing is > === message truncated === ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 I have already done the visual, and I am looking for any possible missed or hidden sources. Randy Ontario Building Solutions Solving Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) & Energy Use Issues www.buildingoperation.com <http://www.buildingoperation.com> info@... Re: Re: Clearance testing Being a laboratory person, I would like to know how surface sampling is conducted for clearance purposes. A major advantage of surface sampling is that it targets the source. But how is it conducted to ensure that the samples taken are a true representative of the remediated surface? Also, are samples taken from the same spots before and after remediation and how are the results compared? Kung'u, PhD. Mold & Bacteria Consulting Laboratories (MBL) Inc. 1020 Brevik Place, Unit 1A Mississauga, ON L4W 4N7 Canada Tel: Email: jkungu@... http://www.moldbacteria.com --- Cassidy Kuchenbecker wrote: > > > > Hello, Steve: > > I have to say that I am on the other side of the > camp by thinking > that surface sampling is superior to air sampling > for clearance > purposes. > > Here are just three reasons I prefer surface > sampling for post- > remediation verification: > > 1. Oftentimes we have found that semi-porous > materials, such as wood, > can appear clean and be free of dust (in other > words, most of the > spores are removed and the air samples would be > acceptable), but > hyphae have been left behind from lack of adaquate > scrubbing/sanding. > > 2. If spot A,B, and C fail a visual or sampling, > just A,B, and C need > to be cleaned. If air sampling fails, where does > the remediator > start and end??? In this case, surface sampling can > give very > straight forward instructions to the remediator. > > 3. And the biggie: statistical variability with air > sampling. I > don't want to be the one who says the job is done > when really I just > wasn't allotted enough funds to take the proper > amount of samples. > > Now I'm not 100% against bioaerosol sampling, we do > it all time. > However, given the choice (yes, sometimes the client > requires air > samples) I'd choose a good visual assessment and > surface sampling > every time. > > Cassidy L. Kuchenbecker > > > > > BOB, > > > > I'm not so sure that ALL of the speakers were > saying that air > sampling for > > post-remediation clearance was not necessary. I > think most of them > were biting > > their tongues and deferring to just a few. I > would be willing to > bet that > > those few would do testing themselves every time > if they were asked > to clear a > > remediation project. > > > > In my discussions with many of the attendees, it > was obvious that > everyone is > > doing something different when it comes to > clearance testing and > > interpretation of the results. > > > > Just to keep it short, my opinion is that when > documentation of > acceptable > > performance of a remediation procedure is > necessary, testing is > necessary. My > > preference is to use an aggressive or > semi-aggressive air sampling > method(s) to > > suspend settled spores so that the air sampling is > reasonably > representative > > of as much SURFACE AREA as possible in the > remediation work area. > > > > I don't like surface sampling at all for > clearance. It ALWAYS > places the IEP > > in the position of testing a surface that is > either more or less > likely to > > have been cleaned. S/He is consciously or > subconsciously trying to > pass or fail > > the job. The IEP should not be in this position. > The testing must > be > > objective. I can go into a typical remediated > work area and find > one square inch > > somewhere that will fail. If I go in after > someone else did > surface clearance > > testing and " passed " the job, does that mean the > first IEP was > negligent for > > not finding that one square inch that I did? > > > > The only surface sampling I would consider doing > is if the > contractors > > removed the negative air machines and/or scrubbers > and " let > everything settle " . > > This is the time to do surface sampling. Air > sampling after > everything has > > settled seems to me like the wrong thing to do, > even though it is > commonly being > > done. > > > > I could go on and on and on. By the way, it isn't > post-remediation > > assessment or clearance or verification testing > any more. > Evidently, the term of art > > preferred at the symposium is now " close out " . > > > > I share your frustration and agree with you that > there was a lot of > avoidance > > of controversy and " double speak " at the > symposium. I was not as > > disappointed as many of the attendees, however, > because I have come > to expect nothing > > else. I spoke to some who attended the > verification track who > actually thought > > they would learn about ways to do clearance > testing. All I heard > was one > > infomercial about one type of surface sampling > being the only valid > method. > > > > As long as the " ultimate criterion " is the ability > of the occupants > to return > > to the remediated environment without health > complaints, no matter > what you > > do to document that the cleaning was effective, > someone can just > SAY they have > > a problem upon re-occupancy and that trumps all > your testing anyway. > > > > Other than " the usual politics and controversy " , I > thought it was a > great > > conference. I would certainly want to attend the > next one of its > kind. I just > > wish that we weren't forced to choose between so > many concurrent > sessions. > > > > Steve Temes > > > > > > In a message dated 11/13/2004 10:54:26 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > > BobB@s... writes: > > > I have just returned from the LV Conference > titled " Advanced > Perspectives > > > on Mold Remediation. " It was useful to me > because I was able to > get more > > > information on mold exposure standards from > other countries to > update my book. > > > More importantly > > > > > > > > > There appeared to be significant controversy > about whether there > is a " need " > > > to do clearance air testing. > > > > > > > > > ALL of the " expert " speakers were all saying > that clearance air > testing is > === message truncated === ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Curtis, Randy: use of ALL CAPS in an email message is considered poor practice because it's the equivalent of SHOUTING. (I'm very surprised your MIS/IT people hadn't heard this before.) try a google search for " email ettiquette " . for example, see: http://princeton.lib.wv.us/Internet%20Tutorial/E-mailEttiquette.htm Wane A. Baker > > Randy, > <snip> > Curtis > > P.S. Thanks for the tip on Internet etiquette. I had never before heard that > capitalizing words was considered rude, nor had anyone else I subsequently > checked with - including some of our IT staff. My format/font selection is > not available to underline, italicize, or change color of words in a reply. > Could you recommend a method for adding emphasis to words in a sentence that > would be considered polite and acceptable on the Internet? > > Curtis Redington, RS > Environmental Quality Specialist > City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health > Wichita, KS > > RE: Re: Clearance testing > > > Hello Mr. Redington; > > We were talking about clearance, the mould was already identified as far as > my understanding. > Please note for future reference capitalization is considered to be rude on > the Internet. > Sincerely; > Randy > > Ontario Building Solutions > Solving Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Issues > > www.buildingoperation.com <http://www.buildingoperation.com> > info@b... <mailto:info@b...> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Randy, Hidden mold should have been evaluated before collecting finals. If you tracked the moisture and removed all water damaged materials and dried the space, there shouldn’t be any hidden mold. Curtis, Well said. If I were doing remediation in my house I probably would not collect any samples (pre- or post). The problem in our society is that many times we sample to ease the worried mind of the owner/occupant or attorneys. It is easier and more profitable to take samples than to try to explain what the limitations of sampling are. This is especially true if the evaluator doesn’t understand the limitations to sampling. After all, “Can’t you just take a test and tell if it’s safe?” Your perspective is greatly needed and appreciated. Keep talking! Thanks Mark Doughty Re: Re: Clearance testing Being a laboratory person, I would like to know how surface sampling is conducted for clearance purposes. A major advantage of surface sampling is that it targets the source. But how is it conducted to ensure that the samples taken are a true representative of the remediated surface? Also, are samples taken from the same spots before and after remediation and how are the results compared? Kung'u, PhD. Mold & Bacteria Consulting Laboratories (MBL) Inc. 1020 Brevik Place, Unit 1A Mississauga, ON L4W 4N7 Canada Tel: Email: jkungu@... http://www.moldbacteria.com --- Cassidy Kuchenbecker wrote: > > > > Hello, Steve: > > I have to say that I am on the other side of the > camp by thinking > that surface sampling is superior to air sampling > for clearance > purposes. > > Here are just three reasons I prefer surface > sampling for post- > remediation verification: > > 1. Oftentimes we have found that semi-porous > materials, such as wood, > can appear clean and be free of dust (in other > words, most of the > spores are removed and the air samples would be > acceptable), but > hyphae have been left behind from lack of adaquate > scrubbing/sanding. > > 2. If spot A,B, and C fail a visual or sampling, > just A,B, and C need > to be cleaned. If air sampling fails, where does > the remediator > start and end??? In this case, surface sampling can > give very > straight forward instructions to the remediator. > > 3. And the biggie: statistical variability with air > sampling. I > don't want to be the one who says the job is done > when really I just > wasn't allotted enough funds to take the proper > amount of samples. > > Now I'm not 100% against bioaerosol sampling, we do > it all time. > However, given the choice (yes, sometimes the client > requires air > samples) I'd choose a good visual assessment and > surface sampling > every time. > > Cassidy L. Kuchenbecker > > > > > BOB, > > > > I'm not so sure that ALL of the speakers were > saying that air > sampling for > > post-remediation clearance was not necessary. I > think most of them > were biting > > their tongues and deferring to just a few. I > would be willing to > bet that > > those few would do testing themselves every time > if they were asked > to clear a > > remediation project. > > > > In my discussions with many of the attendees, it > was obvious that > everyone is > > doing something different when it comes to > clearance testing and > > interpretation of the results. > > > > Just to keep it short, my opinion is that when > documentation of > acceptable > > performance of a remediation procedure is > necessary, testing is > necessary. My > > preference is to use an aggressive or > semi-aggressive air sampling > method(s) to > > suspend settled spores so that the air sampling is > reasonably > representative > > of as much SURFACE AREA as possible in the > remediation work area. > > > > I don't like surface sampling at all for > clearance. It ALWAYS > places the IEP > > in the position of testing a surface that is > either more or less > likely to > > have been cleaned. S/He is consciously or > subconsciously trying to > pass or fail > > the job. The IEP should not be in this position. > The testing must > be > > objective. I can go into a typical remediated > work area and find > one square inch > > somewhere that will fail. If I go in after > someone else did > surface clearance > > testing and " passed " the job, does that mean the > first IEP was > negligent for > > not finding that one square inch that I did? > > > > The only surface sampling I would consider doing > is if the > contractors > > removed the negative air machines and/or scrubbers > and " let > everything settle " . > > This is the time to do surface sampling. Air > sampling after > everything has > > settled seems to me like the wrong thing to do, > even though it is > commonly being > > done. > > > > I could go on and on and on. By the way, it isn't > post-remediation > > assessment or clearance or verification testing > any more. > Evidently, the term of art > > preferred at the symposium is now " close out " . > > > > I share your frustration and agree with you that > there was a lot of > avoidance > > of controversy and " double speak " at the > symposium. I was not as > > disappointed as many of the attendees, however, > because I have come > to expect nothing > > else. I spoke to some who attended the > verification track who > actually thought > > they would learn about ways to do clearance > testing. All I heard > was one > > infomercial about one type of surface sampling > being the only valid > method. > > > > As long as the " ultimate criterion " is the ability > of the occupants > to return > > to the remediated environment without health > complaints, no matter > what you > > do to document that the cleaning was effective, > someone can just > SAY they have > > a problem upon re-occupancy and that trumps all > your testing anyway. > > > > Other than " the usual politics and controversy " , I > thought it was a > great > > conference. I would certainly want to attend the > next one of its > kind. I just > > wish that we weren't forced to choose between so > many concurrent > sessions. > > > > Steve Temes > > > > > > In a message dated 11/13/2004 10:54:26 AM Eastern > Standard Time, > > BobB@s... writes: > > > I have just returned from the LV Conference > titled " Advanced > Perspectives > > > on Mold Remediation. " It was useful to me > because I was able to > get more > > > information on mold exposure standards from > other countries to > update my book. > > > More importantly > > > > > > > > > There appeared to be significant controversy > about whether there > is a " need " > > > to do clearance air testing. > > > > > > > > > ALL of the " expert " speakers were all saying > that clearance air > testing is > === message truncated === ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I typically require: 1. Visual 2. Non-culturable surface (Tape) 3. Non-culturable air (spore trap). 4. Moisture readings in finish building materials. I sometimes require in addition: 1. Culturable surface (swabs or rodac plates) 2. Culturable air (plates) I rarely call for (in addition): 1. Particle counts. As side notes: 1. I have seen spore traps pick up unremediate mold post cleanup (visual and the rest did not get). 2. I have seen culturable air not pick up stuff where spore trap did (2 orders of magnitude different) 3. Stachy can be found outside and inside in air uncommonly Re: Clearance testing Bob, I hope you can keep us up to date regarding the committee to explore consensus on clearance criteria. While I was in attendance at the IICRC session, opinions regarding clearance criteria abounded during the whole sysmposium. I have had the experience to be on both sides of the fence, remediation contractor and IEP. My experience has been that of the old adage, " there is more than one way to skin a cat. " Absent more research on the subject, I believe there were many valid opinons of how to conduct and set criteria for post-project clearance. My experience has always been to establish the clearance criteria before remediation is started, with all parties involved. In general, " you don't move the goal-line once the game begins. " I have found that reasonable minds will come together in establishing the criteria. A remediation scope of work should be site specific, perhaps the same should be true of establishing the clearance criteria. Then make sure you have many tools in your tool belt! Shapiro > I have just returned from the LV Conference titled " Advanced > Perspectives on Mold Remediation. " It was useful to me because I was > able to get more information on mold exposure standards from other > countries to update my book. More importantly > > > There appeared to be significant controversy about whether there is a > " need " to do clearance air testing. > > > ALL of the " expert " speakers were all saying that clearance air testing > is " not necessary " . However, they admitted to do clearance air testing > for " perception " and " legal " reasons. > > The perception requirement is because the public wants to see air > results showing no significant contamination. > > The legal reason is because if you don't do at least some air testing > -if the case becomes a legal issue - you will look like an idiot on the > witness stand. > Sounded like double speak to me. > > The " experts " were promoting a DUST clearance level of 100mg/m3. > Similar to the National duct cleaning associations cleanliness number. > They did not discuss exactly how one would measure this dust level on a > statistical sampling basis. > > ALL of the experts admitted they do air testing. It seems that the > reason, they were saying it was unecessary was because the " number " of > samples necessary to show statistical significance was too high to make > sampling meaningful. Wouldn't their " statistical " limitations apply to > the number of dust level samples also? > > I strongly disagree with their anti air sampling statements, based on 30 > years experience in the drug and pharmaceutical aseptic fill, clean room > experience. > > A number of us other " experts " are planning on forming a committee to > develop a consensus standard on clearance of mold remediation projects - > that includes the need for air testing and the science behind it. I > won't go into details at this time. > > > What is the opinion of the members of this forum for the need for > clearance air testing AS PART OF THE Clearance process? > > > BOB 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I typically require: 1. Visual 2. Non-culturable surface (Tape) 3. Non-culturable air (spore trap). 4. Moisture readings in finish building materials. I sometimes require in addition: 1. Culturable surface (swabs or rodac plates) 2. Culturable air (plates) I rarely call for (in addition): 1. Particle counts. As side notes: 1. I have seen spore traps pick up unremediate mold post cleanup (visual and the rest did not get). 2. I have seen culturable air not pick up stuff where spore trap did (2 orders of magnitude different) 3. Stachy can be found outside and inside in air uncommonly Re: Clearance testing Bob, I hope you can keep us up to date regarding the committee to explore consensus on clearance criteria. While I was in attendance at the IICRC session, opinions regarding clearance criteria abounded during the whole sysmposium. I have had the experience to be on both sides of the fence, remediation contractor and IEP. My experience has been that of the old adage, " there is more than one way to skin a cat. " Absent more research on the subject, I believe there were many valid opinons of how to conduct and set criteria for post-project clearance. My experience has always been to establish the clearance criteria before remediation is started, with all parties involved. In general, " you don't move the goal-line once the game begins. " I have found that reasonable minds will come together in establishing the criteria. A remediation scope of work should be site specific, perhaps the same should be true of establishing the clearance criteria. Then make sure you have many tools in your tool belt! Shapiro > I have just returned from the LV Conference titled " Advanced > Perspectives on Mold Remediation. " It was useful to me because I was > able to get more information on mold exposure standards from other > countries to update my book. More importantly > > > There appeared to be significant controversy about whether there is a > " need " to do clearance air testing. > > > ALL of the " expert " speakers were all saying that clearance air testing > is " not necessary " . However, they admitted to do clearance air testing > for " perception " and " legal " reasons. > > The perception requirement is because the public wants to see air > results showing no significant contamination. > > The legal reason is because if you don't do at least some air testing > -if the case becomes a legal issue - you will look like an idiot on the > witness stand. > Sounded like double speak to me. > > The " experts " were promoting a DUST clearance level of 100mg/m3. > Similar to the National duct cleaning associations cleanliness number. > They did not discuss exactly how one would measure this dust level on a > statistical sampling basis. > > ALL of the experts admitted they do air testing. It seems that the > reason, they were saying it was unecessary was because the " number " of > samples necessary to show statistical significance was too high to make > sampling meaningful. Wouldn't their " statistical " limitations apply to > the number of dust level samples also? > > I strongly disagree with their anti air sampling statements, based on 30 > years experience in the drug and pharmaceutical aseptic fill, clean room > experience. > > A number of us other " experts " are planning on forming a committee to > develop a consensus standard on clearance of mold remediation projects - > that includes the need for air testing and the science behind it. I > won't go into details at this time. > > > What is the opinion of the members of this forum for the need for > clearance air testing AS PART OF THE Clearance process? > > > BOB 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 Cassidy, How are you doing on finishing your review of the PRV book.? Did you get it.? Bob s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.