Re: Air Sample Data Analysis Help

[Guest guest]

Fred

According to Canadian guidelines for office spaces, the results for room 151 are way above recommendations for a mold such as Penicillium. The rest don't look too bad, although room 4 is getting closer that I like with 23.5% of 115 CFU/m3, again of Penicillium.

Jim H. White SSAL

Air Sample Data Analysis Help

Based on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the lab form. Would you recommend additional work?

Room Number

Total Count (cfu/m3‑)

Rank

Number of Colonies

4

74

Cladosporium – 36.4%

Acremonium – 36.4%

Penicillium – 18.2%

4

4

2

4

115

Penicillium – 29.4%

Cladosporium – 23.5%

Aspergillus – 11.8%

5

4

2

151

236

Penicillium – 80%

Cladosporium – 5.7%

Acremonium – 5.7%

28

2

2

127

47

Penicillium – 28.6%

Acremonium – 14.3%

Sterile Hyphae – 14.3%

13

1

1

Outdoor Sample

445

Cladosporium – 62.1%

Penicillium – 16.7%

Aspergillus – 12.1%

277

74

54

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

It appears you are looking for some free

consultation here?  Could the lab not assist with interpretation? 

Fraser, B.Sc., RPIH, CRSP

Occupational Hygienist

Seatech Environmental Limited

25 Cedar Crescent

Dartmouth, N.S.

B2V 1Y8

(P)

(F)

©

mgfraser@...

Occupational hygienists are scientists and

engineers committed to protecting the health and safety of people in the

workplace and community.

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Fred Birkle

Sent: Wednesday, September 21,

2005 2:17 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Air Sample

Data Analysis Help

Based on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected

some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary

room of interest was #4).  The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and

supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment.  We collected the

samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the

samples.  We got the following data.  Based on what those of you know here,

what conclusions would you make?  I’ve listed the total count of each

sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies

reported for each mold on the lab form.  Would you recommend additional work?

Room Number

Total Count (cfu/m3‑)

Rank

Number of Colonies

4

74

Cladosporium –

36.4%

Acremonium –

36.4%

Penicillium –

18.2%

4

4

2

4

115

Penicillium –

29.4%

Cladosporium –

23.5%

Aspergillus –

11.8%

5

4

2

151

236

Penicillium – 80%

Cladosporium –

5.7%

Acremonium – 5.7%

28

2

2

127

47

Penicillium –

28.6%

Acremonium –

14.3%

Sterile Hyphae –

14.3%

13

1

1

Outdoor Sample

445

Cladosporium –

62.1%

Penicillium –

16.7%

Aspergillus –

12.1%

277

74

54

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>

> Based on a recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The lab

helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions would

you make?

Fred.

In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime in.

(And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)

In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of answers to

your request for help.

The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the

answers you really want ...

10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!

9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made your

results more valid.

8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should be

collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)

7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples. Dozens

of them!

6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!

5. You should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.

4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that mold is

really the issue?

3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane Katrina? Or

maybe Hurricane Rita?

2. Just fire the employee!

And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get the

answers you really want ...

1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be glad

that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each send

you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email.

West

BAQ Inc.

http://www.baq1.com/

[Guest guest]

>

> Based on a recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The lab

helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions would

you make?

Fred.

In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime in.

(And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)

In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of answers to

your request for help.

The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the

answers you really want ...

10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!

9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made your

results more valid.

8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should be

collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)

7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples. Dozens

of them!

6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!

5. You should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.

4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that mold is

really the issue?

3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane Katrina? Or

maybe Hurricane Rita?

2. Just fire the employee!

And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get the

answers you really want ...

1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be glad

that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each send

you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email.

West

BAQ Inc.

http://www.baq1.com/

[Guest guest]

One of the questions that comes to me is why each of the total multipliers are different from what appears to be the raw score and why the percentages don't come up to 100%, are you just listing the top three organisms found? If the sample run times are different, my question would then be are they then are they comparable? Additionally we commonly see a factor of 10 change in outdoor air samples taken at a site, therefore should there be more than one sample? There appears to be something wrong with the math here, I'd go back to the lab. Ron Air Sample Data Analysis HelpBased on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the lab form. Would you recommend additional work? Room NumberTotal Count (cfu/m3‑)RankNumber of Colonies474Cladosporium – 36.4%Acremonium – 36.4%Penicillium – 18.2%4424115Penicillium – 29.4%Cladosporium – 23.5%Aspergillus – 11.8%542151236Penicillium – 80%Cladosporium – 5.7%Acremonium – 5.7%282212747Penicillium – 28.6%Acremonium – 14.3%Sterile Hyphae – 14.3%1311Outdoor Sample445Cladosporium – 62.1%Penicillium – 16.7%Aspergillus – 12.1%2777454 __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

One of the questions that comes to me is why each of the total multipliers are different from what appears to be the raw score and why the percentages don't come up to 100%, are you just listing the top three organisms found? If the sample run times are different, my question would then be are they then are they comparable? Additionally we commonly see a factor of 10 change in outdoor air samples taken at a site, therefore should there be more than one sample? There appears to be something wrong with the math here, I'd go back to the lab. Ron Air Sample Data Analysis HelpBased on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the lab form. Would you recommend additional work? Room NumberTotal Count (cfu/m3‑)RankNumber of Colonies474Cladosporium – 36.4%Acremonium – 36.4%Penicillium – 18.2%4424115Penicillium – 29.4%Cladosporium – 23.5%Aspergillus – 11.8%542151236Penicillium – 80%Cladosporium – 5.7%Acremonium – 5.7%282212747Penicillium – 28.6%Acremonium – 14.3%Sterile Hyphae – 14.3%1311Outdoor Sample445Cladosporium – 62.1%Penicillium – 16.7%Aspergillus – 12.1%2777454 __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Fred:

Please check the numbers again. Room 127's numbers are not correct, even yon only listed top three.

Ron:

Sample with different air volume collected can be compared to each other as long as the units are the same (cfu/m3). For example, I would collect higher volume (at least 5 min at 28.3 L/min) for indoor samples if it’s for clearance, and may use lower volume for outdoor air depends on where it is.

The exceptions are when the samples are overload or "under-loaded", which means that the data are landed outside of the quantitation limits (30-300 cfu/plate, or 10-500 cfu/plate if you stretch the limits). When the data are landed outside of the quantitation limits, the numbers are only estimates. Cautions need to be taken if you use them for comparisons.

Wei Tang

Lab Director

QLABwww.QLABusa.com

Ron wrote:

 One of the questions that comes to me is why each of the total multipliers are different from what appears to be the raw score and why the percentages don't come up to 100%, are you just listing the top three organisms found? If the sample run times are different, my question would then be are they then are they comparable? Additionally we commonly see a factor of 10 change in outdoor air samples taken at a site, therefore should there be more than one sample? There appears to be something wrong with the math here, I'd go back to the lab.

Ron

Air Sample Data Analysis Help

Based on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the lab form. Would you

recommend additional work?

Room Number

Total Count (cfu/m3‑)

Rank

Number of Colonies

4

74

Cladosporium – 36.4%

Acremonium – 36.4%

Penicillium – 18.2%

4

4

2

4

115

Penicillium – 29.4%

Cladosporium – 23.5%

Aspergillus – 11.8%

5

4

2

151

236

Penicillium – 80%

Cladosporium – 5.7%

Acremonium – 5.7%

28

2

2

127

47

Penicillium – 28.6%

Acremonium – 14.3%

Sterile Hyphae – 14.3%

13

1

1

Outdoor Sample

445

Cladosporium – 62.1%

Penicillium – 16.7%

Aspergillus – 12.1%

277

74

54

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Fred:

Please check the numbers again. Room 127's numbers are not correct, even yon only listed top three.

Ron:

Sample with different air volume collected can be compared to each other as long as the units are the same (cfu/m3). For example, I would collect higher volume (at least 5 min at 28.3 L/min) for indoor samples if it’s for clearance, and may use lower volume for outdoor air depends on where it is.

The exceptions are when the samples are overload or "under-loaded", which means that the data are landed outside of the quantitation limits (30-300 cfu/plate, or 10-500 cfu/plate if you stretch the limits). When the data are landed outside of the quantitation limits, the numbers are only estimates. Cautions need to be taken if you use them for comparisons.

Wei Tang

Lab Director

QLABwww.QLABusa.com

Ron wrote:

 One of the questions that comes to me is why each of the total multipliers are different from what appears to be the raw score and why the percentages don't come up to 100%, are you just listing the top three organisms found? If the sample run times are different, my question would then be are they then are they comparable? Additionally we commonly see a factor of 10 change in outdoor air samples taken at a site, therefore should there be more than one sample? There appears to be something wrong with the math here, I'd go back to the lab.

Ron

Air Sample Data Analysis Help

Based on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the lab form. Would you

recommend additional work?

Room Number

Total Count (cfu/m3‑)

Rank

Number of Colonies

4

74

Cladosporium – 36.4%

Acremonium – 36.4%

Penicillium – 18.2%

4

4

2

4

115

Penicillium – 29.4%

Cladosporium – 23.5%

Aspergillus – 11.8%

5

4

2

151

236

Penicillium – 80%

Cladosporium – 5.7%

Acremonium – 5.7%

28

2

2

127

47

Penicillium – 28.6%

Acremonium – 14.3%

Sterile Hyphae – 14.3%

13

1

1

Outdoor Sample

445

Cladosporium – 62.1%

Penicillium – 16.7%

Aspergillus – 12.1%

277

74

54

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Wei, though I agree in theory that they are comparable by extending out the numbers to a common unit, it is our experience that varied sample times do not always show a true representation of the cross section of the microorganisms present from sample to sample, though longer sample times it seems would give better results if your not overloading the plates.. But I agree with you the math here is some way appears skewed, I believe it shows in the outdoor sample also. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang, Ph.D.Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 4:38 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Air Sample Data Analysis HelpFred: Please check the numbers again. Room 127's numbers are not correct, even yon only listed top three. Ron:Sample with different air volume collected can be compared to each other as long as the units are the same (cfu/m3). For example, I would collect higher volume (at least 5 min at 28.3 L/min) for indoor samples if it’s for clearance, and may use lower volume for outdoor air depends on where it is. The exceptions are when the samples are overload or "under-loaded", which means that the data are landed outside of the quantitation limits (30-300 cfu/plate, or 10-500 cfu/plate if you stretch the limits). When the data are landed outside of the quantitation limits, the numbers are only estimates. Cautions need to be taken if you use them for comparisons. Wei TangLab DirectorQLABwww.QLABusa.com Ron wrote: One of the questions that comes to me is why each of the total multipliers are different from what appears to be the raw score and why the percentages don't come up to 100%, are you just listing the top three organisms found? If the sample run times are different, my question would then be are they then are they comparable? Additionally we commonly see a factor of 10 change in outdoor air samples taken at a site, therefore should there be more than one sample? There appears to be something wrong with the math here, I'd go back to the lab. Ron Air Sample Data Analysis HelpBased on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the lab form. Would you recommend additional work? Room NumberTotal Count (cfu/m3‑)RankNumber of Colonies474Cladosporium – 36.4%Acremonium – 36.4%Penicillium – 18.2%4424115Penicillium – 29.4%Cladosporium – 23.5%Aspergillus – 11.8%542151236Penicillium – 80%Cladosporium – 5.7%Acremonium – 5.7%282212747Penicillium – 28.6%Acremonium – 14.3%Sterile Hyphae – 14.3%1311Outdoor Sample445Cladosporium – 62.1%Penicillium – 16.7%Aspergillus – 12.1%2777454 __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Fred and the group,

To avoid practicing numerology (smile!):

[Aside:] What is numerology and how does it work? Go to www.astrology-

numerology.com/numerology.html which bluntly states, “Well, if we

could answer these questions it wouldn’t be an occult study, would

it? … Just be objective and give it a try.”

So, to avoid practicing numerology - despite my numbering below,

which is different - I would first need a meaningful context before I

could provide any of several disputable interpretations. Here's my

top 10 list, in no particular order:

1. Building type - metal, wood frame, OSB vs plywood, vinyl siding,

900 year old stone, sheetrock, plaster & lath, straw bale, top floor

of high rise, basement of an earth coupled stucture, etc. Attic,

crawlspace, basement, etc.

2. Occupancy type - empty, hospital, nursing home, ICU, school,

residence, office, resort, manufacturing plant, compost generating

plant, microbiology lab, etc.

3. Geographical/Climate region - hemisphere, cold, warm, mixed,

tropical, coastal, inland, mountain, desert, etc. City, farming, hog

farm nearby, llamas, Love Canal, etc.

4. Season - winter, spring, summer, fall -

allergy, cold & flu, school, ski season, football, IRL without Danica

and, finally my favorite season, NASCAR!

Hah! You thought there were only 4!

5. Building history - (including type and use) - previous roof leaks,

pipe leaks, basement/crawlspace leaks or flooding, sewage backflow,

locations and extent, complexity, previous restoration/remediation

done well or spray-paint-and-go (paint by numbers like with the

velvet paintings of Elvis?), number of previous water events

including frequency of hurricanes greater than Category 3, built wet

or built dry, time period of reliable history, well maintained, very

dusty, filthy, Mouse House, previous businesses or occupants, police

records on Meth labs, recent pesticide fogging, etc.

6. Lab - analytical strengths, weaknesses, reputation, do they

interpret the data (how is that even possible and why would you want

it?), are they an IAQ lab or a medical lab? quality control, trained

mycologists or just one on staff, etc, etc. (I deliberatly left out

accreditations).

7. Samples - air, surface, bulk, dust, culture, microscopy, PCR,

settling plates, etc. Which is most appropriate? Where is the mold

most likely and where is it least likely to be found? How many

samples? Statistically sufficient? Is that even needed? When

collected - before remediation, after remediation, during

remediation, time of day, before disturbance, after distrubance,

after the flood-cut for inspection, etc.

8. Occupant history - Typical healthy male working 8 hour days on a 5

day week (wouldn't it be great to have those back!), typical healthy

female housewife working 18 hour days on a 7 day work week (I'm

giving public health and regulatory assumptions here, not my beliefs

or what some think it should retrun to), immune compromised or

suppressed, allergic, asthmatic, current doctors care, emergency room

visits & for what, pre-mature newborn coming home in the morning,

etc, etc, etc.

9. Legal issues - none currently, in litigation, pending litigation,

trial scheduled for tomorrow!, attorney contacted, several attorneys

already rejected the case, none anticipated but who knows 5 years

from now? Oh, I almost forgot. Who is paying me and do I want more

referals from them?

And, finally, Number 10.

After all is said and done, collected, analyzed, billed and paid for,

regardless of all the above, did the data and the interpretation

accurately represent what the situation was ultimately discovered to

be? Did the results of the total process even come close to - did it

even consider - ACGIH 8.6.3 and 15.5?

I have more and I'm sure you all do to. It makes one wonder just what

the hell we are doing and according to who's belief... I mean,

" authority. "

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Based on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some

> air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the

> primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with

> equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment.

> We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who

> cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based

> on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve

> listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds

> found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the

> lab form. Would you recommend additional work?

[Guest guest]

Mr. Birkle:

based on the responses you've received: interpretation is hard,

isn't it? this is what consultant's who are worth their fee really

get paid for -- the hard stuff.

sure, I'd " ...recommend additional work... " -- and here's what it

should be:

look to the published literature; study it diligently. do your

homework! the real trick is developing a meaningful interpretation

within the context of your site observations and the other

supporting data.

with all due respect, Fred, you should stop taking air samples until

you know what you're doing. you should have had the range of

possible numerical results, and the meaning of that data, well

defined (i.e., written down) BEFORE you collected those samples.

the same goes for any type of microbial sampling, not just

bioaerosols.

PS: I sure hope that West was just kidding in his responses,

especially with respect to the number of samples. one or two air

samples taken indoors + one outdoor " reference " sample, for all

practical purposes, tell you zippo with a reasonable level of

certainty. for example, if you're OK with being flat out wrong, say

~50% of the time, then go ahead a take one or two indoor samples.

and scrubbing the outside air......? now I'm totally confused (but,

hey, I'm getting used to it <g>).

again, respectfully submitted,

Wane

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

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Director, Air Quality Services

MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

" Real Professionals Providing Real Solutions "

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

>

> Based on a recommendation from an employee's doctor, we collected

some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below

(the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot

with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the

equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the

lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following

data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would

you make? I've listed the total count of each sample, along with

the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported

for each mold on the lab form. Would you recommend additional work?

>

[Guest guest]

I collected each sample for 5 minutes.

Houston, we have a problem.

ST

[Guest guest]

Ron - I only listed the top three in each sample. I collected each sample for 5 minutes. I'm not sure I understand the first part of the first sentence. It seems that some of the data was cut off when I pasted the table into the message.Ron wrote:

 One of the questions that comes to me is why each of the total multipliers are different from what appears to be the raw score and why the percentages don't come up to 100%, are you just listing the top three organisms found? If the sample run times are different, my question would then be are they then are they comparable? Additionally we commonly see a factor of 10 change in outdoor air samples taken at a site, therefore should there be more than one sample? There appears to be something wrong with the math here, I'd go back to the lab.

Ron

Air Sample Data Analysis Help

Based on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the lab form. Would you

recommend additional work?

Room Number

Total Count (cfu/m3‑)

Rank

Number of Colonies

4

74

Cladosporium – 36.4%

Acremonium – 36.4%

Penicillium – 18.2%

4

4

2

4

115

Penicillium – 29.4%

Cladosporium – 23.5%

Aspergillus – 11.8%

5

4

2

151

236

Penicillium – 80%

Cladosporium – 5.7%

Acremonium – 5.7%

28

2

2

127

47

Penicillium – 28.6%

Acremonium – 14.3%

Sterile Hyphae – 14.3%

13

1

1

Outdoor Sample

445

Cladosporium – 62.1%

Penicillium – 16.7%

Aspergillus – 12.1%

277

74

54

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Fred,

As Ron has pointed out and Dr. Wei Tang discussed, the multipliers used to arrive at the airborne concentration from the raw colony count indicate that there were different sample volumes used in the calculations. Something is wrong with the numbers you (or the lab) provided if you collected all 5-minute samples at the same flow rate.

After that, see Wane's and Carl's comments about the bigger picture here. You really should know what are you trying to demonstrate with your sampling results before you test. Labs will always help you test. The thing is, once you have tested your way into discovering "a problem" you usually have no choice but to test your way out. It is often (but not always) just a waste of time and money to do all the testing, but people want to see the lab results that tell them there is no longer a problem after seeing lab results that said there was. As you are learning, it's a tricky business.

Steve Temes

(sorry about the wiseguy Houston comment)

I collected each sample for 5 minutes.

Houston, we have a problem.

[Guest guest]

I have been interested in and have picked up new ways to think about

many areas of IAQ since I signed up. I generally feel that the

questions and responses are professionally handled. A major exception

to that feeling is the response below (and others like it)to the

original question from Fred Birkle.

The one point I do agree with is the forum should not be a method to

provide individuals conducting IAQ assessments with no credentials

(training, education, experience, etc.) with the answers to their tasks

so they can make a profit. That being said, I am happy to see there are

professionals like that are so capable they would never benefit

from a discussion with others knowledgeable in the field. I don't know

Fred or his capability but I don't think responses like ' are

provided in a manner most professionals in the IAQ or other field would

want to associate with their company.

If you feel a posting is not a professional asking a reasonable question

or providing reasonable information then maybe a simple " I don't think

this posting is valid for this group " (or similar response) would be

appropriate. If you can't be professional in your response then don't

respond.

In ' defense(?) this has not been the only posting thread that has

received this " less than civil " response. I do hope it is the last.

Dale Francke, PE, CIE

Re: Air Sample Data Analysis Help

>

> Based on a recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The lab

helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions would

you make?

Fred.

In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime in.

(And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)

In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of answers to

your request for help.

The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the

answers you really want ...

10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!

9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made your

results more valid.

8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should be

collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)

7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples. Dozens

of them!

6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!

5. You should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.

4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that mold is

really the issue?

3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane Katrina? Or

maybe Hurricane Rita?

2. Just fire the employee!

And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get the

answers you really want ...

1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be glad

that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each send

you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email.

West

BAQ Inc.

http://www.baq1.com/

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]

While asking for free consulting on this list may have been

inappropriate, was all this vitriol necessary? You could have just as

easily ignored the post.

Perhaps this is why most people lurk and read instead of posting.

Re: Air Sample Data Analysis Help

>

> Based on a recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The lab

helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions would

you make?

Fred.

In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime in.

(And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)

In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of answers to

your request for help.

The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the

answers you really want ...

10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!

9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made your

results more valid.

8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should be

collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)

7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples. Dozens

of them!

6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!

5. You should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.

4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that mold is

really the issue?

3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane Katrina? Or

maybe Hurricane Rita?

2. Just fire the employee!

And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get the

answers you really want ...

1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be glad

that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each send

you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email.

West

BAQ Inc.

http://www.baq1.com/

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]

Thank you Dale. Your comments reflect what I've been thinking since the

'response' came through - and did so in a professional manner I probably

could not have attained.

I would like to point out that the original Table of results does not

identify the top three individual molds in concentrations but rather as raw

counted " colonies " ... let's quite haggling over the math.

It's my opinion Fred, that total bioaerosol sampling would have provided

more useful information based on your line of questioning. Culturable air

samples only tell part of the story. Total Bioaerosols, while only telling

part of the same story, actually tell ~more as a single point of

information. Given that - if there are no visible signs of water damage or

surface mold activity within the structure - your numbers are reflective of

typical occupied spaces.

An important question to answer is " why the Dr recommended air samples? " .

If there is a health issue/concern than a formal sampling plan needs to be

defined and would probably be expanded to include culturable samples

incubated at elevated temperatures (refective of body temperature and

possible impact to the occupant's respiratory system).

Unless the Lab is a consulting laboratory or has the expertise in-house -

sending the Questioner " back to the lab " for anything more than checking

the QC is inappropriate. Many laboratories cannot (or will not) support

data interpretation. I don't think the analytical lab was identified (and

I'm not asking that it be), rather realize the range of capabilities

available.

There is not a simple answer to any project related questions when posed

over the internet. Answers (or guesses) must come from the Field. I've

continue to enjoy the Brainstorming that results from these threads as they

often provide me with more questions of my own to answer and that always

results in an improvement to my specific project's investigation.

.... to meet the ongoing request for " full discloser " , I will come out from

under the cover of my " First Name Only " preference...

Fred - good luck with your endeavor!

-n

--

n K. Armstrong, MSPH, CIH

President

Armstrong Forensic Laboratory, Inc.

330 Loch'n Green Trail

Arlington, Texas 76012

CIH@...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:29:59 -0400, Dale Francke

wrote:

> I have been interested in and have picked up new ways to think about

> many areas of IAQ since I signed up. I generally feel that the

> questions and responses are professionally handled. A major exception

> to that feeling is the response below (and others like it)to the

> original question from Fred Birkle.

>

> The one point I do agree with is the forum should not be a method to

> provide individuals conducting IAQ assessments with no credentials

> (training, education, experience, etc.) with the answers to their tasks

> so they can make a profit. That being said, I am happy to see there are

> professionals like that are so capable they would never benefit

> from a discussion with others knowledgeable in the field. I don't know

> Fred or his capability but I don't think responses like ' are

> provided in a manner most professionals in the IAQ or other field would

> want to associate with their company.

>

> If you feel a posting is not a professional asking a reasonable question

> or providing reasonable information then maybe a simple " I don't think

> this posting is valid for this group " (or similar response) would be

> appropriate. If you can't be professional in your response then don't

> respond.

>

> In ' defense(?) this has not been the only posting thread that has

> received this " less than civil " response. I do hope it is the last.

>

> Dale Francke, PE, CIE

>

>

[Guest guest]

Not all was vitriol and that post said more about the person who sent it

than about you or the rest of us.

Jim H. White SSAL

Re: Air Sample Data Analysis Help

>

>

>>

>> Based on a recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The lab

> helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions would

> you make?

>

> Fred.

>

> In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime in.

> (And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)

>

> In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of answers to

> your request for help.

>

> The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the

> answers you really want ...

>

> 10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!

> 9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made your

> results more valid.

> 8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should be

> collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)

> 7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples. Dozens

> of them!

> 6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!

> 5. You should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.

> 4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that mold is

> really the issue?

> 3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane Katrina? Or

> maybe Hurricane Rita?

> 2. Just fire the employee!

>

> And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get the

> answers you really want ...

>

> 1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be glad

> that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each send

> you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email.

>

> West

> BAQ Inc.

> http://www.baq1.com/

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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]

This gives me an opportunity to re-state something I stated in the past and I believe is necessary for a group like this (not to bust on the moderators because I'm sure it's alot of work (Hi Jim), but here goes:

1. Those posting should be required to list real names and professions so that we know who we are dealing with. I think this would end some of the vitrol and unprofessionalism.

2. It would be very interesting to know how many posting per week (or so) get weeded out for inappropriateness, ie, too sales oriented, too vague, too far afield. And, do we want the moderator(s) to be more selective as to what gets posted?

All said, this is a great forum! I would love to meet up with y'all at the conference , but am pretty sure that work obligations will prevent it this year.

RE: Re: Air Sample Data Analysis Help

I have been interested in and have picked up new ways to think aboutmany areas of IAQ since I signed up. I generally feel that thequestions and responses are professionally handled. A major exceptionto that feeling is the response below (and others like it)to theoriginal question from Fred Birkle.The one point I do agree with is the forum should not be a method toprovide individuals conducting IAQ assessments with no credentials(training, education, experience, etc.) with the answers to their tasksso they can make a profit. That being said, I am happy to see there areprofessionals like that are so capable they would never benefitfrom a discussion with others knowledgeable in the field. I don't knowFred or his capability but I don't think responses like ' areprovided in a manner most professionals in the IAQ or other field wouldwant to associate with their company. If you feel a posting is not a professional asking a reasonable questionor providing reasonable information then maybe a simple "I don't thinkthis posting is valid for this group" (or similar response) would beappropriate. If you can't be professional in your response then don'trespond. In ' defense(?) this has not been the only posting thread that hasreceived this "less than civil" response. I do hope it is the last.Dale Francke, PE, CIE-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] OnBehalf Of WestSent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:59 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Air Sample Data Analysis Help> > Based on a recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The lab helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions would you make? Fred.In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime in. (And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of answers to your request for help.The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the answers you really want ...10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made your results more valid.8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should be collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples. Dozens of them!6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!5. You should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that mold is really the issue?3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane Katrina? Or maybe Hurricane Rita?2. Just fire the employee!And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get the answers you really want ...1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be glad that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each send you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email. WestBAQ Inc.http://www.baq1.com/FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not alwaysbeen specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making suchmaterial available in our efforts to advance understanding ofenvironmental, 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 theUS Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, thematerial on this site is distributed without profit to those who haveexpressed a prior interest in receiving the included information forresearch and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to usecopyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that gobeyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

I believe merit should be placed on the quality of the response.

I guess you do not like my name this time either . I searched

your posts and it seems you have 3 series of posts, the first being

where to get historical humidity data, and two posts on the same

theme that you do not like pseudonyms.

What is to stop people you are concerned about from making up a

ficticious name?

Did you not read Tom Sawyer because Mark Twain was not the author's

real name?

If you become the moderator and or if this rule you are campaigning

for becomes an official forum rule, then I am free to chose to

comply or not post.

> >

> > Based on a recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The

lab

> helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions

would

> you make?

>

> Fred.

>

> In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime

in.

> (And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)

>

> In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of

answers to

> your request for help.

>

> The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the

> answers you really want ...

>

> 10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!

> 9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made

your

> results more valid.

> 8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should

be

> collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)

> 7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples.

Dozens

> of them!

> 6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!

> 5. You should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.

> 4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that

mold is

> really the issue?

> 3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane

Katrina? Or

> maybe Hurricane Rita?

> 2. Just fire the employee!

>

> And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get

the

> answers you really want ...

>

> 1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be

glad

> that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each

send

> you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email.

>

> West

> BAQ Inc.

> http://www.baq1.com/

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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]

Carl's comments on the lab brought up a few good points that I would like to share here (perhaps with more junior consultants).

(1) Is it possible for lab to do data interpretations beyond what says on the report?

Ask yourself this question: Does your physician call the medical lab to ask them whether a patient has diabetics or s/he take the results from the lab and combine with the observations, tests that s/he performed, the medical history, etc. and then make the diagnosis? It is dangerous to ask the lab to make the “diagnosis” for you without all other information.

(2) Can the lab do data interpretations even if you give them all the information?

Even not all the Ph.D. microbiologist/mycologist can do it since it's way more than just microbiology/mycology. It requires further understanding on the whole investigation process. Not to mention that you may not even get a Ph.D. microbiologist/mycologist on the phone when you call them.

(3) Why labs are doing it?

Mold testing is still a new field without complete set of public guidelines and standards. It’s the easiest way for less experienced consultants to get help, and it is also lab’s best interest to help their clients. (It may not be other consultants’ although they would be more qualified for that. Fred: It’s great that many people here on this forum are really trying to help you). If you do consult your lab for that, make sure that you check the credential of the person you spoke with each time. A Sales Manager or Project Manager with no formal training in microbiology is hardly qualified for that task.

(4) How abut accreditation? (Should I leave it out too?)

I believe it’s good to have accreditation program, and we should all try to make it better. The whole industry is still in the learning and improving stage. Labs and accreditation program are no exceptions. You would be taking more risk than you should if you solely rely on accreditation record to choose your mold testing lab.

I know it’s hard to find the answers for lab-related questions. I was in charge of the quality program for a very well known lab for quite some time, and pretty much have seen everything. You can email me if you have some lab questions that you don’t wish to post here.

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

QLAB

5 Drive, Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

wtang@...

www.QLABusa.com

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Carl E. Grimes" wrote:

6. Lab - analytical strengths, weaknesses, reputation, do they interpret the data (how is that even possible and why would you want it?), are they an IAQ lab or a medical lab? quality control, trained mycologists or just one on staff, etc, etc. (I deliberatly left out accreditations).

[Guest guest]

Thanks n. The employee's physician diagnosed her with work-related asthma and asked for the samples to be collected. The employee threatened a whole range of actions, including getting an attorney and calling NIOSH. She refuses to come back to work (H.R. is working on this one). We were just trying to comply with her doctor's written recommendation. n Armstrong wrote:

Thank you Dale. Your comments reflect what I've been thinking since the 'response' came through - and did so in a professional manner I probably could not have attained.I would like to point out that the original Table of results does not identify the top three individual molds in concentrations but rather as raw counted "colonies"... let's quite haggling over the math.It's my opinion Fred, that total bioaerosol sampling would have provided more useful information based on your line of questioning. Culturable air samples only tell part of the story. Total Bioaerosols, while only telling part of the same story, actually tell ~more as a single point of information. Given that - if there are no visible signs of water damage or surface mold activity within the structure - your numbers are reflective of typical occupied

spaces.An important question to answer is "why the Dr recommended air samples?". If there is a health issue/concern than a formal sampling plan needs to be defined and would probably be expanded to include culturable samples incubated at elevated temperatures (refective of body temperature and possible impact to the occupant's respiratory system).Unless the Lab is a consulting laboratory or has the expertise in-house - sending the Questioner "back to the lab" for anything more than checking the QC is inappropriate. Many laboratories cannot (or will not) support data interpretation. I don't think the analytical lab was identified (and I'm not asking that it be), rather realize the range of capabilities available.There is not a simple answer to any project related questions when posed over the internet. Answers (or guesses) must come from the Field. I've continue to enjoy the Brainstorming that results from these

threads as they often provide me with more questions of my own to answer and that always results in an improvement to my specific project's investigation.... to meet the ongoing request for "full discloser", I will come out from under the cover of my "First Name Only" preference...Fred - good luck with your endeavor!-n-- n K. Armstrong, MSPH, CIHPresidentArmstrong Forensic Laboratory, Inc.330 Loch'n Green TrailArlington, Texas 76012CIH@...On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:29:59 -0400, Dale Francke wrote:> I have been interested in and have picked up new ways to think about> many areas of IAQ since I signed up. I generally feel that the> questions and responses are professionally handled. A major exception> to that feeling is the response below (and others like it)to the> original question from Fred

Birkle.>> The one point I do agree with is the forum should not be a method to> provide individuals conducting IAQ assessments with no credentials> (training, education, experience, etc.) with the answers to their tasks> so they can make a profit. That being said, I am happy to see there are> professionals like that are so capable they would never benefit> from a discussion with others knowledgeable in the field. I don't know> Fred or his capability but I don't think responses like ' are> provided in a manner most professionals in the IAQ or other field would> want to associate with their company.>> If you feel a posting is not a professional asking a reasonable question> or providing reasonable information then maybe a simple "I don't think> this posting is valid for this group" (or similar response) would be> appropriate. If you can't be professional in your

response then don't> respond.>> In ' defense(?) this has not been the only posting thread that has> received this "less than civil" response. I do hope it is the last.>> Dale Francke, PE, CIE>>

[Guest guest]

Just to clear matter up a bit, I'm not a consultant - I'm the Facilities Manager. I was directed by our CEO to settle this matter internally and learn from it.Dale Francke wrote:

I have been interested in and have picked up new ways to think aboutmany areas of IAQ since I signed up. I generally feel that thequestions and responses are professionally handled. A major exceptionto that feeling is the response below (and others like it)to theoriginal question from Fred Birkle.The one point I do agree with is the forum should not be a method toprovide individuals conducting IAQ assessments with no credentials(training, education, experience, etc.) with the answers to their tasksso they can make a profit. That being said, I am happy to see there areprofessionals like that are so capable they would never benefitfrom a discussion with others knowledgeable in the field. I don't knowFred or his capability but I don't think responses like ' areprovided in a manner most

professionals in the IAQ or other field wouldwant to associate with their company. If you feel a posting is not a professional asking a reasonable questionor providing reasonable information then maybe a simple "I don't thinkthis posting is valid for this group" (or similar response) would beappropriate. If you can't be professional in your response then don'trespond. In ' defense(?) this has not been the only posting thread that hasreceived this "less than civil" response. I do hope it is the last.Dale Francke, PE, CIE-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] OnBehalf Of WestSent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:59 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Air Sample Data Analysis Help> > Based on a

recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The lab helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions would you make? Fred.In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime in. (And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of answers to your request for help.The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the answers you really want ...10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made your results more valid.8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should be collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples. Dozens of them!6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!5. You

should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that mold is really the issue?3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane Katrina? Or maybe Hurricane Rita?2. Just fire the employee!And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get the answers you really want ...1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be glad that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each send you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email. WestBAQ Inc.http://www.baq1.com/FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not alwaysbeen specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making suchmaterial available in our efforts to advance understanding

ofenvironmental, 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 theUS Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, thematerial on this site is distributed without profit to those who haveexpressed a prior interest in receiving the included information forresearch and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to usecopyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that gobeyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

Fred - Forget all the over-analysis. The natural daily variance is greater than the below sample results, so even if the calculations were screwed up by you or the lab, the indoor concentrations are basically low relative to the natural outdoor environment and therefore show nothing out of the ordinary. The employee’s simple-minded doctor asked for the sampling, so send the results to him for analysis.

It would have been better and cheaper for you to use spore traps for this particular application. But the doc won't know that and as a medical doc he is more comfortable with cultures anyway. For his comparison, I would also send him the most current sample for the nearest location to you from http://www.aaaai.org/nab/index.cfm?p=pollen. That way he can conclude for himself using other "peer" data that his diagnosis won't hold water based on the info that he has in front of him.

If the good doc is going to stick with his diagnosis of work-related asthma, he needs to have you sample for other substances than mold (isocyanates, formaldehyde, or dye or latex, etc) that will actually cause it. Because mold doesn't; it only exacerbates it, and there is more in most employees homes and cars and certainly more outside than in most commercial buildings that are without water damage. Sorry for the big exacerbate word, but the doc will understand. And if you are going to protect your company against what is probably a accurate diagnosis of asthma from a misdirected cause (sure, it is statistically extremely probable that the employee has asthma, and it is likewise highly improbable that is is occupationally related) you need to hire a CIH to help you with this.

Are you a animal handling facility or do you have a spray painting operation or make foam on site? If you do, you have a problem. If you don't, you need a CIH to evaluate your site for the on-site use of tell the good doctor that you don't. Let the employee call OSHA and NIOSH. But you should call a CIH first. And put it on your OSHA log and then you can line it out later. If you want to be cheap about it you can call your workers comp carrier and they may help you. Or they may not. And then they will raise your rates. Go to the consultants list at www.AIHA.org.

B. Dotson, CIH, CSP, DEESan , CA 95125 email: kyle@...

Air Sample Data Analysis Help

Based on a recommendation from an employee’s doctor, we collected some air samples for mold in the rooms listed in the table below (the primary room of interest was #4). The lab helped us out a lot with equipment and supplies and instructions on how to use the equipment. We collected the samples and shipped them back to the lab, who cultured and analyzed the samples. We got the following data. Based on what those of you know here, what conclusions would you make? I’ve listed the total count of each sample, along with the top three molds found and the actual number of colonies reported for each mold on the lab form. Would you recommend additional work?

Room Number

Total Count (cfu/m3‑)

Rank

Number of Colonies

4

74

Cladosporium – 36.4%

Acremonium – 36.4%

Penicillium – 18.2%

4

4

2

4

115

Penicillium – 29.4%

Cladosporium – 23.5%

Aspergillus – 11.8%

5

4

2

151

236

Penicillium – 80%

Cladosporium – 5.7%

Acremonium – 5.7%

28

2

2

127

47

Penicillium – 28.6%

Acremonium – 14.3%

Sterile Hyphae – 14.3%

13

1

1

Outdoor Sample

445

Cladosporium – 62.1%

Penicillium – 16.7%

Aspergillus – 12.1%

277

74

54

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Fred:

A useful guide for the doctor......

http://www.oehc.uchc.edu/clinser/MOLD%20GUIDE.pdf

WeiFred Birkle wrote:

Just to clear matter up a bit, I'm not a consultant - I'm the Facilities Manager. I was directed by our CEO to settle this matter internally and learn from it.Dale Francke wrote: I have been interested in and have picked up new ways to think aboutmany areas of IAQ since I signed up. I generally feel that thequestions and responses are professionally handled. A major exceptionto that feeling is the response below (and others like it)to theoriginal question from Fred Birkle.The one point I do agree with is the forum should not be a method toprovide individuals conducting IAQ assessments with no credentials(training, education, experience, etc.) with the answers to their tasksso they can make a profit. That being said, I am happy to see there areprofessionals like that are so capable they would never benefitfrom a discussion with others knowledgeable in the field. I don't knowFred or his capability but I don't think responses like ' areprovided in a manner most

professionals in the IAQ or other field wouldwant to associate with their company. If you feel a posting is not a professional asking a reasonable questionor providing reasonable information then maybe a simple "I don't thinkthis posting is valid for this group" (or similar response) would beappropriate. If you can't be professional in your response then don'trespond. In ' defense(?) this has not been the only posting thread that hasreceived this "less than civil" response. I do hope it is the last.Dale Francke, PE, CIE-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] OnBehalf Of WestSent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:59 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Air Sample Data Analysis Help> > Based on a

recommendation from an employee's doctor ... The lab helped us out ... We collected the samples ... what conclusions would you make? Fred.In spite of Jim White's helpful response, I just have to chime in. (And I haven't done that on this list for some 4 or 5 years!)In deference to Dave Letterman, here is my Top 10 List of answers to your request for help.The TOP TEN things you should have done differently to get the answers you really want ...10. You took too many air samples. One or two should suffice!9. Scurbbing the outside air before sampling would have made your results more valid.8. The employee's doctor is in the wrong business. He should be collecting air samples. (That's where the BIG BUCKS are!)7. You should have collected some swab and tape-lift samples. Dozens of them!6. The laboratory's advice was right-on! Or not!5. You

should have purchased and used a Home Depot mold kit.4. Without a thermal image scan how can you be certain that mold is really the issue?3. How can you be sure this won't be blamed on Hurricane Katrina? Or maybe Hurricane Rita?2. Just fire the employee!And the Number 1 thing you should have done differently to get the answers you really want ...1. Bulldoze the building, build a new one from straw, and be glad that the indoor air quality consultants on this list don't each send you a bill for their time invested in reviewing your email. WestBAQ Inc.http://www.baq1.com/FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not alwaysbeen specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making suchmaterial available in our efforts to advance understanding

ofenvironmental, 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 theUS Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, thematerial on this site is distributed without profit to those who haveexpressed a prior interest in receiving the included information forresearch and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to usecopyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that gobeyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.