Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 At the November Symposium in '04 in Vegas (constituted by most of the former Bioaerosols committee plus a couple of international experts) one of the presentations compared data from 2 concurrent samples - vast differences! Another committee participant then asked if they did 3 concurrent samples. Same answer. This is what led to their move to explore some sort of cleanliness standard rather than relying on the inconsistent sample results, even when concurrent. As a point of historical accuracy, I first heard the "cleanliness standard" proposed by Dr. Phil Morey in a plenary session at the 5th Int'l Bioaerosols Conference held in Saratogo Springs in Sept of 2003. I am very curious to know just how this "standard" (gravimetric measurement of vacuumed surface dust) is presently being explored and if its proponents would ever use it, themselves, to assess adequate removal of fungal or bioaerosol contaminants in a PRV procedure. I sincerely doubt that they would. With regard to the sudden upsurge in the reporting of Scopulariopsis, I agree with Pat's point that it might be due to a new trend among the analyst(s) at the lab rather than an environmental phenomenon. Steve Temes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 The only project on which I've seen Scop had at least 8 other problem fungi, so it's difficult for me to say where it actually was. I too have never seen it outdoors in NJ, eastern PA, southern NY, or anywhere else I routinely sample. It is possible that Scop might be in some sort of seasonal bloom by you, but I doubt it--in my experience, only certain fungi undergo seasonal blooms, and those are primarily Basiomycetes. I think the lab's excuse of drifting contamination from NOLA is flimsy at best--if that's the case, why haven't you seen concomitant increases in other fungi as well? Why is Scop suddenly so dominant? Scop's bigger, heavier, and much more rare than, say, Pen/Asp--why aren't those on the increase too?? I think expecting a zero count of ANY mold is too much, even Stachy. I do vary my clearance criteria based upon conditions at the site, but when you're dealing with microscopic particles that can remain aloft for days or weeks at a time, I think it's unrealistic to expect complete removal of them. It's nice to shoot for, but if you make your clearance criteria too tight, you might get accused of milking the job, which is never pretty... I'm also a bit concerned that your lab IDs Scop off an Air-O-Cell. They look an awful lot like Pen/Asp spores once away from the parent organism. They are somewhat larger in diameter, and perhaps a bit more spiky, but not visually distinct enough in my opinion to be IDed correctly without the conidiophores and colony morphology you'd get from a viable sample. You might be encountering an analyst that is mistaking Pen/Asp for Scop. Keep in mind that human beings have to analyze these things. I ran across a lab run by someone who counted enormous amounts of basidiospores on every AOC, but when I examined the samples myself, I found them to be dead wrong--the "basidiospores" were actually organic debris. (Needless to say, I never used that lab again.) If you are really concerned about the sudden incidence of Scop in your samples, ask for them to send the samples back to you and have them reanalyzed by another lab as a check. I personally run viables side-by-side with Air-O-Cells. They make an excellent backup in case something goes wrong with the AOC (i.e., the glue inside dried up), but also, it allows me to fend off questions like, "I've read that Fusarium is very pathogenic. am I in danger?" "No, ma'am, it didn't show up on the viable sample, so it's apparently dead and therefore couldn't infect you." Plus, there are a lot of spores that aren't visually distinct in the AOC that can be differentiated on the viable. Acremonium is a great example--really nasty fungus that can't be accurately differentiated from half a dozen other genera (in particular, Paecilomyces and Aureobasidium) on the AOC. But it's pretty obvious once it grows up on the agar plate. And knowing that you have Acremonium in a hospital vs. under the impression it's "Pen/Asp like" changes the remedial protocol somewhat. Finally, there are conclusions you can make with both sets of data that are less substantial or even impossible to judge with only one or the other, but that's a topic for a different discussion. A. Walsh MS -----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of PapageorgeSent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:18 PMTo: iequality Subject: Scopulariopsis Some of the results I'm getting are that Scopulariopsis is 60% of the total spore counts for that sample and total spore counts for that room are 50-100% higher that outside total spore count. Questions: Is anyone else having the same problems with Scopulariopsis? Particularly in the South East. Am I getting too picky by wanting to see NO counts of Scopulariopsis in Post-Remediation Verification? I read this to be a very ugly species. Am I missing something by not going with viable sampling, i.e., are my samples returning evidence of non-viable spores, which may not be indicative of the insidious nature of the diseases and allergic reactions listed. Scopulariopsis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Dear , Group: (1) Air from NOLA: Fungal spores in outdoor air near NOLA demolition sites have been predominantly Asp/Pen spores. There are also some other spores, like Stachybotrys, Chaetomium, including Scopulariopsis. It’s unlikely to have just Scopulariopsis to move to central Florida and “inoculate” the area so that it becomes a more popular fungi in that area. Most Asp/Pen spores are smaller than Scopulariopsis. If spores DO come from NOLA to your area, a lot of Asp/Pen will come too. Anyone has more information on this? (2) Identifications: If you see Scopulariopsis in 60% of the indoor air quite often, you should see a lot of Asp/Pen in indoor air even more often, most likely in the same building. Growth of Asp/Pen is common in indoor water damaged environment. There is no reason that Scopulariopsis grows and Asp/Pen don’t. Not all analysts could identify Scopulariopsis correctly. I can see them being misidentified as each other if the analyst is not well trained. (3) Post-remediation standards: Scopulariopsis is “ugly”, but not any more so than some species of Asp/Pen. I am not the remediation experts on this group, but here is my thought. Let’s use the notorious Stachybotrys as an example. If you have one spore of Stachy in 75 L of air, and the original source was completely cleaned up and water problem corrected, then I don’t think that it is going to be a serious problem. On the other hand, if you found one spore of Stachy in 75 L of air and there are some hidden sources or the previously identified source was not cleaned up appropriately, then I think it could be a problem. (4) Non-viable vs. Viable: Air-O-Cell collects both viable and non-viable (“total”) spores, and they both can cause allergy. Only viable cells can cause infectious disease. Culture analysis can detect some of the viable fungi (culturable fungi to be exact). I would treat most of the air sampling as tools for assessing the possibility and locations of water damage unless there are some pre-determined health issues, e.g. it’s a healthcare facility, fungal infections identified, immuno-compromised occupants are involved, etc. Culture analysis gives you more accuracy and details on the fungal identification, especially the Asp/Pen group. Although it takes time, it might be worth the wait to have better data. Wei Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLAB Cherry Hill, NJ --- Papageorge wrote: > Group: > > I have included below the definition from Aerotech > P & K’s website of > Scopulariopsis. While I have not been sampling for > a great deal of time, I > have done remediation for more years than I care to > count. Scopulariopsis > is something that I have only seen in the last few > months. Wallpaper is > where I have typically seen this. Now, I am > starting to see higher and > higher counts, even in cases where there is NO > Wallpaper. Never seen any in > outdoor control samples. > > I have talked to the Microbiologist at my lab about > this matter. She > admitted that she has seen a dramatic increase in > Scopulariopsis. We are in > Central Florida and she suggested that maybe we are > getting some in breezes > originating from major demolition taking place in > NOLA, and drifting this > way. I’m not sure why, but I just don’t buy that. > Again, never seen any in > outdoor control samples. > > All my samples are non-viables via air-o-cells. > > Some of the results I’m getting are that > Scopulariopsis is 60% of the total > spore counts for that sample and total spore counts > for that room are > 50-100% higher that outside total spore count. > > Questions: > > 1. Is anyone else having the same problems with > Scopulariopsis? > Particularly in the South East. > 2. Am I getting too picky by wanting to see NO > counts of Scopulariopsis > in Post-Remediation Verification? I read this to be > a very ugly species. > 3. Am I missing something by not going with viable > sampling, i.e., are > my samples returning evidence of non-viable spores, > which may not be > indicative of the insidious nature of the diseases > and allergic reactions > listed. > > Scopulariopsis > > > Phonetic: Scope-you-lair-ee-op’-siss > > Scopulariopsis is ubiquitous and can be found on > soil, plant material, > feathers, insects, dung, house dust and on a wide > variety of materials > including old carpets and water-damaged wallpaper. > The species S. fimicola > is known as the white plaster mold of mushroom beds > while other species may > attack bee larvae and silkworms. Scopulariopsis is a > type III allergen, and > may cause a variety of infections in humans. It may > cause onychomycosis > (especially of the toenails), skin lesions, > mycetoma, invasive sinusitis, > keratitis, endophthalmitis, endocarditis, pneumonia, > brain abscess and > disseminated infections. Scopulariopsis may also > cause pulmonary infections, > such as an invasion of deep tissue including fungus > balls in pre-formed > pulmonary cavities. These are of primary concern to > immune compromised > hosts, and these infections may be highly fatal. The > species Scopulariopsis > brevicaulis may produce arsine gas if growing on > building materials with an > arsenic substrate, such as some types of wallpaper > and paints. Culture - > Potato dextrose agar, 20° – 25°C, 7 – 10 days. > > I look forward to your responses. Admittedly, I am > NOT a microbiologist. I > am a building envelope specialist who has a basic > understanding of mycology. > I look forward to your posts. > > > > > > P. Papageorge CMI, CIE, CMR > > Alpha Consulting Group > > Tampa, FL. 33624 > > www.alphaconsultingfl.com > > Phone 813-514-MOLD > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 , Thanks for your comments. I have been having thoughts about sending three concurrent samples of the same space to three different labs to see how they compare. I am using a top-shelf lab with all accreditations, but anyone can read something in error. I certainly could not sit at a microscope and read mold all day. My sanity is too close to the edge for that. Besides, I don’t know how I would interpret the differences from three labs. Who is right, or should I say who is more right? Maybe some discussion of experiences at various labs would be appropriate for this group – keep it positive and let’s not trash any lab, unless they deserve it. I appreciate the fact that you run both viable and non-viable sampling side by side. In Florida, everyone wants results immediately; in addition, cost is a key. Most insurance companies have limits on mold coverage of $5k or $10K. Sampling is the last thing on property-owners’ minds when they get mold. Thanks for your post. P. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Pat Walsh Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:40 AM To: iequality Subject: RE: Scopulariopsis The only project on which I've seen Scop had at least 8 other problem fungi, so it's difficult for me to say where it actually was. I too have never seen it outdoors in NJ, eastern PA, southern NY, or anywhere else I routinely sample. It is possible that Scop might be in some sort of seasonal bloom by you, but I doubt it--in my experience, only certain fungi undergo seasonal blooms, and those are primarily Basiomycetes. I think the lab's excuse of drifting contamination from NOLA is flimsy at best--if that's the case, why haven't you seen concomitant increases in other fungi as well? Why is Scop suddenly so dominant? Scop's bigger, heavier, and much more rare than, say, Pen/Asp--why aren't those on the increase too?? I think expecting a zero count of ANY mold is too much, even Stachy. I do vary my clearance criteria based upon conditions at the site, but when you're dealing with microscopic particles that can remain aloft for days or weeks at a time, I think it's unrealistic to expect complete removal of them. It's nice to shoot for, but if you make your clearance criteria too tight, you might get accused of milking the job, which is never pretty... I'm also a bit concerned that your lab IDs Scop off an Air-O-Cell. They look an awful lot like Pen/Asp spores once away from the parent organism. They are somewhat larger in diameter, and perhaps a bit more spiky, but not visually distinct enough in my opinion to be IDed correctly without the conidiophores and colony morphology you'd get from a viable sample. You might be encountering an analyst that is mistaking Pen/Asp for Scop. Keep in mind that human beings have to analyze these things. I ran across a lab run by someone who counted enormous amounts of basidiospores on every AOC, but when I examined the samples myself, I found them to be dead wrong--the " basidiospores " were actually organic debris. (Needless to say, I never used that lab again.) If you are really concerned about the sudden incidence of Scop in your samples, ask for them to send the samples back to you and have them reanalyzed by another lab as a check. I personally run viables side-by-side with Air-O-Cells. They make an excellent backup in case something goes wrong with the AOC (i.e., the glue inside dried up), but also, it allows me to fend off questions like, " I've read that Fusarium is very pathogenic. am I in danger? " " No, ma'am, it didn't show up on the viable sample, so it's apparently dead and therefore couldn't infect you. " Plus, there are a lot of spores that aren't visually distinct in the AOC that can be differentiated on the viable. Acremonium is a great example--really nasty fungus that can't be accurately differentiated from half a dozen other genera (in particular, Paecilomyces and Aureobasidium) on the AOC. But it's pretty obvious once it grows up on the agar plate. And knowing that you have Acremonium in a hospital vs. under the impression it's " Pen/Asp like " changes the remedial protocol somewhat. Finally, there are conclusions you can make with both sets of data that are less substantial or even impossible to judge with only one or the other, but that's a topic for a different discussion. A. Walsh MS Scopulariopsis Some of the results I'm getting are that Scopulariopsis is 60% of the total spore counts for that sample and total spore counts for that room are 50-100% higher that outside total spore count. Questions: Is anyone else having the same problems with Scopulariopsis? Particularly in the South East. Am I getting too picky by wanting to see NO counts of Scopulariopsis in Post-Remediation Verification? I read this to be a very ugly species. Am I missing something by not going with viable sampling, i.e., are my samples returning evidence of non-viable spores, which may not be indicative of the insidious nature of the diseases and allergic reactions listed. Scopulariopsis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Hi Pat, I sent a post before I got yours. I pretty much agree with things you said with an exception that Scopulariopsis can be confidently identified on AOC (or tape) by well trained AND experienced analysts in the lab. That's what our clients pay us to do, higher quality analysis. That's something cheap labs cannot provide. It looks like that you have experiences/knowledge on fungal ID, which I am sure it's been proven useful in your line of work. Did you work close with your lab or did you have some formal training before (if you don't mind sharing)? Wei Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLAB Cherry Hill, NJ --- Pat Walsh wrote: > The only project on which I've seen Scop had at > least 8 other problem fungi, > so it's difficult for me to say where it actually > was. I too have never > seen it outdoors in NJ, eastern PA, southern NY, or > anywhere else I > routinely sample. It is possible that Scop might be > in some sort of > seasonal bloom by you, but I doubt it--in my > experience, only certain fungi > undergo seasonal blooms, and those are primarily > Basiomycetes. I think the > lab's excuse of drifting contamination from NOLA is > flimsy at best--if > that's the case, why haven't you seen concomitant > increases in other fungi > as well? Why is Scop suddenly so dominant? Scop's > bigger, heavier, and > much more rare than, say, Pen/Asp--why aren't those > on the increase too?? > > I think expecting a zero count of ANY mold is too > much, even Stachy. I do > vary my clearance criteria based upon conditions at > the site, but when > you're dealing with microscopic particles that can > remain aloft for days or > weeks at a time, I think it's unrealistic to expect > complete removal of > them. It's nice to shoot for, but if you make your > clearance criteria too > tight, you might get accused of milking the job, > which is never pretty... > > I'm also a bit concerned that your lab IDs Scop off > an Air-O-Cell. They > look an awful lot like Pen/Asp spores once away from > the parent organism. > They are somewhat larger in diameter, and perhaps a > bit more spiky, but not > visually distinct enough in my opinion to be IDed > correctly without the > conidiophores and colony morphology you'd get from a > viable sample. You > might be encountering an analyst that is mistaking > Pen/Asp for Scop. Keep > in mind that human beings have to analyze these > things. I ran across a lab > run by someone who counted enormous amounts of > basidiospores on every AOC, > but when I examined the samples myself, I found them > to be dead wrong--the > " basidiospores " were actually organic debris. > (Needless to say, I never > used that lab again.) If you are really concerned > about the sudden > incidence of Scop in your samples, ask for them to > send the samples back to > you and have them reanalyzed by another lab as a > check. > > I personally run viables side-by-side with > Air-O-Cells. They make an > excellent backup in case something goes wrong with > the AOC (i.e., the glue > inside dried up), but also, it allows me to fend off > questions like, " I've > read that Fusarium is very pathogenic. am I in > danger? " " No, ma'am, it > didn't show up on the viable sample, so it's > apparently dead and therefore > couldn't infect you. " Plus, there are a lot of > spores that aren't visually > distinct in the AOC that can be differentiated on > the viable. Acremonium is > a great example--really nasty fungus that can't be > accurately differentiated > from half a dozen other genera (in particular, > Paecilomyces and > Aureobasidium) on the AOC. But it's pretty obvious > once it grows up on the > agar plate. And knowing that you have Acremonium in > a hospital vs. under > the impression it's " Pen/Asp like " changes the > remedial protocol somewhat. > Finally, there are conclusions you can make with > both sets of data that are > less substantial or even impossible to judge with > only one or the other, but > that's a topic for a different discussion. > > A. Walsh MS > > Scopulariopsis > > > Some of the results I’m getting are that > Scopulariopsis is 60% of the > total spore counts for that sample and total spore > counts for that room are > 50-100% higher that outside total spore count. > > Questions: > > 1.. Is anyone else having the same problems with > Scopulariopsis? > Particularly in the South East. > 2.. Am I getting too picky by wanting to see NO > counts of Scopulariopsis > in Post-Remediation Verification? I read this to be > a very ugly species. > 3.. Am I missing something by not going with > viable sampling, i.e., are > my samples returning evidence of non-viable spores, > which may not be > indicative of the insidious nature of the diseases > and allergic reactions > listed. > Scopulariopsis > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 , May I suggest that instead of 3 concurrent samples, that you send and get back the same sample to 3 different labs. Air is lumpy, not uniform. At the November Symposium in '04 in Vegas (constituted by most of the former Bioaerosols committee plus a couple of international experts) one of the presentations compared data from 2 concurrent samples - vast differences! Another committee participant then asked if they did 3 concurrent samples. Same answer. This is what led to their move to explore some sort of cleanliness standard rather than relying on the inconsistent sample results, even when concurrent. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > , > > Thanks for your comments. I have been having thoughts about sending > three concurrent samples of the same space to three different labs to > see how they compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Carl and , Terry Brennan sent the same air sample to eight different labs. (He has a PPT slide showing the results.) You could not even tell that the samples were from the same continent! In my own experience, one lab (popular with consumers) identified both Cladosporium and candle soot as Stachybotrys chartarum, and in one case told the family to evacuate! C. May May Indoor Air Investigations LLC 1522 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02139 www.mayindoorair.com www.myhouseiskillingme.com Carl E. Grimes writes: > , > > May I suggest that instead of 3 concurrent samples, that you send and > get back the same sample to 3 different labs. Air is lumpy, not > uniform. > > At the November Symposium in '04 in Vegas (constituted by most of the > former Bioaerosols committee plus a couple of international experts) > one of the presentations compared data from 2 concurrent samples - > vast differences! Another committee participant then asked if they > did 3 concurrent samples. Same answer. This is what led to their move > to explore some sort of cleanliness standard rather than relying on > the inconsistent sample results, even when concurrent. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > > ----- >> , >> >> Thanks for your comments. I have been having thoughts about sending >> three concurrent samples of the same space to three different labs to >> see how they compare. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Carl, The downside of that is that the second and third lab will know that someone is doing a comparison, and they will have their best analysts spending one hour reading one slide just to make sure that the quality is super. If budget permits, I would collect all three replicates at the same time in each location (not one after the other using the same pump), and collect the whole project in triplicates. Send each set to one lab, and ask them to send back afterward. Send them to different labs for a second and third time. You got 9 set of data of the whole project to compare. If budget is limited, try talking labs into doing a research project, and have them do it for free. It’s winter time now (slow time), anyone interested can try talking me into it. I know air is lumpy and I read about those comparison studies, but I believe the variation can be improve if we all work together and figure out the ways to do it. Think about it. Spore traps are the majority of what we do here. It’s scary to think that the method is not good enough to have acceptable range of accurate, consistent and reproducible data. Wei Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLAB Cherry Hill, NJ --- " Carl E. Grimes " wrote: > , > > May I suggest that instead of 3 concurrent samples, > that you send and > get back the same sample to 3 different labs. Air is > lumpy, not > uniform. > > At the November Symposium in '04 in Vegas > (constituted by most of the > former Bioaerosols committee plus a couple of > international experts) > one of the presentations compared data from 2 > concurrent samples - > vast differences! Another committee participant then > asked if they > did 3 concurrent samples. Same answer. This is what > led to their move > to explore some sort of cleanliness standard rather > than relying on > the inconsistent sample results, even when > concurrent. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > > ----- > > , > > > > Thanks for your comments. I have been having > thoughts about sending > > three concurrent samples of the same space to > three different labs to > > see how they compare. > > > > > > > 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 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 What can I say, you got what you pay for... Jeff, can I get the PPT from somewhere? Wei Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLAB Cherry Hill, NJ --- Jeff May wrote: > Carl and , > > Terry Brennan sent the same air sample to eight > different labs. (He has a > PPT slide showing the results.) > > You could not even tell that the samples were from > the same continent! > > In my own experience, one lab (popular with > consumers) identified both > Cladosporium and candle soot as Stachybotrys > chartarum, and in one case told > the family to evacuate! > > C. May > May Indoor Air Investigations LLC > 1522 Cambridge Street > Cambridge, MA 02139 > > www.mayindoorair.com > www.myhouseiskillingme.com > > > Carl E. Grimes writes: > > > , > > > > May I suggest that instead of 3 concurrent > samples, that you send and > > get back the same sample to 3 different labs. Air > is lumpy, not > > uniform. > > > > At the November Symposium in '04 in Vegas > (constituted by most of the > > former Bioaerosols committee plus a couple of > international experts) > > one of the presentations compared data from 2 > concurrent samples - > > vast differences! Another committee participant > then asked if they > > did 3 concurrent samples. Same answer. This is > what led to their move > > to explore some sort of cleanliness standard > rather than relying on > > the inconsistent sample results, even when > concurrent. > > > > Carl Grimes > > Healthy Habitats LLC > > > > ----- > >> , > >> > >> Thanks for your comments. I have been having > thoughts about sending > >> three concurrent samples of the same space to > three different labs to > >> see how they compare. > > > > > > > > > > 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 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 , The Weakest Link… Choosing labs based on accreditation is like choosing mold consultants based on certifications (CIH, CIE, etc) alone. A lab might have dozens of accreditations and several Ph.D. microbiologists/mycologists, but it is only as good as the least experienced analyst – THE WEAKEST LINK. Can you image hiring someone with no experience and put them in front of microscopes after two weeks of training? Believe me, looking through microscopes is not something easily supervised or quality-assured later by other senior staffs. It’s not like a chromatograph or a color change reaction that can be easily checked. Mold is also not like the asbestos, which is only one kind of mineral! If you were to compare some data, I might be able to help. I was in charge of the quality program in a prestigious mold lab for quite some time. Wei Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLAB Cherry Hill, NJ --- Papageorge wrote: > , > > Thanks for your comments. I have been having > thoughts about sending three > concurrent samples of the same space to three > different labs to see how they > compare. I am using a top-shelf lab with all > accreditations, but anyone can > read something in error. I certainly could not sit > at a microscope and read > mold all day. My sanity is too close to the edge > for that. Besides, I > don't know how I would interpret the differences > from three labs. Who is > right, or should I say who is more right? Maybe > some discussion of > experiences at various labs would be appropriate for > this group - keep it > positive and let's not trash any lab, unless they > deserve it. > > I appreciate the fact that you run both viable and > non-viable sampling side > by side. In Florida, everyone wants results > immediately; in addition, cost > is a key. Most insurance companies have limits on > mold coverage of $5k or > $10K. Sampling is the last thing on > property-owners' minds when they get > mold. > > Thanks for your post. > > P. > > > > _____ > > From: iequality > [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf > Of Pat Walsh > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:40 AM > To: iequality > Subject: RE: Scopulariopsis > > > > The only project on which I've seen Scop had at > least 8 other problem fungi, > so it's difficult for me to say where it actually > was. I too have never > seen it outdoors in NJ, eastern PA, southern NY, or > anywhere else I > routinely sample. It is possible that Scop might be > in some sort of > seasonal bloom by you, but I doubt it--in my > experience, only certain fungi > undergo seasonal blooms, and those are primarily > Basiomycetes. I think the > lab's excuse of drifting contamination from NOLA is > flimsy at best--if > that's the case, why haven't you seen concomitant > increases in other fungi > as well? Why is Scop suddenly so dominant? Scop's > bigger, heavier, and > much more rare than, say, Pen/Asp--why aren't those > on the increase too?? > > > > I think expecting a zero count of ANY mold is too > much, even Stachy. I do > vary my clearance criteria based upon conditions at > the site, but when > you're dealing with microscopic particles that can > remain aloft for days or > weeks at a time, I think it's unrealistic to expect > complete removal of > them. It's nice to shoot for, but if you make your > clearance criteria too > tight, you might get accused of milking the job, > which is never pretty... > > > > I'm also a bit concerned that your lab IDs Scop off > an Air-O-Cell. They > look an awful lot like Pen/Asp spores once away from > the parent organism. > They are somewhat larger in diameter, and perhaps a > bit more spiky, but not > visually distinct enough in my opinion to be IDed > correctly without the > conidiophores and colony morphology you'd get from a > viable sample. You > might be encountering an analyst that is mistaking > Pen/Asp for Scop. Keep > in mind that human beings have to analyze these > things. I ran across a lab > run by someone who counted enormous amounts of > basidiospores on every AOC, > but when I examined the samples myself, I found them > to be dead wrong--the > " basidiospores " were actually organic debris. > (Needless to say, I never > used that lab again.) If you are really concerned > about the sudden > incidence of Scop in your samples, ask for them to > send the samples back to > you and have them reanalyzed by another lab as a > check. > > > > I personally run viables side-by-side with > Air-O-Cells. They make an > excellent backup in case something goes wrong with > the AOC (i.e., the glue > inside dried up), but also, it allows me to fend off > questions like, " I've > read that Fusarium is very pathogenic. am I in > danger? " " No, ma'am, it > didn't show up on the viable sample, so it's > apparently dead and therefore > couldn't infect you. " Plus, there are a lot of > spores that aren't visually > distinct in the AOC that can be differentiated on > the viable. Acremonium is > a great example--really nasty fungus that can't be > accurately differentiated > from half a dozen other genera (in particular, > Paecilomyces and > Aureobasidium) on the AOC. But it's pretty obvious > once it grows up on the > agar plate. And knowing that you have Acremonium in > a hospital vs. under > the impression it's " Pen/Asp like " changes the > remedial protocol somewhat. > Finally, there are conclusions you can make with > both sets of data that are > less substantial or even impossible to judge with > only one or the other, but > that's a topic for a different discussion. > > > > A. Walsh MS > > Scopulariopsis > > Some of the results I'm getting are that > Scopulariopsis is 60% of the total > spore counts for that sample and total spore counts > for that room are > 50-100% higher that outside total spore count. > > Questions: > > 1. Is anyone else having the same problems with > Scopulariopsis? > Particularly in the South East. > 2. Am I getting too picky by wanting to see NO > counts of Scopulariopsis > in Post-Remediation Verification? I read this to be > a very ugly species. > 3. Am I missing something by not going with viable > sampling, i.e., are > my samples returning evidence of non-viable spores, > which may not be > indicative of the insidious nature of the diseases > and allergic reactions > listed. > > Scopulariopsis > > > > > > > > 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 === message truncated === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Hey Wei, No, I don't mind sharing, but I won't get into specific companies or whatever, just in case... Yes, I worked in client services for a major IAQ lab for awhile, and then I took a position at a fledgling IAQ lab directing client services and analyzing samples when needed. While there, I took a couple of classes from Shane when he was still at McCrone Research Instutite--I HIGHLY recommend them to anyone interested in performing their own analyses (to check up on labs, of course!). But, as I'm sure you know, there is no better way to learn than to simply look at a heck of a lot of fungi with steady and knowledgeable supervision and lots of reference material handy. A. Walsh MS RE: Scopulariopsis Hi Pat, I sent a post before I got yours. I pretty much agree with things you said with an exception that Scopulariopsis can be confidently identified on AOC (or tape) by well trained AND experienced analysts in the lab. That's what our clients pay us to do, higher quality analysis. That's something cheap labs cannot provide. It looks like that you have experiences/knowledge on fungal ID, which I am sure it's been proven useful in your line of work. Did you work close with your lab or did you have some formal training before (if you don't mind sharing)? Wei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Jeff, So we have two massive variables: 1. inconsistent data on concurrent samples according to a singular interpreter; and, 2. inconsistent reports between interpreters of a singular sample. How does one design a practical sampling plan - real world, in the field - with any basis of confidence for determining our professional judgement when there is no consistency of samples AND interpretation? Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Carl and , > > Terry Brennan sent the same air sample to eight different labs. (He > has a PPT slide showing the results.) > > You could not even tell that the samples were from the same continent! > > > In my own experience, one lab (popular with consumers) identified both > Cladosporium and candle soot as Stachybotrys chartarum, and in one > case told the family to evacuate! > > C. May > May Indoor Air Investigations LLC > 1522 Cambridge Street > Cambridge, MA 02139 > > www.mayindoorair.com > www.myhouseiskillingme.com > > > Carl E. Grimes writes: > > > , > > > > May I suggest that instead of 3 concurrent samples, that you send > > and get back the same sample to 3 different labs. Air is lumpy, not > > uniform. > > > > At the November Symposium in '04 in Vegas (constituted by most of > > the former Bioaerosols committee plus a couple of international > > experts) one of the presentations compared data from 2 concurrent > > samples - vast differences! Another committee participant then asked > > if they did 3 concurrent samples. Same answer. This is what led to > > their move to explore some sort of cleanliness standard rather than > > relying on the inconsistent sample results, even when concurrent. > > > > Carl Grimes > > Healthy Habitats LLC > > > > ----- > >> , > >> > >> Thanks for your comments. I have been having thoughts about > >> sending three concurrent samples of the same space to three > >> different labs to see how they compare. > > > > > > > > > > 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 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 , group, We have taken parallel replicate samples and sent them to different accredited labs a number of times. The results were, not surprisingly, somewhat different. In some cases, extremely different. This was not surprising given that the counting time per slide is rather restricted. Two years ago, I discussed the issues of counting with a long time researcher at UNLV. See said that to adequately and accurately and repeatably count an AOC takes about 1 hour per slide. I certainly agreed with her, given my experience at counting particles on slides and impingers from clean rooms. I've also tried some counting of AOCs, just for grins. There is just a lot of variation in the stuff deposited along the trace in many samples-especially in dirty or high spore areas. In low concentration areas, this is not the case. (You may want to take a few samples and rip them apart and take at look under the scope.) If you don't count an adequate number of fields on loaded slides, there will be too much variation. The other difficulty is what labs classify different spores as. They classify the most common spores the same, but there are differences especially in the 1-2 spore counts of a particular genera. As for the implications in PRV. Generally, the total number of spores were in the same order of magnitude. What this means is that if the counts were low, they were low. Drawing the line between what the genera are- and are they viable or not- becomes the professional experience question. You can't just pass an area based on mold spore concentrations, there are 11 other criteria that must be met. It really comes down to a matter of cost versus accuracy and repeatability. Until automated counters are developed for this industry, like they have been for particle counting, this will be a significant variable. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Ditto. I had internally done side by side on Air O Cells - the within analyst variability can be small if the analyst is good and focuses. Intralab I don't know. (Interlab) Between labs variability is bad (I sent small set to a national lab with really bad results). The magnification makes a difference as well (Ghodish, unpublished data); this is a field effect see in other microscopy counting regimes. In general, the counting follows a poisson distribution and variability is high at low loadings - which is really what most air samples are. Too much noise. I also did (myself only) a set of 20 pairs Air O Cell vs Allergenco MK3 (n= 15 inside, n=5 outside). Despite the variability in general, both sets matched very well - again one analyst focused. (presented June, 2003 in Chicago) This is why I do my own samples in certain circumstances. I didn't feel I had enough pairs to look at rank loading on the samples but I've thought about going back and doing some non-parametric regression to see if there is a trend. I didn't look at spore aerodynamic radius but thought about looking at that since. As far as culturable v non culturable - I like to have both. Had cases where one caught it and the other didn't and vica versa. Correlation there - not really. Tony ........................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC PO Box 34140 Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Re: Scopulariopsis , group, We have taken parallel replicate samples and sent them to different accredited labs a number of times. The results were, not surprisingly, somewhat different. In some cases, extremely different. This was not surprising given that the counting time per slide is rather restricted. Two years ago, I discussed the issues of counting with a long time researcher at UNLV. See said that to adequately and accurately and repeatably count an AOC takes about 1 hour per slide. I certainly agreed with her, given my experience at counting particles on slides and impingers from clean rooms. I've also tried some counting of AOCs, just for grins. There is just a lot of variation in the stuff deposited along the trace in many samples-especially in dirty or high spore areas. In low concentration areas, this is not the case. (You may want to take a few samples and rip them apart and take at look under the scope.) If you don't count an adequate number of fields on loaded slides, there will be too much variation. The other difficulty is what labs classify different spores as. They classify the most common spores the same, but there are differences especially in the 1-2 spore counts of a particular genera. As for the implications in PRV. Generally, the total number of spores were in the same order of magnitude. What this means is that if the counts were low, they were low. Drawing the line between what the genera are- and are they viable or not- becomes the professional experience question. You can't just pass an area based on mold spore concentrations, there are 11 other criteria that must be met. It really comes down to a matter of cost versus accuracy and repeatability. Until automated counters are developed for this industry, like they have been for particle counting, this will be a significant variable. 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 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Carl, I would compare most sampling reports to sound-wave analysis of a symphony or pixel-analysis of a photograph. Yes, wavelengths and amplitudes of sound and light make up these sensory impressions, and perhaps someone can make sense of all the separate data bits, but the analysis is meaningless to the typical listener or viewer. When you send a non-viable sample out for analysis, all you get back in most cases is spore and hyphae counts. What about bacteria clusters, degraded skin scale fragments, glass fiber and foam fragments, insect fecal pellets and hairs, feather fragments, pet and bird dander, pollen, wool cuticle and cortex particles, soot, rust and other respirable detritus? There is so much information in an indoor air sample, most of which is ignored by bean counters. When you look at your own samples, you can eliminate the “noise” and focus on the real issues: what might be causing health symptoms. So the answer to your question is that no amount of statistical analysis and indoor/outdoor comparisons will ever replace common sense, experience and a thorough microscopic analysis of a sample. No one but you is going to spend the time to do that analysis. C. May May Indoor Air Investigations LLC 1522 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02139 www.mayindoorair.com www.myhouseiskillingme.com Carl E. Grimes writes: > Jeff, > > So we have two massive variables: 1. inconsistent data on concurrent > samples according to a singular interpreter; and, 2. inconsistent > reports between interpreters of a singular sample. > > How does one design a practical sampling plan - real world, in the > field - with any basis of confidence for determining our professional > judgement when there is no consistency of samples AND interpretation? > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > > ----- C. May May Indoor Air Investigations LLC 1522 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02139 www.mayindoorair.com www.myhouseiskillingme.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Group, Especially those who are trained in stats and the methodology of environmental analysis, May I chime in and suggest the following? (I've done this, so I think you may find the results 'interesting' to say the very least!) Take one non-viable air sample, e.g., cassette/sticky slide type; have a microscope slide prepared. Select three AIHA accredited labs. Have lab #1 analyze and return it; then send same slide to lab #2, analyze and return; send same slide to lab #3, analyze and return. (assume it's a double blind study, or better yet, give them to a third party who is blind) Then compare the 3 results as if they were 3 separate samples, use a simple Chi Square or other rank order stat, (see AIHA Field Guide). And you think getting 3 concurrent/side by side samples to prove similar is tough? I bet you get a result something like: the three samples are from three different locations. How can this be if all three labs are accredited and passing their proficiencies? What if we repeatedly sent the same slide to the same lab, and did the same? Does this prove anything? I'll let you decide. I already know my answer. ArmourArmour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH In a message dated 1/17/2006 10:40:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, iequality writes: one of the presentations compared data from 2 concurrent samples - > vast differences! Another committee participant then asked if they > did 3 concurrent samples. Same answer. This is what led to their move > to explore some sort of cleanliness standard rather than relying on > the inconsistent sample results, even when concurrent. > > Carl Grimes> Healthy Habitats LLC > > ----->> , >> >> Thanks for your comments. I have been having thoughts about sending>> three concurrent samples of the same space to three different labs to>> see how they compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Jeff, I agree that individual interest can only be met by individual effort. But I would like to see our industry be more interested in a more uniform and consistent (reliable?) way to utilize, as you say, common sense, experience and a thorough microscopic analysis of a sample. (BTW, the lab has no way of knowing or using YOUR common sense and experience. That is but one reason they shouldn't interpret data from someone elses samples). Overall, " professional judgement " should have some of that same uniformity to be a profession. Without it, we are using the term without having the substance. It is individual action. A collection of differing " professionals " could be compared to a room of 4 year olds all playing with trucks. They are all there, conducting the same parallel activity, but with individual focus, intent and result. It is a collection but not a group that can provide any useful communication. Please don't anyone take my analogy personally. I'm talking about our industry/profession as a whole. This group is different and is the closest I've found to be a truly professional activity. We may be only teenagers but we are certainly more advanced than 4 year olds. <grin> Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Carl, > > I would compare most sampling reports to sound-wave analysis of a > symphony or pixel-analysis of a photograph. Yes, wavelengths and > amplitudes of sound and light make up these sensory impressions, and > perhaps someone can make sense of all the separate data bits, but the > analysis is meaningless to the typical listener or viewer. > > When you send a non-viable sample out for analysis, all you get back > in most cases is spore and hyphae counts. What about bacteria > clusters, degraded skin scale fragments, glass fiber and foam > fragments, insect fecal pellets and hairs, feather fragments, pet and > bird dander, pollen, wool cuticle and cortex particles, soot, rust and > other respirable detritus? > > There is so much information in an indoor air sample, most of which is > ignored by bean counters. > > When you look at your own samples, you can eliminate the “noise” and > focus on the real issues: what might be causing health symptoms. So > the answer to your question is that no amount of statistical analysis > and indoor/outdoor comparisons will ever replace common sense, > experience and a thorough microscopic analysis of a sample. > > No one but you is going to spend the time to do that analysis. > > C. May > May Indoor Air Investigations LLC > 1522 Cambridge Street > Cambridge, MA 02139 > > www.mayindoorair.com > www.myhouseiskillingme.com > > Carl E. Grimes writes: > > > Jeff, > > > > So we have two massive variables: 1. inconsistent data on concurrent > > samples according to a singular interpreter; and, 2. inconsistent > > reports between interpreters of a singular sample. > > > > How does one design a practical sampling plan - real world, in the > > field - with any basis of confidence for determining our > > professional judgement when there is no consistency of samples AND > > interpretation? > > > > Carl Grimes > > Healthy Habitats LLC > > > > ----- > C. May > May Indoor Air Investigations LLC > 1522 Cambridge Street > Cambridge, MA 02139 > > www.mayindoorair.com > www.myhouseiskillingme.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. 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.