RE: analytical inaccuracies (was: RE: Re: Scopulariopsis)

[Guest guest]

,

Sorry for the slow response and I want to thank you for your fast

one. My comments are embedded below and I'll try to stay on topic

this time!

> That said, the variables are such because they change with each site.

Same here, and this is critical for my assessments. Not only do the

variables change, but the priorities of them change.

> In my practice, I do primarily insurance liability work, so while I am

> concerned about occupant health in a damaged building, my focus is

> determining causation and who's to blame for the situation.

I do some insurance work - usually limited to when standard

techniques don't work - but primarily I work for the occupants that

have the complaints and concerns. Despite that, I usually include the

following statement in my reports regardless of who pays me:

" No consideration was given to who may or may not be liable for any

defects or deficiencies or who may ultimately pay for or share in the

cost of mitigation. "

I choose to focus on identifying and defining the problem first on an

independant basis. Only then do I make recommendations to " fix " it.

If asked and if I agree - which I frequently do - I will then

identify my opinion as to who is at fault. That can be tricky because

I'm usually not privy to the contractual agreements that define

responsibility. That's why the location and sequence of events is

important.

Depending on the client, the building, the complaints, the other

parties, litigation etc etc those recommendations may be a

performance target and/or specific procedures to attain that target.

Some are quite detailed but I never tell the contractor " how to hold

the hammer and how to hit the nail. "

>I do

> still recommend remediation and give a skeletal protocol if necessary

> to cover my butt.

What standards or guidance documents do you usually reference? I ask

because I'm amazed at how seldom this is done. The consultants here

prefer to present their own beliefs despite the contradictions of

their boiler-plate citations

>Here are some of the things I consider when deciding

> whether or not remediation is required (not in any particular order):

>

> * Age and physical state of the occupants. I assessed a house in PA

> with a massive mold problem that was clearly the insured's fault.

> They also had at least 10 cats (no litter boxes that I saw), 4 dogs,

> and two children who had severe coughs. Although the insurance

> company wasn't liable to pay for repairs, I obviously put in my report

> what needed to be done (and shortly thereafter called the county

> health dept. which removed the children). I do also have concern for

> elderly or obviously infirm occupants, especially those recovering

> from surgery or cancer treatment.

I'm glad this was your first item. My processes have developed around

this focus rather than regulatory compliance like those that came

from asbestos and radon. I firmly believe that this approach can be

more descriptive and predictive. It is also the best liability

insurance because you become familiar with their needs and can

therefore better manage their expectations. Some of my most loyal

clients are the ones we never found a solution for, other than

moving, for example, because they know and trust what is possible,

what isn't and why.

How do you identify the susceptible individuals? I've seen reports

that 25 million are immune-compromised or -suppressed (Cole) with an

estimated 60% at home (ACGIH Orlando 2003). These are not obvious

like the ones in special care facilities. I couldn't tell by

appearance or equipment in the house for the last several of my

clients (cancer, organ transplant, HIV). Recent NIH study identified

54% as allergic to airborne allergins. How many have asthma? How many

could react to something we do or something the contractor uses? It's

called replacing the original problem with a new one.

> * Condition of the building. Obviously if I'm concerned about

> structural elements, such as a severely weakened foundation wall, I

> might push for an evacuation. Also, buckled floors make for a slip

> trip and fall hazard.

This brings up one of my pet peeves in residences: If the

housekeeping is lousy - but not filthy - it is easy to just blame the

occupants. Here are two landmarks for me: If the house is dusty it

usually means the person is sensitive to chemicals but not to

particulates. If the house is amazingly immaculate, they are often

sensitive to particulates but not chemicals. Some of the " sickest "

environments I've found are the " super clean " ones due to the masking

of chemical reactivity.

> * Size of the affected area. In one home I did, I found a room that

> didn't get much sun that had had so much mold at one point there had

> been a dieback (the water problem was about 9 months old when I got to

> look at it). The carpet was suffused by a huge mycelial mat of

> Basidiomycetes from wall to wall. The rest of the house was little

> better. Fortunately, no one actually lived there; but if it had been

> occupied, I would have recommended putting the occupants up somewhere

> else even before I got any analytical results back.

Similar experiences, especially at ski resorts. Not only with carpet

but under large rubber mats.

> * Traffic in the affected area. I did a storefront on Long Island a

> few years ago where everyone complained about a musty odor. I found

> the insurance company I represented was not at fault because the store

> was carpeted, didn't have a cold air trap, and had insufficient mats

> for proper soil and moisture control. In that particular case, I

> didn't feel that air sampling would make sense, because of the huge

> number of people coming in and out all the time and the resultant

> interior/exterior air mixing. In another case, the mold problem in a

> dwelling's basement was horrendous, but localized to the rarely-used

> basement. I had the contractor inspecting the site with me run back

> to his shop for a few air scrubbers and some plastic so we could

> immediately seal it off from the rest of the house.

A recent one was a complete remodel plus additions. To keep the dust

down in July while digging for the new foundation the contractor used

a fire hose. Didn't realized any water got into the structure until

December when they noticed an odor and opened the doors to a basement

walk-in closet. Heavily involved! In this case the house was still

open to the outside with a scheduled cleaning and painting long

before occupancy. Because the occupants rated very low on my

susceptibility and personal impact rating scales all parties agreed

on the removal with minimal local containment.

> * Use of the affected area. I tend to avoid air sampling in

> unfinished basements and attics for the simple reason that they are

> not typically living spaces where the homeowners spend a great deal of

> time. Attics in particular are tough because of frequent artifactual

> readings--you might get 3 major spore types in the living spaces, but

> 10 in the attic, and some of the detected genera are exceedingly rare

> (Taeniolella is one of these). The few times I've taken attic air

> samples, they have been the only results out of whack with the rest of

> the house and the outdoor air.

I base these decisions more on how well the non-living spaces are

seperated (air) from the living spaces. (This is one time I've found

testing may be useful for verification, and not just mold but

fiberglass insulation or other irritants/indicators). I find attics

well seperated unless there is recessed lighting plus whole house

attic fan or the HVAC is there, and crawlspaces are often well

connected. E.g. in 19 years I've had only a dozen or so attic

problems, even with highly susceptible individuals. Conversely, all

but a dozen or so crawspaces were either involved or the primary

source of the complaints.

> * Types of mold detected and their viability. I get concerned when I

> see a particularly pathogenic mold such as Fusarium or Acremonium,

> especially if they're viable (pretty rare in the former case).

> Toxigens like Stachy/Memnoniella, viable or not, also raise a red

> flag, but not as high as the pathogenic fungi.

Here is where I have a major difference. I usually don't care what

kind of mold it is unless there are immune-suppressed or -compromised

people involved. Then I will speciate, esp for A. fumagatus. If I'm

(reasonably) confident the risk for infection is low neither the need

nor the precedures is based on the type of mold according to any

guidance, standard or other document.

> I don't usually have

> my samples analyzed to species level, so I'm not as worried about

> Pen/Asp. This is especially true because of my analytical lab

> experience and huge amount of data review I undertook--we virtually

> never saw the real nasties of those genera such as A. flavus and A.

> fumigatus. I figure that in my analytical days, I reviewed results

> for some 15,000 Air-O-Cells (including a few from some members of this

> list) over probably 2,000 projects.

The " real nasties " can be any of them, depending on what sensitized

the individual. Esp for asthma triggers. And in damp environments it

may be the bacteria rather than the mold. If mold, it could be

components of the mold that aren't detectable with the usual spore

" finders " whether culture or microscopy. So negatative results give

no information.

Yesterday - yes, I worked Saturday - the crawlspace was full of

ducting and 3 forced air units. The dirt was very dry on the surface

and down to six inches. Minimal efflorescence, like 3 small spots.

But it was the crawlspace that he was reacting to. One clue was the

specific humidity was 40% higher in the crawlspace than outside

indicating a source of moisture inside. RH wasn't high enough to be

of concern but " something " was there. I didn't sample - I used to -

because it is rarely mold in long-term consistent conditions of dirt

floors inside houses. The lack of mold is not the lack of harm.

> * Concentrations of airborne mold. I'm never too worried about

> Cladosporium, simply because it's the most common mold on Earth.

> However, if I see over 100k Clado spores /m3 (which has happened), I

> definitely recommend remediation and/or occupant removal.

I prefer using the concept of fungal ecology as described in S520 for

evaluating concentrations of airborne mold. And even then, only with

EXTREME skepticism even with my own sampling. There are just too many

variables and errors to have anything but minimal confidence with any

sampling. That, after all, is what started this discussion.

Another pet peeve. Comparing inside to outside without factoring in

the transfer time. If it takes 10 minutes or 10 hours for the outside

mold to get inside - because a building is a seperator the transfer

time cannot be zero - the timing of the inside sample should be

collected accordingly. Anybody know how to determine this?

> * My reaction to the air at the site. Although mold rarely gets to

> me even at enormously high levels, odors can play a part. Gray water

> infiltration into a subslab duct in one house I assessed had caused a

> secondary problem of an obnoxiously odiferous bacteria bloom.

> Although that wasn't really a concern of the insurance company, and I

> didn't perform bacteria or mVOC testing, I recommended remediation as

> much for the foul odor as anything else. The above-mentioned house

> with the mycelial mat also had a suffocating odor of ammonia, which

> only added to my desire to get that sucker cleaned up.

This can be as important as sampling, especially for the occupant.

And this is another of my pet peeves. Those that can't smell anything

opine that there is nothing to smell. But if they do smell something

there of course is a problem whether or not it is relevant to the

original complaint.

Final pet peeve - I have more but that's all for this post - equating

" nothing detected " with " nothing to detect. " You can't prove the

negative but consultants, especially those with an industrial

orientation, and many trades do it all too often. And many lawyers

and insurance adjustors love it!

My favorites are the ones that work with sewer, smoke or

antimicrobials that can never smell or react to it. If they could and

were reactive they would not stay in that line of work. Self-

selection process.

We have to be careful with identifying what is a " smell " and what is

an " odor. " I was training a person for cleaning wool carpet once. As

the " wet dog " odor became noticeable I asked if they could smell

anything. They said no. After a few more minutes I asked again. Still

No. Finally said " Don't you smell anything? " The answer was, " Of

course I smell the wet carpet but it's not a " smell, " it's not

unusual for wet wool to smell like that. " HVAC people rarely find

dirty ducts " dirty " because they are normally dirty. Same with damp,

smelly crawlspaces - that's normal. Or roto-rooter people.

> * Occupant reaction to the situation. In my reports, I will often

> address occupant concerns unearthed during the assessment. One

> insured threatened a lawsuit not because of mold, but because of

> bacteria she was convinced had impacted her apartment. I mentioned it

> to the insurance company and they allowed me to perform bacterial

> testing; sure enough, the insured was right on--large amounts of Gram

> negatives everywhere. Most of the remediation then occurred because

> of the bacteria.

Occupant reports can provide some of the most useful and even key

information. Our fear is that they will " use " us, especially in

insurance situations like you work with. My contention, and I've been

doing this successfully for 19 years, is that this is manageable.

However, no organization, course, training, certification or document

teaches how to do this.

The need was identified clearly at the IAQA convention in Orlando

last October during a 4 hour workshop I moderated. Some of the

members of this group were on my panel of experts. After participants

mentioned health effects several times I called for a show of hands.

When I asked who thought health effects must be a part of the

assessment ALL raised their hands. (I might have missed a couple, but

it was an immediate and strong showing). Then I asked who thought

health effects should NOT be part of the assessment, NONE raised

their hands.

That's pretty much it for me, too. At least in broad brush strokes.

When fine-tuning it I haven't figured out if the devil is in the

details or god is in the details.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC