Re: Question on Fungal fragments

[Guest guest]

Wei:

Regarding your comment under: (2) Residual Hyphal Fragments......I agree, killing is never 100%. Similarly, removal is never 100% Because if removal was 100% one could infer that is was sterile. (Agree?/Disagree?) This said, if removal is not 100%, what are you going to do about the remaining biomass?

Carl,

Fungi produce spores for a reason. Fungal hyphal fragment is not the best way to spread their " seeds " . Like said, they dry up and eventually die if long enough. How much does it happen in the field after remediation? I don't know. It depends on the conditions.

(1) Airborne hyphal fragments

Comparing to the spores coming from outdoors, I don't think airborne hyphal fragments contribute to a big part of indoor mold growth unless some contractors screwed up and the building has existing (and un-fixed) water problem.

(2) Residual hyphal fragments

Control water is probably the key. Even if you remove 99.9999% of spores and/or hyphae, one viable cell (spore or hyphae) can start to grow if it's wet. That's why killing doesn't make much sense because killing rate is never 100%. 99.9999% would be considered to be a good killing rate.

Wei Tang

QLab

" Carl E. Grimes " wrote:

Wei and Group,

It didn't know hyphal fragments could germinate. We keep learning

more all the time. It started off with limiting mold to only spores,

viable ones at that. Then the recognition of non-viable spores, then

the various components of the fungal spores. That was followed by the

fungal mass. Then about a year ago discussion about fungal fragments

in the environment as a source of exposure to the various components

contained in the spores.

Now another variable: Some fungal hyphal fragments, at least under

some " X " conditions, can germinate.

What are the opinions of others about it occuring in the field?

Should we consider this to be significant enough to include in our

assessments? My first thought is about crawlspaces and similar

environments with long term conditions (more than a month, some

lasting decades).

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

[Guest guest]

Tony, you are sort of trying to change the subject, IMO.

I think the point that the various people who have written about the fact that a fairly substantial amount of the fungal load in damp buildings is carried on fragments that are too small to be indentified as spores is that they also ARE small enough to often go through filtration AND be respired into the deepest parts of the lungs, where they have a greater proportional effect than larger particles. Okay, I am not ANY kind of expert, but I suspect that of all of the health effects of mold.. for that reason, the ability to aceess the bloodstream, the effects of smaller particles that go into the deepest part of the lungs are going to be more dangerous than the effects of larger ones.. Do you believe that only spores have 'health effects' and that the rest of the things in water damaged buildings - including fungal fragments, including pulverized spore fragments, including bacteria, endotoxins, persistent mycotoxins, VOCs, etc. don't?

2. Where are the articles on HEALTH

Effects "of fungal fragments"?

If there "There has been

a lot of work done recently"?

[Guest guest]

,Yes, I know the points you are trying to make. The problem(s) with posts on this Lserver are that there is too little space and time except for the snippet comments. That is a large reason why I have mostly refrained from posting.Lots and lots of the posts are, shall we say, unsatisfying:-) - at the worst the posts are self promotional, at best incomplete.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D.:For the most part, I concur with your statements and perspective.  However, based on this latest post, you seem to be part of the group that advocates total removal and consider biomass killing and leaving in-place a “feel good” solution.  Here is where I disagree.  Most mold mitigation efforts cannot remove all biomass; at least not without demolishing the building or portions thereof.  This said, how do you propose mitigating the biomass left behind?  Left alive!?!  Why not kill and leave in-place?  What if the biomass is in a space that does not come into contact with receptors?  Is it practical to remove biomass that will most likely not be an exposure problem?Just curious.PS   These are loaded questions!On 8/17/07 5:16 AM, " Shane" <jshaneprolabinc> wrote:  Let's put this thread to bed. Hyphae are NOT a concern for continued growth if spread. They die and are mostly not viable. They also come out of the air quickly. We are straining at a gnat here.Secondly, killing is never the answer. Spores are everywhere present. WATER IS THE PROBLEM, MOLD IS THE SYMPTOM. Given that you can have Aspergillus numbersof 12 to 40 million in a two square inch space on a surface, killing them is not going to be effective. Assume that you have a 99.99% kill rate of the 40 million. You leave 4,000 viable spores in 2 square inches (assumes all are viable). More thanenough to recolonize the world.Remove, not kill. Killing is a "feel good" solution. When the water returns, so will the microbial soup that is life. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D.Carl, Fungi produce spores for a reason. Fungal hyphal fragment is not the best way to spread their "seeds". Like said, they dry up and eventually die if long enough. How much does it happen in the field after remediation? I don't know. It depends on the conditions. (1) Airborne hyphal fragmentsComparing to the spores coming from outdoors, I don't think airborne hyphal fragments contribute to a big part of indoor mold growth unless some contractors screwed up and the building has existing (and un-fixed) water problem. (2) Residual hyphal fragmentsControl water is probably the key. Even if you remove 99.9999% of spores and/or hyphae, one viable cell (spore or hyphae) can start to grow if it's wet. That's why killing doesn't make much sense because killing rate is never 100%. 99.9999% would be considered to be a good killing rate. Wei TangQLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote:Wei and Group,It didn't know hyphal fragments could germinate. We keep learning more all the time. It started off with limiting mold to only spores, viable ones at that. Then the recognition of non-viable spores, then the various components of the fungal spores. That was followed by thefungal mass. Then about a year ago discussion about fungal fragmentsin the environment as a source of exposure to the various componentscontained in the spores.Now another variable: Some fungal hyphal fragments, at least under some "X" conditions, can germinate.What are the opinions of others about it occuring in the field? Should we consider this to be significant enough to include in our assessments? My first thought is about crawlspaces and similar environments with long term conditions (more than a month, some lasting decades). Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC-------------- Original message ---------------

[Guest guest]

, Remove most of the allergens and keep it from building up again (mold: keep it dry). Think dust mites, cockraoch, pollens, etc. You don't kill them and leave them in place. If there is no (or minimal) exposue, why kill it? Unless infection is a concern, killing mold with chemicals doesn't provide much benefit. I am not familiar with the heating process, so I can't comment on the benefits. Wei Tang QLab Geyer wrote: Wei:Regarding your comment under: (2) Residual Hyphal Fragments......I agree, killing is never 100%. Similarly, removal is never 100% Because if removal was 100% one could infer that is was sterile. (Agree?/Disagree?) This said, if removal is not 100%, what are you going to do about the remaining biomass?On 8/16/07 2:09 PM, "Wei Tang" <wtangQLABusa> wrote: Carl, Fungi produce spores for a reason. Fungal hyphal fragment is not the best way to spread their "seeds". Like said, they dry up and eventually die if long enough. How much does it happen in the field after remediation? I don't know. It depends on the conditions.

(1) Airborne hyphal fragments Comparing to the spores coming from outdoors, I don't think airborne hyphal fragments contribute to a big part of indoor mold growth unless some contractors screwed up and the building has existing (and un-fixed) water problem. (2) Residual hyphal fragments Control water is probably the key. Even if you remove 99.9999% of spores and/or hyphae, one viable cell (spore or hyphae) can start to grow if it's wet. That's why killing doesn't make much sense because killing rate is never 100%. 99.9999% would be considered to be a good killing rate. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote: Wei and Group,It didn't know hyphal fragments could

germinate. We keep learning more all the time. It started off with limiting mold to only spores, viable ones at that. Then the recognition of non-viable spores, then the various components of the fungal spores. That was followed by the fungal mass. Then about a year ago discussion about fungal fragments in the environment as a source of exposure to the various components contained in the spores.Now another variable: Some fungal hyphal fragments, at least under some "X" conditions, can germinate.What are the opinions of others about it occuring in the field? Should we consider this to be significant enough to include in our assessments? My first thought is about crawlspaces and similar environments with long term conditions (more than a month, some lasting decades). Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

,

I have worked with another EC on this list

and in this particular water damaged home the fungi counts were really low yet

the bacterial counts were through the roof. No one else could determine why the

youngster was getting sick when entering the home. Most EC’s are testing only

for mold.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shane

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:06

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Question

on Fungal fragments

Carl,

Crawlspaces are different beasts, you are right. Normally, I would not

consider the proliferation of hyphal fragments to be a problem.

Basements are wetter, full of soil and " soup " and not much

turbulence and/or periodic dry/wet spells.

You are absolutely correct in thinking that the bacteria, etc. are an

issue to consider. When you connect with the soil the game changes completely.

There are actinomycetes, bacteria, insects, fungi, to name a few of the

things that are living and loving there. In fact, nobody (nearly) ever

considers these other things. Most people focus on fungi and mold, have a foggy

idea of what they are and ignore the forest for the few trees they see.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

D. Shane, Ph.D.

,

I would like to put this to bed also, mainly

because you and Wei are

the only ones to provide a direct answer to my

question of whether or

not germination from hyphae is possible and under

what conditions:

Not for incident-based events.

My remaining concern is those long-term relatively

stable conditions

of dampness and nutrients (crawlspaces) that may

be conducive to

germination of hyphae and other factors in the

" soup. " I've always

wondered about amoeba and bacterial symbiosis, for

example. If so -

and it sounds like nobody knows - then crawlspaces

are a different

" animal " than an incident based issue.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-------------- Original message ---------------

Let's put this thread to bed. Hyphae are NOT a

concern for continued

growth if spread. They die and are mostly not

viable. They also come

out of the air quickly. We are straining at a gnat

here.Secondly,

killing is never the answer. Spores are everywhere

present. WATER IS

THE PROBLEM, MOLD IS THE SYMPTOM. Given that you

can have Aspergillus

numbers

of 12 to 40 million in a two square inch space on

a surface, killing

them is not going to be effective. Assume that you

have a 99.99% kill

rate of the 40 million. You leave 4,000 viable

spores in 2 square

inches (assumes all are viable). More than

enough to recolonize the world.

Remove, not kill. Killing is a " feel

good " solution. When the water

returns, so will the microbial soup that is life.

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]

,

I have worked with another EC on this list

and in this particular water damaged home the fungi counts were really low yet

the bacterial counts were through the roof. No one else could determine why the

youngster was getting sick when entering the home. Most EC’s are testing only

for mold.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shane

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:06

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Question

on Fungal fragments

Carl,

Crawlspaces are different beasts, you are right. Normally, I would not

consider the proliferation of hyphal fragments to be a problem.

Basements are wetter, full of soil and " soup " and not much

turbulence and/or periodic dry/wet spells.

You are absolutely correct in thinking that the bacteria, etc. are an

issue to consider. When you connect with the soil the game changes completely.

There are actinomycetes, bacteria, insects, fungi, to name a few of the

things that are living and loving there. In fact, nobody (nearly) ever

considers these other things. Most people focus on fungi and mold, have a foggy

idea of what they are and ignore the forest for the few trees they see.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

D. Shane, Ph.D.

,

I would like to put this to bed also, mainly

because you and Wei are

the only ones to provide a direct answer to my

question of whether or

not germination from hyphae is possible and under

what conditions:

Not for incident-based events.

My remaining concern is those long-term relatively

stable conditions

of dampness and nutrients (crawlspaces) that may

be conducive to

germination of hyphae and other factors in the

" soup. " I've always

wondered about amoeba and bacterial symbiosis, for

example. If so -

and it sounds like nobody knows - then crawlspaces

are a different

" animal " than an incident based issue.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-------------- Original message ---------------

Let's put this thread to bed. Hyphae are NOT a

concern for continued

growth if spread. They die and are mostly not

viable. They also come

out of the air quickly. We are straining at a gnat

here.Secondly,

killing is never the answer. Spores are everywhere

present. WATER IS

THE PROBLEM, MOLD IS THE SYMPTOM. Given that you

can have Aspergillus

numbers

of 12 to 40 million in a two square inch space on

a surface, killing

them is not going to be effective. Assume that you

have a 99.99% kill

rate of the 40 million. You leave 4,000 viable

spores in 2 square

inches (assumes all are viable). More than

enough to recolonize the world.

Remove, not kill. Killing is a " feel

good " solution. When the water

returns, so will the microbial soup that is life.

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]

I just found this and I think it's relevant.. from BMC Infect Dis. 2006; 6: 130.How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed & pubmedid=16914034 " ResultsMost gram-positive bacteria, such as Enterococcus spp. (including VRE), Staphylococcus aureus

(including MRSA), or Streptococcus pyogenes, survive for months on dry surfaces. Many gram-negative species, such as Acinetobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa

, Serratia marcescens, or Shigella spp., can also survive for months. A few others, such as Bordetella pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae, Proteus vulgaris, or Vibrio cholerae, however, persist only for days. Mycobacteria, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and spore-forming bacteria, including Clostridium difficile, can also survive for months on surfaces. Candida albicans as the most important nosocomial fungal pathogen can survive up to 4 months on surfaces. Persistence of other yeasts, such as Torulopsis glabrata, was described to be similar (5 months) or shorter (Candida parapsilosis, 14 days). Most viruses from the respiratory tract, such as corona, coxsackie, influenza

, SARS or rhino virus, can persist on surfaces for a few days. Viruses from the gastrointestinal tract, such as astrovirus, HAV, polio- or rota virus,

persist for approximately 2 months. Blood-borne viruses, such as HBV or

HIV, can persist for more than one week. Herpes viruses, such as CMV or

HSV type 1 and 2, have been shown to persist from only a few hours up

to 7 days.ConclusionThe

most common nosocomial pathogens may well survive or persist on

surfaces for months and can thereby be a continuous source of

transmission if no regular preventive surface disinfection is performed. "