Guest guest Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Cole, All I know is what I posted. I was hoping others would be familiar with them. One off-line response I got says the CIMR is a contractor's business plan using rented equipment and not a technology. Unfortunately that only confused the issue for me. Carl ----- > Carl, > > I have been through their website, and I cannot find anything > resembling an EPA-registration number. My first thought is that I > want to see what EPA was willing to accept after reviewing their data > (if any), not what they say about their treatment process. > > Do you have an EPA registration number for CIMR or the constituent > biocide being used to generate the HOOH gas? > > Suspiciously Yours, > > Cole Stanton > FIBERLOCK > > > > > > Anyone know about this new CIMR technology? > > > > They claim testing by Kansas State University and Sandia Labs. > > Doesn't appear to be MLM oriented and, despite the name, doesn't > > appear to be related to EcoQuest and others - although I found out > > about it from someone who was approached by a salesperson for the > > $400 home unit. > > > > Press release at: http://www.mmdnewswire.com/globl-ecotek-llc- > > announces-brekthrough-cimr-tm-infecti-ctrol-technology-1997-2.html > > > > http://www.ecotekltd.com/ > > > > Carl Grimes > > Healthy Habitats LLC > > > > > > > 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 August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Cole, All I know is what I posted. I was hoping others would be familiar with them. One off-line response I got says the CIMR is a contractor's business plan using rented equipment and not a technology. Unfortunately that only confused the issue for me. Carl ----- > Carl, > > I have been through their website, and I cannot find anything > resembling an EPA-registration number. My first thought is that I > want to see what EPA was willing to accept after reviewing their data > (if any), not what they say about their treatment process. > > Do you have an EPA registration number for CIMR or the constituent > biocide being used to generate the HOOH gas? > > Suspiciously Yours, > > Cole Stanton > FIBERLOCK > > > > > > Anyone know about this new CIMR technology? > > > > They claim testing by Kansas State University and Sandia Labs. > > Doesn't appear to be MLM oriented and, despite the name, doesn't > > appear to be related to EcoQuest and others - although I found out > > about it from someone who was approached by a salesperson for the > > $400 home unit. > > > > Press release at: http://www.mmdnewswire.com/globl-ecotek-llc- > > announces-brekthrough-cimr-tm-infecti-ctrol-technology-1997-2.html > > > > http://www.ecotekltd.com/ > > > > Carl Grimes > > Healthy Habitats LLC > > > > > > > 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 August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to " kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold. " They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, " Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold? " If so, " are abrasive methods no longer needed? " Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors. > I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info. > > S > > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to " kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold. " They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, " Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold? " If so, " are abrasive methods no longer needed? " Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors. > I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info. > > S > > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on " benefit " doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab " Carl E. Grimes " wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to " kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold. " They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, " Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold? " If so, " are abrasive methods no longer needed? " Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors. > I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info. > > S > > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Using Rodac plates is not a very good tool, I feel, because it is really only applicable in a hospital setting. Remember, you are not trying to sterilize a room or building. Just reduce exposure.Using a field scope is also doubtfully useful. If the surface gets wet again, a new biofilm will form. Besides, 30X is not very much and won't reveal anything except the most obvious of circumstances. If you are trying to bring the lumber to "structural grade condition", having a biofilm is irrelevant. Biofilms don't affect the structure whatsoever. It is the condition of being too wet that will determine the long-term structural condition.There are lots and lots of ways people use "proof of remediation". Sometimes I feel that we are being too stringent because the room can never maintain some level of cleanliness that many criteria demand. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D.Wei and Carl,Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include:· A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also,· They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis;· They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria;· They can use UV-light;· They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method.I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods.I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris.This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei TangQLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote:I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Wei, Thanks for the head-up on the field scope. I don’t know where to buy a 100-200X scope that can be placed directly on a subfloor or piece of wood for direct inspection. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:53 AM To: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on " benefit " doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab " Carl E. Grimes " wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to " kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold. " They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, " Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold? " If so, " are abrasive methods no longer needed? " Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors. > I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info. > > S > > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Hello , Its an interesting point, however, if you are going to clean something (and get paid) why not clean it well using cost effective and practical methods (note: no crazy stuff)? Then there is less confusion and debating. Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist -----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of ShaneSent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:55 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Using Rodac plates is not a very good tool, I feel, because it is really only applicable in a hospital setting. Remember, you are not trying to sterilize a room or building. Just reduce exposure. Using a field scope is also doubtfully useful. If the surface gets wet again, a new biofilm will form. Besides, 30X is not very much and won't reveal anything except the most obvious of circumstances. If you are trying to bring the lumber to "structural grade condition", having a biofilm is irrelevant. Biofilms don't affect the structure whatsoever. It is the condition of being too wet that will determine the long-term structural condition. There are lots and lots of ways people use "proof of remediation". Sometimes I feel that we are being too stringent because the room can never maintain some level of cleanliness that many criteria demand. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D. Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Pat, I thought you meant examining a tape lift. I have seen 75X stereo microscope. WeiPat Moffett wrote: Wei, Thanks for the head-up on the field scope. I don’t know where to buy a 100-200X scope that can be placed directly on a subfloor or piece of wood for direct inspection. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:53 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett <patmoffettatt (DOT) net> wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Wei: Respectfully disagree. Removal may be the most effective method, but it is not necessarily the most cost effective method. Moreover, in many instances, removal is the least cost effective method. Also, removal may no be warranted in situations where the organism does not come into contact with a receptor or where contact is inconsequential. Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on " benefit " doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab " Carl E. Grimes " wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to " kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold. " They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, " Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold? " If so, " are abrasive methods no longer needed? " Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors. > I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info. > > S > > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 Pat: Good observation! I use a dissecting scope......and it’s magnification is far less than 200X, but it can be placed directly on the subfloor, or hel against a wall, or taken into the attic. This said, I get more use from my 20X-40X loop than the scope. IMHO, 200X scopes are for the lab, not the field. Wei, Thanks for the head-up on the field scope. I don’t know where to buy a 100-200X scope that can be placed directly on a subfloor or piece of wood for direct inspection. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:53 AM To: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2007 Report Share Posted August 15, 2007 This stereo microscope has 80X, but I have never used one like this (greater than 40X) before, not sure about the quality. should have more idea on this. I know some people carry a compound microscope to look at (MANY) tape-lifts on site. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Wei, Thanks for the head-up on the field scope. I don’t know where to buy a 100-200X scope that can be placed directly on a subfloor or piece of wood for direct inspection. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:53 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett <patmoffettatt (DOT) net> wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 I have to agree with the maxim of cleaning well, especially when you are paid to do it and the client has an expectation of having it clean.My concerns are that sometimes what is clean is not clearly understood. Most people treat fungi like they are bacteria. They are not and there aresome important differences on how we treat them. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D.Hello ,Its an interesting point, however, if you are going to clean something (and get paid) why not clean it well using cost effective and practical methods (note: no crazy stuff)? Then there is less confusion and debating. Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of ShaneSent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 11:55 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technologyUsing Rodac plates is not a very good tool, I feel, because it is really only applicable in a hospital setting. Remember, you are not trying to sterilize a room or building. Just reduce exposure.Using a field scope is also doubtfully useful. If the surface gets wet again, a new biofilm will form. Besides, 30X is not very much and won't reveal anything except the most obvious of circumstances. If you are trying to bring the lumber to "structural grade condition", having a biofilm is irrelevant. Biofilms don't affect the structure whatsoever. It is the condition of being too wet that will determine the long-term structural condition.There are lots and lots of ways people use "proof of remediation". Sometimes I feel that we are being too stringent because the room can never maintain some level of cleanliness that many criteria demand.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D.Wei and Carl,Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include:· A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also,· They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis;· They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria;· They can use UV-light;· They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts.All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method.I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods.I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris.This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” MoffettFrom: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technologyCarl,I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way.Wei TangQLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote:I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 , I meant comparing to the claim made by Carl's contact. Fumigation plus removal vs. Removal Sorry if my wiriting wasn't clear. Wei Tang QLab Geyer wrote: Wei:Respectfully disagree.Removal may be the most effective method, but it is not necessarily the most cost effective method. Moreover, in many instances, removal is the least cost effective method. Also, removal may no be warranted in situations where the organism does not come into contact with a receptor or where contact is inconsequential.On 8/14/07 9:37 PM, "Wei Tang" <wtangQLABusa> wrote: Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on "benefit" doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" <grimeshabitats> wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to "kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold." They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, "Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold?" If so, "are abrasive methods no longer needed?"Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors.> I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info.> > S> > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Cole, I agree the devices suggested by the CIMR presentation do seem to give a description of a "pesticidal" device. The type of EPA registration required seems to be a matter for the manufacturer to comply with. The user would have to comply with the operating instructions for that equipment but himself not necessarily required to be EPA registered I'm understanding the EPA is presently in the process of reviewing registration requirements of some of the new anti-microbial devices. I am told the devices designed for use in air ducts have recently been ruled exempt from California registration as ozone generators for whatever that bit of trivia is worth. Sometime ago there was a discussion as to whether store bought H2O2 could be used as an antifungal concrete wall treatment since it was not EPA approved as such. The advice seemed to be that a homeowner could but a professional pesticide contractor could not as he would be obligated to only use EPA approved substances. After that discussion I called our Washington EPA office and asked where I could find such a restriction. I was referred to an Ohio office of the EPA and posed the question to the chief of a pesticide enforcement section and was told there was no prohibition against a contractor using store-bought H2O2 to clean away or kill mold. There seems to be good reason to believe the peroxide is an excellent and safe fungicide. The fact that there are now devises that can efficiently extract moisture from ambient air at relative humidity levels between 20% and 60% and produce a safe fume of H2O2 to disinfect the interior of a building within 24 hours promises a new tool for the remediator. How the EPA will handle this technology is for them to decide and I expect it may take a little time for them to understand their authority in this field. I'm not questioning their authority just noting they will have to make their regulations somewhat comparable to those in the other regulatory agencies. I'm believing EPA is well informed as to the technology since both USDA and FDA are spending millions to prove the efficacy for use in food processing facilities. A number of processing plants I understand are using the technology under temporary FDA approval. The basis for my believing the technology will be readily accepted by all regulatory agencies is the recent governmental testing programs undertaken at Kansas State Univ. where the tests have shown four log reductions of microbial matter over a 24 hour period. The next step I'm expecting will be the FDA will revise their regulations providing for this process to be an acceptable method for food handling areas. Once that happens I imagine EPA should have an easy time piggybacking on the work of their sister agency. Bottom line... the EPA does not at the moment appear to have an active interest in this process other than having been observers at the Katrina recovery operations managed by the CIMR folks. ken ================================= Re: Another new technologyKen,Apologies for the lateness of the reply, but your response to my post raises an interesting topic worth discussion. Your are quite correct on two points. Consulting services do not require EPA registration as a pesticide, as they do not kill anything (except when improperly employed and then budgets, schedules, customer patience can all suffer painful deaths).. Biocides and antimicrobial products, among them products from Fiberlock and others, which are formulated for killing/destroying/disinfecting/sanitizing, etc. must be EPA-registered in accordance with FIFRA, as well as be registered in any state in which the products are sold or used. The topic of pesticidal devices (a term of convenience for this post, not an official category as far as I know) is an interesting one where perhaps some of the EPA participants in this group might help with a clarification (Henry, if you are reading, help us out here!).My understanding is that whether processes or equipment have to be registered as pesticides would depend on what the process or equipment is, and what claims are being made. In some cases, equipment could fall into a pesticide device category, which doesn't require registration but which is subject to a number of pesticide requirements in relation to labeling, or perhaps invoke requirements for production in registered establishments. Throwing it out for discussion, I would surmise that such devices might be UV light or other equipment/processes that kill or mitigate by physical means. (How about flyswatters?)Similar to the Treated Articles Exemption in FIFRA, if a process or equipment that creates a physical barrier against a pest, and no kill claim is made, then registration would not be required. Once a chemical is involved, then EPA-registration would be required, as I understand things In this case a chemical is involved, as noted in the first paragraph on the EcoTek home page:"Global Ecotek, LLC is the only provider of CIMRT Infection Control Technology. CIMRT Infection Control Technology is an ozone-free process that uses minute amounts of hydrogen peroxide gas to disinfect viruses, bacteria, molds, and other fungi."Moreover, elsewhere on the website there are organism specific pesticidal claims that would seem to warrant EPA-registration, such as:"The hydrogen peroxide gas technology used in CIMRT Infection Control Technology has been demonstrated to be effective against every virus, bacteria, mold, and other fungus against which it has been applied to date. Also, independent university studies have documented that it is effective against the H5N8 virus, MRSA (Methycillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus), nonresistant Staphylococcus Aureus, E-Coli, Listeria Monocytogenes, Candida Albicans, Stachybotrus Chartarum (Black Mold), Streptococcus, Pseudomonas, and Bacillus Subtillus."Thus, my first thought when reading Carl's post was to look for EPA-registration information. What I expected to find was something similar to the SABRE chlorine dioxide method, i.e., the equipment used to generate the gas are not EPA-registered pesticides, but the constituent chemical used to generate the gas has an EPA-registered label with important safety & health information, use instructions, etc. An EPA-registered label for the CIMR constituents would provide a good starting basis for evaluating and validating the performance claims on the EcoTek website. Again, this post contains my understandings/assumptions concerning various aspects of what I would call pesticidal devices, and is intended to elicit discussion from everyone. If any of these thoughts are off-base or inaccurate, please reply post, as a better understanding of this topic will likely benefit many of us. ColeFIBERLOCKcwdsfiberlock> > >> > > Anyone know about this new CIMR technology?> > > > > > They claim testing by Kansas State University and Sandia Labs. > > > Doesn't appear to be MLM oriented and, despite the name, doesn't > > > appear to be related to EcoQuest and others - although I found > out > > > about it from someone who was approached by a salesperson for the > > > $400 home unit.> > > > > > Press release at: http://www.mmdnewswire.com/globl-ecotek-llc-> > > announces-brekthrough-cimr-tm-infecti-ctrol-technology-1997-2.html> > > > > > http://www.ecotekltd.com/> > > > > > Carl Grimes> > > Healthy Habitats LLC> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 , You stated: Also, removal may no be warranted in situations where the organism does not come into contact with a receptor or where contact is inconsequential. My reply: Can you assure the commerce that removal is not warranted because the organism and/or it body fragments and/or spores will not come into contact with a receptor? And if you are able, please detail your controls to which you will monitor into the future until such organisms are removed. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:48 AM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology , I meant comparing to the claim made by Carl's contact. Fumigation plus removal vs. Removal Sorry if my wiriting wasn't clear. Wei Tang QLab Geyer <mgeyeratg1> wrote: Wei: Respectfully disagree. Removal may be the most effective method, but it is not necessarily the most cost effective method. Moreover, in many instances, removal is the least cost effective method. Also, removal may no be warranted in situations where the organism does not come into contact with a receptor or where contact is inconsequential. On 8/14/07 9:37 PM, " Wei Tang " <wtangQLABusa> wrote: Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on " benefit " doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab " Carl E. Grimes " <grimeshabitats> wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to " kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold. " They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, " Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold? " If so, " are abrasive methods no longer needed? " Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors. > I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info. > > S > > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Wei, You are right that 75X field scope is available. My examination is not for tape-lift analysis but the visual inspection of a material surface. That is why I recommended 10 to 30X. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:20 PM To: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, I thought you meant examining a tape lift. I have seen 75X stereo microscope. Wei Pat Moffett wrote: Wei, Thanks for the head-up on the field scope. I don’t know where to buy a 100-200X scope that can be placed directly on a subfloor or piece of wood for direct inspection. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:53 AM To: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on " benefit " doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab " Carl E. Grimes " wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to " kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold. " They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, " Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold? " If so, " are abrasive methods no longer needed? " Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors. > I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info. > > S > > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2007 Report Share Posted August 16, 2007 Wei, You are right that 75X field scope is available. My examination is not for tape-lift analysis but the visual inspection of a material surface. That is why I recommended 10 to 30X. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:20 PM To: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, I thought you meant examining a tape lift. I have seen 75X stereo microscope. Wei Pat Moffett wrote: Wei, Thanks for the head-up on the field scope. I don’t know where to buy a 100-200X scope that can be placed directly on a subfloor or piece of wood for direct inspection. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:53 AM To: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:37 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Carl, I don't believe that the abrasive method can be skipped unless I see some real data. Assuming the dead mold is a little bit easier to be brushed away (which I am not saying), this add-on " benefit " doesn't justify the cost involved. Unless very low amount of viable biological agent (e.g. anthrax) can be a serious threat, IMO, removal is still the most cost effective way. Wei Tang QLab " Carl E. Grimes " wrote: I've had a couple of conversations lately on similar approaches and I think I see a newly developing theme (for marketing at least). Instead of a focus only on killing mold I see it shifting to " kill the mold first because dead mold is easier to remove than live mold. " They seem to be claiming HEPA vacuuming is usually sufficient (assuming the surfaces are exposed), which means the expensive abrasive methods are no longer needed. This has some appeal to me. So my question to the group, " Is dead mold easier to remove than live mold? " If so, " are abrasive methods no longer needed? " Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Went to the site, and it looks great. Design, presentation, color, > supporting research summaries, etc. No explanation of EPA exemption > or not. no msds. they are clearly ex-military and well connected at > the fed level, hence they are govt contractors. > I dosee bunch of letters that i'm not familiar with. E.g.,does > anyone know what CIMR means?> it is not defined in the site info. > > S > > > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.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...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 , First, who is the manufacturer of the 200X; is there an ordering phone number; are there different powers? Second, I concur that 30-40X is generally more than enough to determine if there is unwanted debris present on a surface from direct observations. With proper training, water, sewage and mold remediation contractors should be able to make their own observations about the cleanliness of a surface that had growth, a biofilm and hyphae. Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:29 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology Pat: Good observation! I use a dissecting scope......and it’s magnification is far less than 200X, but it can be placed directly on the subfloor, or hel against a wall, or taken into the attic. This said, I get more use from my 20X-40X loop than the scope. IMHO, 200X scopes are for the lab, not the field. Wei, Thanks for the head-up on the field scope. I don’t know where to buy a 100-200X scope that can be placed directly on a subfloor or piece of wood for direct inspection. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:53 AM To: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Another new technology Pat, Good suggestions! I will throw in my comments. (1) FField scope: I would prefer 100 - 200X. (2) ATP, Mycometer are good, if the passing criteria is at least 3 -5 times higher than the detection limit. (3) If I use RODAC or tape for PRV, I will use swabs at the same time. During investigation, spores on top of hyphae are easy to lift. However, after remediation, loose spores are all down to the very surface. If you cannot get close to 3 microns from the not-so-smooth surface, you can't lift those spores up. Thus, the collection efficiencies will be low for tape used on some building materials. RODAC is only agar, it's not even sticky. And, one colony can be from 1 spore or a cluster of 100 spores. It's good for a smooth surface on a clean room bench or kitchen counter top. It's not so good for many building materials. Swabbing can be done with much larger area (more representative), and the collection efficiency is high. (3) For cleaning, electric blower is a good tool to stir up the spores and remove them by air scrubbing as a final stage (after HEPA and scrubbing). For PRV, aggressive air sampling is somehow more representative than sampling a few spots (tapes or swabs). It can be seen as an overall cleanness. Combined with swab samples on a few suspected spots, it give a good picture of the quality of the jobs. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Wei and Carl, Other forensic tools a field investigator with training may consider relying on include: · A low-power (15-30X) field scope. They can see whether or not the probability of a biofilm remains after HEPA vacuuming. Also, · They can use adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) sampling and analysis; · They can use RODAC plates, tape-lifts and swabs for mold and RODAC plates and swabs for bacteria; · They can use UV-light; · They can increase surface air movement to see if the surrounding air has an increase number of particle counts. All this said, I find a large amount of mold remediation projects fail my remediation clearance criteria when the contractor only relies upon HEPA vacuuming as their primary surface cleaning method. I agree, abrasive (surface agitation) cleaning methods tend to loosen a dry-biofilm including the growth of hyphae. The porosity of the material also plays a role in determining its ability to be cleaned by one or more methods. I teach and recommend for small remediation projects that are dry but have microbially impacted structural wood: (1) HEPA vacuum all visible loose dust and debris; (2) Lightly hand or machine sand surfaces; (3) HEPA vacuum dust and amorphous debris. This remediation process is intended to return structural wood back to an “acceptable construction-grade condition.” Moffett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 The short answer is: 1) the mold growth originated from the spores already present on the substrate, 2) more spores likely came with the water, 3) new spores landed every time someone brought home food, used food or came in the house, 4) spores came into the home even when the house was closed up. I don't have to know what kind of mold was growing. This is how mold goes about growing on everything that gets wet.Actually, this is a typical case that insurance handle where they want to know how old the mold is, and if there was existing mold before the damage occurred. Mostly a quite impossible question to answer. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D.Vice President of Laboratory Services/ I just reviewed a case file regarding inadequate and/or negligent remediation. I think you will find the facts interesting, and applicable to this discussion of spores, dry or wet, removal or abrasion, etc. In this particular case, during a 2002 inspection of an area with a leaky appliance an IH stated that the active mold growth he identified was the result of the left over, but dormant, spores from a previous 1996 remediation cleaning up mold from a leak in the same appliance. By the way, in 2002, the floor was wet, as in active, liquid water present. He does not attempt to opine about the source of the 2002 mold, other than a leaky appliance. Nor is there documentation about the appliance being fixed or replaced. Interestingly enough, a third inspection, this time in 2004, found similar problems, and it related the wet moldy condition to the previous 2002 remediation. Yes, wet, again. Also, the 2002 spec did not address any water leaks or problems. Just the remediation and clean up of mold. Which by the way included cleaning of all contents, including those on the second floor. (there's a lot more, but you get the point) So, I ask, if the 2004 mold was result of poor remediation of the 2002 mold and the 2002 mold was result of poor remediation of the 1996 mold, where did the 1996 mold originate? Or, simply, Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Oh yeah, and just for kix, the IH consultant in 2002 was hired by the insurance company addressing the loss, by 2004 he had switched consulting firms and was then the IH hired by the owner, who is suing the same insurance company who was his client in 2002! How this happens is beyond me. Armour, M.S.Armour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH <earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo>"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." A.Einstein"If having endured much, we at last asserted our 'right to know' and if,knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless andfrightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of thosewho tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals, weshould look around and see what other course is open to us." CarsonGet a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.<earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 The short answer is: 1) the mold growth originated from the spores already present on the substrate, 2) more spores likely came with the water, 3) new spores landed every time someone brought home food, used food or came in the house, 4) spores came into the home even when the house was closed up. I don't have to know what kind of mold was growing. This is how mold goes about growing on everything that gets wet.Actually, this is a typical case that insurance handle where they want to know how old the mold is, and if there was existing mold before the damage occurred. Mostly a quite impossible question to answer. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D.Vice President of Laboratory Services/ I just reviewed a case file regarding inadequate and/or negligent remediation. I think you will find the facts interesting, and applicable to this discussion of spores, dry or wet, removal or abrasion, etc. In this particular case, during a 2002 inspection of an area with a leaky appliance an IH stated that the active mold growth he identified was the result of the left over, but dormant, spores from a previous 1996 remediation cleaning up mold from a leak in the same appliance. By the way, in 2002, the floor was wet, as in active, liquid water present. He does not attempt to opine about the source of the 2002 mold, other than a leaky appliance. Nor is there documentation about the appliance being fixed or replaced. Interestingly enough, a third inspection, this time in 2004, found similar problems, and it related the wet moldy condition to the previous 2002 remediation. Yes, wet, again. Also, the 2002 spec did not address any water leaks or problems. Just the remediation and clean up of mold. Which by the way included cleaning of all contents, including those on the second floor. (there's a lot more, but you get the point) So, I ask, if the 2004 mold was result of poor remediation of the 2002 mold and the 2002 mold was result of poor remediation of the 1996 mold, where did the 1996 mold originate? Or, simply, Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Oh yeah, and just for kix, the IH consultant in 2002 was hired by the insurance company addressing the loss, by 2004 he had switched consulting firms and was then the IH hired by the owner, who is suing the same insurance company who was his client in 2002! How this happens is beyond me. Armour, M.S.Armour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH <earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo>"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." A.Einstein"If having endured much, we at last asserted our 'right to know' and if,knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless andfrightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of thosewho tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals, weshould look around and see what other course is open to us." CarsonGet a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.<earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2007 Report Share Posted August 17, 2007 , To expand on your point let me add what occurs during construction of a building. I completed environmental studies in order to show what airborne and surfaceborne fungi comes with new building materials. My studies started in 1988 at Oregon saw mills and open air drying fields where I collected air and surface mold spore studies looking at fungal characterization of the surrounding environment affecting newly cut lumber. My results are consistent with USFS studies including mold growth on newly cut lumber sap such as Ceratocystis, Ophiostoma, and Ceratosystiopsis colonies. I studied construction sites, where I identified mold in the surrounding dirt, dust and flora on plants and trees. I found similar fungal characterization of environmental dust and spores in the newly framed buildings. Finally, I clandestine studied Lowes, Home Depot and several specialized lumber stores. I found lumber by this point already has growth on it and settled spores from dust. The stores didn’t substantially impact the characterization of fungi populations. In conclusion, what impacted spore population on new lumber the most was: (1) its natural drying time in open fields where it is exposed to air and high moisture (e.g., rain); and (2) lumber at construction sites where disturbance of ground (e.g., trucks moving on dirt, back hoes, trenching, cutting nearby trees and flora), and leaving dusty buildings exposed to humid or wet weather conditions. All of these factors create the mold fingerprint that building framing will have for the rest of its life. What I attempt to show to builders, they can reduce the micro-bio load of settled dust in newly framed structures by using good cleanup methods including removing visible saw dust and debris followed by vacuuming or air-sparging. Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shane Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:05 AM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology The short answer is: 1) the mold growth originated from the spores already present on the substrate, 2) more spores likely came with the water, 3) new spores landed every time someone brought home food, used food or came in the house, 4) spores came into the home even when the house was closed up. I don't have to know what kind of mold was growing. This is how mold goes about growing on everything that gets wet. Actually, this is a typical case that insurance handle where they want to know how old the mold is, and if there was existing mold before the damage occurred. Mostly a quite impossible question to answer. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• D. Shane, Ph.D. Vice President of Laboratory Services/ I just reviewed a case file regarding inadequate and/or negligent remediation. I think you will find the facts interesting, and applicable to this discussion of spores, dry or wet, removal or abrasion, etc. In this particular case, during a 2002 inspection of an area with a leaky appliance an IH stated that the active mold growth he identified was the result of the left over, but dormant, spores from a previous 1996 remediation cleaning up mold from a leak in the same appliance. By the way, in 2002, the floor was wet, as in active, liquid water present. He does not attempt to opine about the source of the 2002 mold, other than a leaky appliance. Nor is there documentation about the appliance being fixed or replaced. Interestingly enough, a third inspection, this time in 2004, found similar problems, and it related the wet moldy condition to the previous 2002 remediation. Yes, wet, again. Also, the 2002 spec did not address any water leaks or problems. Just the remediation and clean up of mold. Which by the way included cleaning of all contents, including those on the second floor. (there's a lot more, but you get the point) So, I ask, if the 2004 mold was result of poor remediation of the 2002 mold and the 2002 mold was result of poor remediation of the 1996 mold, where did the 1996 mold originate? Or, simply, Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg? Oh yeah, and just for kix, the IH consultant in 2002 was hired by the insurance company addressing the loss, by 2004 he had switched consulting firms and was then the IH hired by the owner, who is suing the same insurance company who was his client in 2002! How this happens is beyond me. Armour, M.S. Armour Applied Science, LLC Green Building Healthy Building Cleveland, OH <earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo> " The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them. " A.Einstein " If having endured much, we at last asserted our 'right to know' and if, knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless and frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals, we should look around and see what other course is open to us. " Carson Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. <earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo> 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.