Re: ERMI making me feel SQUIRMI

[Guest guest]

Ian,

I hope you and others can attend the Sunday panel of physicians at

IAQA in Vegas. http://www.iaqa.org/pdf/Program_Registration.pdf

Dr Ritchie Shoemaker is on the panel and will discuss correlations

between his medical findings and ERMI research. Both sides need to

understand the other, which is one of the purposes of the workshop.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Group,

>

> One of my biggest issues with the Environmental Relative Moldiness

> Index (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'm

> looking for some feedback.

>

> For those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let me

> quickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 species

> only, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10

> which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides results

> in cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for each

> species (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,

> 1000 CE is 4).

>

> Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of the

> logs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.

> The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMI

> of less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is the

> second quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5

> is the bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homes

> in a HUD study.

>

> Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1

> and then you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you would

> have a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the more

> mold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would put

> you in the top 1% of homes!

>

> The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't grow

> indoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common ones

> out there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can't

> grow indoors. They include...

>

> Acremonium strictum

> Alternaria alternata

> Aspergillus ustus

> Cladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)

> C. cladosporioides (Type 2)

> C. herbarum

> Epicoccum nigrum

> Mucor racemosus

> Penicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)

> Rhizopus stolonifer

>

> Here are some other weird results:

> 1. A totally sterile environment would only be in the 50th percentile

> (Zero represents the 50th percentile)

> 2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release as

> much A. alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down.

>

> Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper or

> others " in the know " to understand if I'm making a valid point.

>

> Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMC

> Indoor Sciences, Inc.

> icull@...

> www.indoorsciences.com

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17

U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to

those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information

for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

Ian,

I hope you and others can attend the Sunday panel of physicians at

IAQA in Vegas. http://www.iaqa.org/pdf/Program_Registration.pdf

Dr Ritchie Shoemaker is on the panel and will discuss correlations

between his medical findings and ERMI research. Both sides need to

understand the other, which is one of the purposes of the workshop.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Group,

>

> One of my biggest issues with the Environmental Relative Moldiness

> Index (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'm

> looking for some feedback.

>

> For those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let me

> quickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 species

> only, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10

> which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides results

> in cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for each

> species (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,

> 1000 CE is 4).

>

> Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of the

> logs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.

> The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMI

> of less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is the

> second quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5

> is the bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homes

> in a HUD study.

>

> Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1

> and then you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you would

> have a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the more

> mold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would put

> you in the top 1% of homes!

>

> The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't grow

> indoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common ones

> out there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can't

> grow indoors. They include...

>

> Acremonium strictum

> Alternaria alternata

> Aspergillus ustus

> Cladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)

> C. cladosporioides (Type 2)

> C. herbarum

> Epicoccum nigrum

> Mucor racemosus

> Penicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)

> Rhizopus stolonifer

>

> Here are some other weird results:

> 1. A totally sterile environment would only be in the 50th percentile

> (Zero represents the 50th percentile)

> 2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release as

> much A. alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down.

>

> Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper or

> others " in the know " to understand if I'm making a valid point.

>

> Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMC

> Indoor Sciences, Inc.

> icull@...

> www.indoorsciences.com

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17

U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to

those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information

for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

[Guest guest]

One of the bigest jokes is using ERMI (or any fungal PCR) for PRV. If you have extensive growth of Cladosporium cladosporioides (I am sure that you all know it's a very common fungi in indoor mold growth) on the building materials, don't clean it up. Leave it there. If you stir it up accidently beofore people taking clearance sample, it's even better. It will help to lower the ERMI a lot. Where's the logic on this? Wei Tang QLabIan Cull wrote: Group,One of my

biggest issues with the Environmental Relative MoldinessIndex (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'mlooking for some feedback.For those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let mequickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 speciesonly, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides resultsin cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for eachspecies (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,1000 CE is 4).Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of thelogs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMIof less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is thesecond quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5is the

bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homesin a HUD study.Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1and then you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you wouldhave a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the moremold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would putyou in the top 1% of homes!The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't growindoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common onesout there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can'tgrow indoors. They include...Acremonium strictumAlternaria alternataAspergillus ustusCladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)C. cladosporioides (Type 2)C. herbarumEpicoccum nigrumMucor racemosusPenicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)Rhizopus stoloniferHere are some other weird results:1. A totally sterile

environment would only be in the 50th percentile(Zero represents the 50th percentile)2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release asmuch A. alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down.Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper orothers "in the know" to understand if I'm making a valid point. Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMCIndoor Sciences, Inc.icullindoorscienceswww.indoorsciences.com Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

So, IS it looking as if there REALLY ISN'T ANY good post-remediation TEST besides people not getting sick in a place,in stachy situations?The reason I say that is because I just read this (below) the other day..

----quote from PubMed----Fungal Genet Biol. 2007 Jul;44(7):641-7. Epub 2006 Dec 24.

Biomechanics of conidial dispersal in the toxic mold Stachybotrys chartarum.

Tucker K, Stolze JL

, Kennedy AH

, Money NP.

Department of Botany, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA.Conidial

dispersal in Stachybotrys chartarum in response to low-velocity airflow

was studied using a microflow apparatus. The maximum rate of spore

release occurred during the first 5 min of airflow, followed by a

dramatic reduction in dispersal that left more than 99% of the conidia

attached to their conidiophores. Micromanipulation of undisturbed

colonies showed that micronewton (microN) forces were needed to

dislodge spore clusters from their supporting conidiophores.

Calculations show that airspeeds that normally prevail in the indoor

environment disturb colonies with forces that are 1000-fold lower, in

the nanonewton (nN) range. Low-velocity airflow does not, therefore,

cause sufficient disturbance to disperse a large proportion of the

conidia of S. chartarum.PMID: 17267247 [PubMed - in process]-----end quote-----To me that says that spore testing WILL give false negatives with regard to stachybotrys except if a rodent scurrys through the wall at exactly the right moment.. (thanks to Jeff May for that analogy)

Is that right?So, no ERMI, no spore trap test, whats left for stachy situations?On 9/28/07, Wei Tang <

wtang@...> wrote:

One of the bigest jokes is using ERMI (or any fungal PCR) for PRV. If you have extensive growth of Cladosporium cladosporioides (I am sure that you all know it's a very common fungi in indoor mold growth) on the building materials, don't clean it up. Leave it there. If you stir it up accidently beofore people taking clearance sample, it's even better. It will help to lower the ERMI a lot. Where's the logic on this? Wei Tang QLabIan Cull <icull@indoorscience

s.com> wrote: Group,One of my

biggest issues with the Environmental Relative MoldinessIndex (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'mlooking for some feedback.For those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let me

quickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 speciesonly, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides results

in cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for eachspecies (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,1000 CE is 4).Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of the

logs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMIof less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is thesecond quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5

is the

bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homesin a HUD study.Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1and then you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you would

have a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the moremold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would putyou in the top 1% of homes!The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't grow

indoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common onesout there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can'tgrow indoors. They include...Acremonium strictumAlternaria alternata

Aspergillus ustusCladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)C. cladosporioides (Type 2)C. herbarumEpicoccum nigrumMucor racemosusPenicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)Rhizopus stoloniferHere are some other weird results:

1. A totally sterile

environment would only be in the 50th percentile(Zero represents the 50th percentile)2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release asmuch A. alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down.

Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper orothers " in the know " to understand if I'm making a valid point. Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMCIndoor Sciences, Inc.

icull@...www.indoorsciences.com

Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 Drive

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

LiveSimply wrote:

>

> So, IS it looking as if there REALLY ISN'T ANY good post-remediation

TEST besides people not getting sick in a place, in stachy situations?

>

You can read about this in " Mold Warriors " by Dr Shoemaker.

" Remediation: A Routine Failure " .

-

[Guest guest]

That has always been a major problem with Stachy; so little is airborne at any one point in time, from the colony. Its primary methods of dispersal are attachment to insect and rodent body parts (and hairs) and movement with periodic water movements (plumbing and soil-surface water leaks and such).

However, once the colony is fairly old and the spores are somewhat desiccated, traffic vibration (boom box noise too?) and other higher-energy processes can cause gradual release. The spores that disperse that way may be almost entirely non-viable when they arrive in the house dust, but they still are allergenic and may contain toxins that last for a very long time. J. often reminded me that the number of viable or culturable Stachy spores in a house was likely two decimal orders of magnitude lower than the total count. Counting viable spores may give virtually no usable information as to that mold's ability to case health problems (Stachy does not normally grow inside people, as I understand it, so infection is not a normal concern). fortunately Stachy is relatively easy to identify visually.

Jim H. White SSC

Re: ERMI making me feel SQUIRMI

So, IS it looking as if there REALLY ISN'T ANY good post-remediation TEST besides people not getting sick in a place,in stachy situations?The reason I say that is because I just read this (below) the other day.. ----quote from PubMed----Fungal Genet Biol. 2007 Jul;44(7):641-7. Epub 2006 Dec 24.

Biomechanics of conidial dispersal in the toxic mold Stachybotrys chartarum.

Tucker K, Stolze JL , Kennedy AH , Money NP.

Department of Botany, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA.

Conidial dispersal in Stachybotrys chartarum in response to low-velocity airflow was studied using a microflow apparatus. The maximum rate of spore release occurred during the first 5 min of airflow, followed by a dramatic reduction in dispersal that left more than 99% of the conidia attached to their conidiophores. Micromanipulation of undisturbed colonies showed that micronewton (microN) forces were needed to dislodge spore clusters from their supporting conidiophores. Calculations show that airspeeds that normally prevail in the indoor environment disturb colonies with forces that are 1000-fold lower, in the nanonewton (nN) range. Low-velocity airflow does not, therefore, cause sufficient disturbance to disperse a large proportion of the conidia of S. chartarum.

PMID: 17267247 [PubMed - in process]-----end quote-----To me that says that spore testing WILL give false negatives with regard to stachybotrys except if a rodent scurrys through the wall at exactly the right moment.. (thanks to Jeff May for that analogy) Is that right?So, no ERMI, no spore trap test, whats left for stachy situations?

On 9/28/07, Wei Tang < wtangqlabusa> wrote:

One of the bigest jokes is using ERMI (or any fungal PCR) for PRV. If you have extensive growth of Cladosporium cladosporioides (I am sure that you all know it's a very common fungi in indoor mold growth) on the building materials, don't clean it up. Leave it there. If you stir it up accidently beofore people taking clearance sample, it's even better. It will help to lower the ERMI a lot. Where's the logic on this?

Wei Tang

QLab

Ian Cull <icull@indoorscience s.com> wrote:

Group,One of my biggest issues with the Environmental Relative MoldinessIndex (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'mlooking for some feedback.For those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let me quickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 speciesonly, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides resultsin cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for eachspecies (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,1000 CE is 4).Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of the logs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMIof less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is thesecond quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5 is the bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homesin a HUD study.Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1and then you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you would have a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the moremold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would putyou in the top 1% of homes!The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't grow indoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common onesout there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can'tgrow indoors. They include...Acremonium strictumAlternaria alternata Aspergillus ustusCladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)C. cladosporioides (Type 2)C. herbarumEpicoccum nigrumMucor racemosusPenicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)Rhizopus stoloniferHere are some other weird results: 1. A totally sterile environment would only be in the 50th percentile(Zero represents the 50th percentile)2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release asmuch A. alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down. Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper orothers "in the know" to understand if I'm making a valid point. Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMCIndoor Sciences, Inc.icullindoorscienceswww.indoorsciences.com

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

That has always been a major problem with Stachy; so little is airborne at any one point in time, from the colony. Its primary methods of dispersal are attachment to insect and rodent body parts (and hairs) and movement with periodic water movements (plumbing and soil-surface water leaks and such).

However, once the colony is fairly old and the spores are somewhat desiccated, traffic vibration (boom box noise too?) and other higher-energy processes can cause gradual release. The spores that disperse that way may be almost entirely non-viable when they arrive in the house dust, but they still are allergenic and may contain toxins that last for a very long time. J. often reminded me that the number of viable or culturable Stachy spores in a house was likely two decimal orders of magnitude lower than the total count. Counting viable spores may give virtually no usable information as to that mold's ability to case health problems (Stachy does not normally grow inside people, as I understand it, so infection is not a normal concern). fortunately Stachy is relatively easy to identify visually.

Jim H. White SSC

Re: ERMI making me feel SQUIRMI

So, IS it looking as if there REALLY ISN'T ANY good post-remediation TEST besides people not getting sick in a place,in stachy situations?The reason I say that is because I just read this (below) the other day.. ----quote from PubMed----Fungal Genet Biol. 2007 Jul;44(7):641-7. Epub 2006 Dec 24.

Biomechanics of conidial dispersal in the toxic mold Stachybotrys chartarum.

Tucker K, Stolze JL , Kennedy AH , Money NP.

Department of Botany, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA.

Conidial dispersal in Stachybotrys chartarum in response to low-velocity airflow was studied using a microflow apparatus. The maximum rate of spore release occurred during the first 5 min of airflow, followed by a dramatic reduction in dispersal that left more than 99% of the conidia attached to their conidiophores. Micromanipulation of undisturbed colonies showed that micronewton (microN) forces were needed to dislodge spore clusters from their supporting conidiophores. Calculations show that airspeeds that normally prevail in the indoor environment disturb colonies with forces that are 1000-fold lower, in the nanonewton (nN) range. Low-velocity airflow does not, therefore, cause sufficient disturbance to disperse a large proportion of the conidia of S. chartarum.

PMID: 17267247 [PubMed - in process]-----end quote-----To me that says that spore testing WILL give false negatives with regard to stachybotrys except if a rodent scurrys through the wall at exactly the right moment.. (thanks to Jeff May for that analogy) Is that right?So, no ERMI, no spore trap test, whats left for stachy situations?

On 9/28/07, Wei Tang < wtangqlabusa> wrote:

One of the bigest jokes is using ERMI (or any fungal PCR) for PRV. If you have extensive growth of Cladosporium cladosporioides (I am sure that you all know it's a very common fungi in indoor mold growth) on the building materials, don't clean it up. Leave it there. If you stir it up accidently beofore people taking clearance sample, it's even better. It will help to lower the ERMI a lot. Where's the logic on this?

Wei Tang

QLab

Ian Cull <icull@indoorscience s.com> wrote:

Group,One of my biggest issues with the Environmental Relative MoldinessIndex (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'mlooking for some feedback.For those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let me quickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 speciesonly, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides resultsin cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for eachspecies (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,1000 CE is 4).Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of the logs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMIof less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is thesecond quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5 is the bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homesin a HUD study.Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1and then you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you would have a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the moremold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would putyou in the top 1% of homes!The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't grow indoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common onesout there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can'tgrow indoors. They include...Acremonium strictumAlternaria alternata Aspergillus ustusCladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)C. cladosporioides (Type 2)C. herbarumEpicoccum nigrumMucor racemosusPenicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)Rhizopus stoloniferHere are some other weird results: 1. A totally sterile environment would only be in the 50th percentile(Zero represents the 50th percentile)2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release asmuch A. alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down. Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper orothers "in the know" to understand if I'm making a valid point. Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMCIndoor Sciences, Inc.icullindoorscienceswww.indoorsciences.com

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

Ian:

You bring-up some VERY good points, and some that I was unaware of.

My main beef with the ERMI is two-fold. 1 – I believe ERMI may be used in the absence of a standard and reasonable inspection for other indicators, e.g., visual building assessment, water damage history, occupant hygiene, etc. The fact that the ERMI can be skewed by occupant (or their pets) activity really should not have a basis to label the structure as a “moldy dwelling unit.” 2 – The selection of the location to collect the dust sample has a HUGE impact on the ERMI. I know that many Group 1 fungi grow in soil and on turf in some locations. Moreover, chipped wood is a very common landscaping amendment (as is compost) and cover treatment and it is often populated with Group 1 fungi. If the outdoor population of these fungi is significant, their products (including spores) will get tracked-in and float-in into the dwelling units. Collecting a dust sample from carpeting near a door will almost always result in really big concentrations of these biologicals; which is not reflective of the biologicals growing inside the home! Moreover, when the carpeting is vacuumed, these mold products get further distributed within the home and populate dust in other locations.

Where I have seen this second condition to be most significant is in the Pacific Northwest. I have also seen this to be evident in the Phoenix area where certain landscaping practices are used.

While I initially felt that ERMI was a good basis for representing a potential problem, I have now tempered my enthusiasm. Your points have merit, and further dampened my enthusiasm in ERMI even further.

For what it is worth....

Group,

One of my biggest issues with the Environmental Relative Moldiness

Index (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'm

looking for some feedback.

For those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let me

quickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 species

only, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10

which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides results

in cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for each

species (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,

1000 CE is 4).

Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of the

logs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.

The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMI

of less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is the

second quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5

is the bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homes

in a HUD study.

Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1

and then you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you would

have a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the more

mold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would put

you in the top 1% of homes!

The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't grow

indoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common ones

out there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can't

grow indoors. They include...

Acremonium strictum

Alternaria alternata

Aspergillus ustus

Cladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)

C. cladosporioides (Type 2)

C. herbarum

Epicoccum nigrum

Mucor racemosus

Penicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)

Rhizopus stolonifer

Here are some other weird results:

1. A totally sterile environment would only be in the 50th percentile

(Zero represents the 50th percentile)

2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release as

much A. alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down.

Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper or

others " in the know " to understand if I'm making a valid point.

Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMC

Indoor Sciences, Inc.

icull@... <mailto:icull%40indoorsciences.com>

www.indoorsciences.com

[Guest guest]

Quack:

After reading the article (below), you have concluded that spore testing will give false negatives. NO! NO! NO!

Over and over the folks (in the know) on IEQuality have said: 1 – Air testing represents results from a limited supply of air given limited sample duration: limited + limited = small data set. 2 – Spore trap sampling (as a sampling method) is also limited in the ability to trap-and-see what is in the volume of air that is sampled. Therefore: limited + limited + limited = very small data set. (I should also state that all sample methods have their limitations and their benefits, and I am not denigrating spore trap sampling.) Data from air samples should not be used as the sole basis to make conclusions, moreover, data from a limited number of air samples can often result in false conclusions. If one were to make a conclusion that no Stachy was present in a location based solely on data from a limited number of air samples, the CONCLUSION that Stachy is not present may be a FALSE NEGATIVE. Do not jump to blame the air sample, the method of sampling the air, or the result of the air sample! The result of the spore trap air sample may be a valid representation of what was in the AIR at that point in time. It is often the interpretation of the data that is false or misleading. This can also be applied to ERMI. IMO...Lab data does not merely stand on its own merits; there is more that is necessary to achieve meaningful, and hopefully correct, conclusions.

The fact that these researchers concluded that Stachy spores do not easily get released from the conidiophoers is not surprising. What were you expecting? All fungi are different, just like fruit trees: some fruit trees readily release their fruit when the fruit is ripe (e.g., peaches) while others (e.g., oranges) do not. Based on the size and coating of most Stachy spores, I tend to believe that the fungi developed more for vector transport than air currents; but others may disagree. Fungi are fascinating plants and their dispersal mechanisms are different, All fungi are not created the equal.

I have collected thousands of air samples (for mold spores and much, much more.), and I have collected many air samples that have demonstrated that little to nothing is in the air, at the time and place that I sampled, even though the floors and walls were coated with contamination. If I were to make the conclusion that the LOCATION was not contaminated, my conclusion would be false. The air sample data was not a false! It was an accurate reflection of what was in the air at that location and at that time. Bottom line.....It is quite possible for the air to be relatively clean, even though all the surfaces are dirty; and this should be common sense.

For what it is worth....

So, IS it looking as if there REALLY ISN'T ANY good post-remediation TEST besides people not getting sick in a place,

in stachy situations?

The reason I say that is because I just read this (below) the other day..

----quote from PubMed----

Fungal Genet Biol. 2007 Jul;44(7):641-7. Epub 2006 Dec 24. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/utils/fref.fcgi?PrId=3048 & amp;itool=AbstractPlus-def & amp;uid=17267247 & amp;db=pubmed & amp;url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1087-1845%2806%2900241-6>

Biomechanics of conidial dispersal in the toxic mold Stachybotrys chartarum.

Tucker K , Stolze JL , Kennedy AH , Money NP .

Department of Botany, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA.

Conidial dispersal in Stachybotrys chartarum in response to low-velocity airflow was studied using a microflow apparatus. The maximum rate of spore release occurred during the first 5 min of airflow, followed by a dramatic reduction in dispersal that left more than 99% of the conidia attached to their conidiophores. Micromanipulation of undisturbed colonies showed that micronewton (microN) forces were needed to dislodge spore clusters from their supporting conidiophores. Calculations show that airspeeds that normally prevail in the indoor environment disturb colonies with forces that are 1000-fold lower, in the nanonewton (nN) range. Low-velocity airflow does not, therefore, cause sufficient disturbance to disperse a large proportion of the conidia of S. chartarum.

PMID: 17267247 [PubMed - in process]

-----end quote-----

To me that says that spore testing WILL give false negatives with regard to stachybotrys except if a rodent scurrys through the wall at exactly the right moment.. (thanks to Jeff May for that analogy)

Is that right?

So, no ERMI, no spore trap test, whats left for stachy situations?

[Guest guest]

,

I think your clientele and experience may be self-selecting as to your

experience.

You run a company that sees mostly companies (would you agree?) that

are willing to PAY to actually improve the situation.

Out here in the gritty world, what often happens is that a small

company might pay to have a single short sample taken.

Maybe a bulk sample taken by an employee (from a moldy wall or ceiling

tile) may have showed stachybotrys. What then happens is that a firm

is called in based on their reputation to deliver pro-defense oriented

information.

They might take a single air sample or maybe two or three, on a calm,

dry morning..

Air samples show 'everythings fine' so (spoken to employee, tenant,

often in a threatening tone).. END OF PROBLEM..

What is wrong with this picture?

[Guest guest]

Geyer wrote:

> It is often the interpretation of the data that is false or

misleading. This can also be applied to ERMI.

>

If " successful " testing fails to reveal exposures that are

significant to the sensitized sufferer, whether or not the testing

accurately identified spores or fungal debris is completly moot.

Spore testing is a case of " The operation was successful, but the

patient died " .

I'm glad I decided to simply determine this for myself rather than

rely on a flawed conceptual premise.

-

Dr ph Kleins Stachybotrys Website

http://www.stachy.5u.com/

More on Mycotoxins

Are there any other mold victims whose experience parallels yours?

" Subject: [sickbuildings] Joe Kleins Website

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:59:20 -0000

To: sickbuildings

" It's absolutely awesome to hear someone else describe the ability

of hair to maintain and transport the mold. I found that wool

garments are no different.

I noticed that some contaminated places give me a huge " hit " but that

I could walk away and recover without decontamination. Other places

might hit me less, but I would carry the " reaction " with me.

This led me to believe that the neurotoxic reaction was to

aerosolized mycotoxins and not necessarily inhalation of spores.

I tested this by placing a contaminated article in HEPA filters and

taking it to my " clean " place. I put it under six layers of blankets

and slept on it. I got the usual reaction and removed the article but

went back to sleep on the same blankets. The reaction was gone.

This convinced me that that spores had not penetrated the filter or

blankets and that the toxic gas was truly my primary irritant.

This was confirmed by Dr Marinkovich who told me that a housing

project in Sweden had recently been identified with sick inhabitants

but no spores could be found. Only when the walls were opened up were

the colonies found, but they were so tightly sealed in the walls that

only the toxic gas could escape.

Many places that give me mold hits are strictly VOC hits and not

spores. When I leave these areas I do not have to bother with

decontamination. "

-

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Vesper and IEQuality Subscribers, I am writing a document up in response of commercailization of ERMI. Please comment if you have any opinions (agree or disagree). Thanks. Wei Tang QLab

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When conducting indoor mold growth investigations, the industry recognized method is to compare a suspected problem area to a non-problem reference area which represents a normal background level of fungal biomass. ERMI, developed by EPA, uses an internal reference within the exact same

sample of ten fungal species (Group II). It is a new and unproven fungal ecology model developed for indoor mold growth investigation and was promoted with little involvement of mycologists. As with any new theory or method, it must be proven or validated with extensive research data over time. Following are some of the important issues surrounding ERMI that still need to be addressed:(1) Basic Fundamentals: The proponents of ERMI ignore many of the established fundamental practices used in performing indoor environmental investigations. For example, it is widely recognized that sampling is only one aspect of a comprehensive building investigation. ERMI uses only one sample and it is being marketed by some labs to less-than-qualified mold

inspectors or homeowners as a substitute for a properly performed field investigation. Water intrusion and dampness in a building is the root cause of microbial growth problems which have the potential to impact the health of occupants. These moisture issues need to be corrected. ERMI does not address the cause of microbial growth in buildings. All significant mold growth needs to be removed. ERMI presently only detects 26 species out of hundreds of possible fungal species that can be found in indoor environments. Even more inappropriate is the fact that any significant mold contamination in the building from any of the 10 species in Group II will lower the ERMI score. For this reason, ERMI cannot be used as a Post-Remediation Verification (PRV) tool. In fact, any fungal PCR analysis cannot responsibly be used for PRV because it does not detect all groups of fungal spores. (2) Flawed ERMI Calculation Formula and Data Variation: ERMI is calculated by using a special unproven formula, which is the “sum of the log from Group I concentrations” subtract “sum of the log from Group II concentrations”. It looks like one sum is being subtracted from another. In fact, addition and subtraction of log values mean multiplication and division, respectively, of original concentrations. As a result, ERMI represent fungal ecology as a numeric data that has not been fully studied and it

produces unexplainable results. For example, assume two samples, Sample 1 and 2, have identical Group II background. Sample 1 has 10 species detected in Group I with 10 spores each (reported as spore equivalent). Sample 2 has 1 species detected in Group I with 10,000,000,000 spores. Sample 2 with 10,000,000,000 spores from one single species represent a much more significant mold growth problem than sample 1 with 100 spores from 10 different species, which are much more diverse and the sum of Group I spore concentration is 100,000,000 times lower than that of Sample 2. However, ERMI will give the exact same score for both samples. This flaw in the calculation formula also contributes to its huge variation (or random error) of +/- 3 in a log scale.

(3) Professional Opinions: Some of those ten internal reference species (Group II) are considered by many mycologists, including some affiliated with laboratories that promote ERMI, to be species commonly found in water damaged buildings. These species are not appropriate choices to be use as background contamination or as an internal reference standard. A single carpet dust sample alone is hardly considered by most consultants to be representative of an entire house. (5) Method

Development: ERMI is correlated with "sickness (asthma)", not "moldiness". It is not appropriate to assume that mold is the only causative risk factor for asthma. Furthermore, just because one factor is correlated with another, it does not necessarily mean one is the result of the other. They might both be caused by a common unstudied factor. (6) Method Validation: MSQPCR developed by EPA can be a good tool for IEQ investigation in some specific applications. However, ERMI, which uses this technology, has not been properly validated using existing

industry recognized methods in side-by-side comparison studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ian Cull wrote: Group,One of my biggest issues with the Environmental Relative MoldinessIndex (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'mlooking for some feedback.For

those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let mequickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 speciesonly, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides resultsin cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for eachspecies (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,1000 CE is 4).Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of thelogs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMIof less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is thesecond quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5is the bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homesin a HUD study.Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1and then

you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you wouldhave a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the moremold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would putyou in the top 1% of homes!The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't growindoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common onesout there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can'tgrow indoors. They include...Acremonium strictumAlternaria alternataAspergillus ustusCladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)C. cladosporioides (Type 2)C. herbarumEpicoccum nigrumMucor racemosusPenicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)Rhizopus stoloniferHere are some other weird results:1. A totally sterile environment would only be in the 50th percentile(Zero represents the 50th percentile)2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release asmuch A.

alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down.Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper orothers "in the know" to understand if I'm making a valid point. Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMCIndoor Sciences, Inc.icullindoorscienceswww.indoorsciences.com Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Vesper and IEQuality Subscribers, I am writing a document up in response of commercailization of ERMI. Please comment if you have any opinions (agree or disagree). Thanks. Wei Tang QLab

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When conducting indoor mold growth investigations, the industry recognized method is to compare a suspected problem area to a non-problem reference area which represents a normal background level of fungal biomass. ERMI, developed by EPA, uses an internal reference within the exact same

sample of ten fungal species (Group II). It is a new and unproven fungal ecology model developed for indoor mold growth investigation and was promoted with little involvement of mycologists. As with any new theory or method, it must be proven or validated with extensive research data over time. Following are some of the important issues surrounding ERMI that still need to be addressed:(1) Basic Fundamentals: The proponents of ERMI ignore many of the established fundamental practices used in performing indoor environmental investigations. For example, it is widely recognized that sampling is only one aspect of a comprehensive building investigation. ERMI uses only one sample and it is being marketed by some labs to less-than-qualified mold

inspectors or homeowners as a substitute for a properly performed field investigation. Water intrusion and dampness in a building is the root cause of microbial growth problems which have the potential to impact the health of occupants. These moisture issues need to be corrected. ERMI does not address the cause of microbial growth in buildings. All significant mold growth needs to be removed. ERMI presently only detects 26 species out of hundreds of possible fungal species that can be found in indoor environments. Even more inappropriate is the fact that any significant mold contamination in the building from any of the 10 species in Group II will lower the ERMI score. For this reason, ERMI cannot be used as a Post-Remediation Verification (PRV) tool. In fact, any fungal PCR analysis cannot responsibly be used for PRV because it does not detect all groups of fungal spores. (2) Flawed ERMI Calculation Formula and Data Variation: ERMI is calculated by using a special unproven formula, which is the “sum of the log from Group I concentrations” subtract “sum of the log from Group II concentrations”. It looks like one sum is being subtracted from another. In fact, addition and subtraction of log values mean multiplication and division, respectively, of original concentrations. As a result, ERMI represent fungal ecology as a numeric data that has not been fully studied and it

produces unexplainable results. For example, assume two samples, Sample 1 and 2, have identical Group II background. Sample 1 has 10 species detected in Group I with 10 spores each (reported as spore equivalent). Sample 2 has 1 species detected in Group I with 10,000,000,000 spores. Sample 2 with 10,000,000,000 spores from one single species represent a much more significant mold growth problem than sample 1 with 100 spores from 10 different species, which are much more diverse and the sum of Group I spore concentration is 100,000,000 times lower than that of Sample 2. However, ERMI will give the exact same score for both samples. This flaw in the calculation formula also contributes to its huge variation (or random error) of +/- 3 in a log scale.

(3) Professional Opinions: Some of those ten internal reference species (Group II) are considered by many mycologists, including some affiliated with laboratories that promote ERMI, to be species commonly found in water damaged buildings. These species are not appropriate choices to be use as background contamination or as an internal reference standard. A single carpet dust sample alone is hardly considered by most consultants to be representative of an entire house. (5) Method

Development: ERMI is correlated with "sickness (asthma)", not "moldiness". It is not appropriate to assume that mold is the only causative risk factor for asthma. Furthermore, just because one factor is correlated with another, it does not necessarily mean one is the result of the other. They might both be caused by a common unstudied factor. (6) Method Validation: MSQPCR developed by EPA can be a good tool for IEQ investigation in some specific applications. However, ERMI, which uses this technology, has not been properly validated using existing

industry recognized methods in side-by-side comparison studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ian Cull wrote: Group,One of my biggest issues with the Environmental Relative MoldinessIndex (ERMI) is the equation used to achieve the ERMI number. I'mlooking for some feedback.For

those not familiar with how the ERMI number is achieved... let mequickly explain. A dust sample is analyzed using qPCR for 36 speciesonly, 26 of which are called Group 1 (water damage indicators) and 10which are Group 2 (not water damage indicators). qPCR provides resultsin cell equivalents (CE). The log of the CE is then taken for eachspecies (log base 10 so a concentration of 10 CE is 2, 100 CE is 3,1000 CE is 4).Here's how the final ERMI number is achieved... take the sum of thelogs of Group 1 and then you subtract the sum of the logs of Group 2.The number typically ranges from a -10 (good) to a 20 (bad). An ERMIof less than -4 is in the top quartile, between -4 and zero is thesecond quartile, zero and +5 is the third quartile and greater than +5is the bottom quartile. This is based on a comparison to 1,096 homesin a HUD study.Ok, so here's my main issue... If you have very low levels of group 1and then

you have a group 2 species colonizing your home, you wouldhave a major negative number. So your ERMI number improves the moremold (group 2) you have! An extensive group 2 mold problem would putyou in the top 1% of homes!The standard response to my issue is that group 2 species don't growindoors. Really? Group 2 species include some of the most common onesout there, but just because they're common doesn't mean they can'tgrow indoors. They include...Acremonium strictumAlternaria alternataAspergillus ustusCladosporium cladosporioides (Type 1)C. cladosporioides (Type 2)C. herbarumEpicoccum nigrumMucor racemosusPenicillium chrysogenum (Type 2)Rhizopus stoloniferHere are some other weird results:1. A totally sterile environment would only be in the 50th percentile(Zero represents the 50th percentile)2. If this is the basis of future real estate transactions, release asmuch A.

alternata in your home as possible to get the ERMI number down.Am I missing something here? I'd love to hear from Steve Vesper orothers "in the know" to understand if I'm making a valid point. Ian Cull, PE, CIEC, CMCIndoor Sciences, Inc.icullindoorscienceswww.indoorsciences.com Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com