WORD ON THE STREET

• Florida Mold Hearings: A public hearing was expected to be held in South Florida late last month to obtain public input and hear testimony concerning mold coverage in homeowners’ and commercial residential insurance policies. To date, the Department of Insurance has received nearly 400 filings by insurance companies requesting exclusion of mold, or limited coverage of mold, in personal residential, commercial residential and commercial property policies.
  
  Two other hearings will be held in Tampa and Orlando next month and will be announced once dates and locations are determined.
  
  
• Child Care Health Risk: Indoor air pollutants found in low income housing and in many child care centers may put children at health risk, suggests a new study from Cornell University. In areas prone to high radon levels, homes occupied by limited resource households have higher levels of radon than those occupied by higher income households, and some child care centers have unsafe levels of radon, lead and mold, the study shows.
  
  “We found levels of pollutants in homes and child care facilities that we should be concerned about,” said Joseph Laquatra, associate professor of design and environmental analysis in the New York State College of Human Ecology at Cornell.
  
  
• Can Do Attitude: Despite recent news coverage detailing possible dangers, health effects, and complications associated with “toxic” mold and its removal, more than one-third (35.5 percent) of Americans say they believe they can solve any mold problems in their homes themselves, according to the results of Chelsea Group’s most recent installment in its ongoing nationwide survey of consumers perceptions of indoor air quality (IAQ).
  
  “Americans are an independent lot, and their approach to handling mold problems in their homes is no different than handling many other life problems. This finding shows there is a clear and strong market for home-use products that allow homeowners to effectively and safely remove small areas of mold (10 sq. ft. or less) and prevent mold growth or control humidity and other sources of moisture inside their homes,” said George Benda, chairman and CEO of the Chelsea Group, Ltd.
  
  “Just how strong a market? Couple this finding with the results of an earlier Chelsea Group survey where only 4.1 percent of homeowners expressed no interest in purchasing products to improve the quality of air inside their homes, and the picture becomes pretty clear,” Benda said.
  
  
• CDC Updates Lead Guidance: CDC recently released the first updated guidance on case management of children with elevated blood lead levels in over a decade. The new report, “Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young Children: Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention,” was written primarily for those who provide or oversee case management for children with elevated blood lead levels and fills a large void faced by programs seeking practical guidance about effective interventions. Where possible, the recommendations are based on the results of evidence-based studies. The report contains an introduction that provides an overview of case management and offers specific guidance in environmental, medical, nutritional, and developmental interventions, as well as parental education. For more information, visit CDC’s web site at www.cdc.gov/nech/lead.
  
  
• Airplane Air: Although people might catch colds while traveling via airplane, a new study suggests that the recycled air on newer planes is not to blame. At least on short flights—about 2 hours—passengers on airplanes with recycled air are no more likely than those on planes with fresh air to come down with a cold or runny nose, according to a report.
  
  Over the past 20 years, airplane manufacturers have tried to build more fuel-efficient planes, according to Dr. Jessica Nutik Zitter of the University of California, San Francisco and colleagues. To achieve that goal, newer planes recirculate as much as 50 percent of cabin air, which decreases the engines’ work. Although the air is filtered before mixing with fresh air and re-entering the cabin, Zitter and colleagues note that ability of such air filters “to capture viruses is limited, even at peak function” and are rendered ineffective if filters become clogged.
  
  
• IAQ Pioneer, Snider, Dies: Jack Snider Jr., 59, a pioneering indoor environmental consultant first in asbestos consulting and then in indoor air quality passed away last month after a short but losing battle with cancer. He was the immediate past president of the Environmental Information Association and founder of American Management Resources Corporation (AMRC) in Fort Myers, Fla., a national environmental consulting firm. He began his career at NASA on the Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab programs, then worked at Sprint-United in facilities management before starting AMRC in 1986. He is survived by his wife of 39 years, Anne, son Jack III—who continue as Comptroller and Chief Operating Officer respectively of AMRC—and daughter Diana, a schoolteacher. Known for working 60- and 70-hours per week, his spare time was spent with family and fishing. He very much enjoyed his fellow colleagues and the camaraderie in the environmental consulting field.
  
  
• IAQ Pioneer, Betsill, Dies: Jerry Betsill, a civil attorney and one of the first business people to spot a connection between HVAC system maintenance and mold contamination, was killed in a small plane crash in Hawaii last month. Three other family members also died in the accident.
  
  ”It is with with overwhelming sadness that the Enviro-Mold family makes known the tragic loss of one of its own,” announced Enviro-Mold IAQ Services, a Fort Worth-based mold remediation training/franchising and service business. “Jerry was a pioneer and leader in the indoor air quality industry. As co-founder of Abbey Road Clean Aire, he, along with business partner and best friend Bob Allen [Enviro-Mold president] commissioned a groundbreaking study on the effects of HVAC sanitation on mold in residential environments, which was later published in the Annals of Allergy Medicine.”
  
  As well as practicing indoor environmental law, Betsill was a trainer for Enviro-Mold’s Remediation Boot Camp.
  
  Donations for the Jerry and Emma Betsill Memorial Fund may be sent to: Broude, Smith, and Jennings, 309 West 7th St. Suite 1100, Fort Worth, TX 76102.

Although President Bush’s Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001 was passed by Congress earlier this year, one facet of the law may never get off the ground. The law, which is the budget and blueprint for the U.S. Department of Education, calls for a national study of unhealthy public school buildings but does not specify how such a study should be funded. And this is jeopardizing the status of the study.

The study and a federal renovation grants program (see story on page 13) are amendments from Sen. Hillary Clinton’s, D-N.Y., “Healthy and High Performance Schools Act,” that were added to the bill late last year before reaching Bush’s desk. Clinton defined a “healthy and high performance school” school as one whose facility uses energy-efficient and affordable practices and materials, is cost-effective, enhances indoor air quality, and protects and conserves water.

The purpose of the study, as called for in the legislation, is to assess the health and learning impacts of environmentally unhealthy public school buildings on students and teachers. Bush requested that funding for the study be at the discretion of the Department of Education. But since the bill passed, little work has been done in the Department of Education to include the study in its budget.

According to the Healthy Schools Network, various school groups have made a number of attempts this year to convince Education Secretary Rod Paige to commit funds for the research project.

Until such research can be funded, the study will not happen.

“The Department of Education was to have been given money [for the study],” said Claire Barnett, executive director of the Healthy Schools Network. “Conservatives in congress opposed any funding for it.”

Barnett pointed to some education department heads who have been making efforts to see that the study will come to fruition. She said that Paige had developed an educational improvement fund. “It is hoped that he will see his way clear to taking initiative on that,” Barnett added.

She also stated that the joint congressional appropriations committee was providing support for Paige’s fund. No further information on this possible funding was available at press time.

The Department of Education’s press office did not return calls from IE Connections.

“There is ongoing research in the field right now as far as child environmental health, but the various federal agencies need to combine their findings,” said Barnett. “There’s another plan afoot here,” she then added, hinting at an agreement in the works between the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency.

She identified two people who might be working on an interdisciplinary plan: Bill Modzeleski, director of the Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-free Schools

program, and Bob Axelrad of EPA’s Indoor Environments division. Barnett said she could provide no further information about what those agencies may be considering.

Axelrad, when contacted, provided no information about this possible joint venture between the two agencies. He said that the EPA would not comment on the status of the Education Department’s study.

Barnett said, “Child environmental health messages pretty well permeate federal agencies.” She said she finds this to be encouraging. “They haven’t done it yet, but they’ve only had about five or six months. We certainly hope that they will, because the Bush administration has hung its hat on educational reform. If they don’t account for [past promises], they’re not going to succeed in their goals.”

“We’d love to see that study done,” said Daniel Swartz, executive director of the Children’s Environmental Health Network. “One of the problems with talking about healthy schools is that there’s no data. We find this to be a reason for concern.”

He cited grim statistics about existing school facilities. “The average age of school buildings is higher than for any other type of public building in the country,” Swartz said. “They also have the highest average density rate.”

Such conditions have been known to contribute to health problems, he said. “In some schools, we know there are problems and just guess that it’s likely in others.”

Barnett cited a number of known cases throughout the United States where schools contributed to health problems. One of the most drastic, according to the Healthy Schools Network Web site, was this: “A school renovation project in Greenwich, N.Y., left cement and construction dust all over buildings, fiberglass exposed in the library, paint fumes in the elementary schools, heavy equipment and jackhammers outside classrooms, and electric wires and pipes exposed.”

A full list of such incidents across the United States is available at www.healthyschools.org, under the “Good News, Bad News” section. The good news includes findings about environmental conditions that lead to improved student health and progress, as well as improvements that have been made in some school districts.

One of Barnett’s goals as the executive director for that nonprofit organization is to bring information about health and public schools into public awareness. She said that although the topic is well known in government agencies, “It has not reached into educational constituencies or the private sector. It’s not a common topic of conversation.”

According to the Leave No Child Behind Act, the study it requires would determine the characteristics of those public elementary and secondary school buildings that contribute to unhealthy school environments. The study would also identify the health and learning impacts of environmental unhealthy public school buildings on students that are attending or that have attended such schools.

Upon conclusion of the study, recommendations would be made to Congress on how to assist schools, complete with an estimated cost that would bring environmentally unhealthy public school buildings to minimum federal health and safety building standards.

Clean And Dry Schools Can Achieve Healthy IAQ

Schools are special environments that exist for the purpose of teaching and learning. Schools are environments that house sensitive segments of the population. Schools are high-activity environments that need constant attention in the form of cleaning, maintenance, and repair. When essential environmental management and hygiene does not occur in the highly active school environment we find deteriorated air quality accompanied with health complaints.

In the United States there are about 120,000 schools (approximately 85,000 public schools) providing for the educational needs of approximately 54 million students. On average, students receive about 20 percent of their environmental exposure in schools. Unfortunately, many school facilities throughout the United States, estimated at more than 50 percent, have environmental problems caused by water intrusion, broken HVAC systems, and ineffective or non-existent cleaning programs. All these conditions adversely affect environmental quality, including air quality. These problems need not exist and are preventable. Environmental quality and risk are managed to an acceptable level indoors by source and activity management, ventilation, cleaning, maintenance, and restoration. Environmental quality of a school is a matter of “willingness to pay” for the management necessary to keep the school environment healthy.

There is growing evidence that when a school building is in disrepair, teaching and student achievement suffers. In many public schools, students and teachers find themselves in an environment that adversely affects their morale, and their health. The school environment does the exact opposite of what it should do and works against the education process. Far too often public school systems elect to postpone repairs and delay construction of new facilities to divert money during periods of financial austerity. Making cuts in roof repair, maintenance, and cleaning is mistakenly considered less devastating than slashing academic programs. The consequences of choosing to defer school maintenance include premature building deterioration, indoor air problems, increased repair and replacement costs, and reduced operating efficiency of equipment. The price tag for deferring school maintenance has two very big and unacceptable costs. First there is the health effect and poor educational performance cost. Second, there is the cost of accelerated damages and premature replacement of the school facility itself.

Even though schools are the focus of constant public debate and discussion, education policy and decision makers need to readjust their thinking about the full value and contribution of the school environment to the learning process. More effort is needed to provide healthy school facilities by properly identifying and correcting the causes of environmental degradation before they get out of control and not simply draw attention to the to deteriorated IAQ and adverse health effects that are only symptoms of the real problem which is school environment mismanagement and devaluation.

We need to recognize that the main causes of environmentally related illness in schools are water, food sources for the various bio-pollutants, non-existent or ineffective cleaning, and poor ventilation. We should guard against becoming myopic when it comes to assessing environmental risk in school environments. Too often, we spend a large amount of time looking at air quality alone, especially in recent times with regard to mold. This narrow focus is necessary but by no means sufficient to protect the health of our children and their teachers and the quality of our school environments.

To protect health in schools we need to take a close look at total exposure, and not solely focus on the air route of exposure. Bacteria that come from direct contact with other humans and surfaces cause more than 80 percent of environmentally related illness. The main routes of exposure are dermal and ingestion, not air. Even air poses its most serious threats by delivering bacteria and viruses to sensitive receptors. Sufficiently concentrated airborne mold spore and other airborne allergens such as cockroach antigen frequently trigger allergic reactions in sensitized individuals, particularly asthmatics.

IAQ is a powerful management measure for a school environment. For example, an excessive amount of a dominant species of mold spore indoors is a good indication of environmental system malfunction or mismanagement. Abnormally high levels of mold spores, beyond those levels we find in surrounding outdoor air, are almost always associated with water damage, water intrusion, failed HVAC systems, or non-existent or ineffective cleaning programs. Water when combined with an organic nutrient for extended time periods, at elevated temperatures, will result in mold growth and excessive spore level resulting from that growth.

There is nothing profound in understanding what it takes to keep the most threatening indoor air pollutants (bio-pollutants) at a sanitary level in a school. By understanding basic life science, we can successfully manage molds, along with other bio-pollutants, with constant attention to the environmental conditions that prevent mold colonies from decomposing organic materials and growing. We can control mold growth and mold spore levels in schools by keeping interiors and materials in them clean and dry. Mold is a decomposer. Its role in the web of life is to consume organic materials and return carbon which is found in all living matter, back to earth’s crust. Water and organic matter are essential for the existence of mold. Mold does not usually degrade matter by itself but often degrades matter in collaboration with bacteria and insects that are fully compatible with environments in which molds live and die. These other organisms are also bio-pollutants, which affect air quality, and should also be of concern in our discussion of healthy school environments.

The importance of a healthy school environment in enhancing the learning process is described in many studies. There is a direct connection between environmental quality, comfort, health and well-being, positive attitudes and behavior, and higher levels of education performance. The quality of the school environment shapes attitudes of students, teachers and staff. Attitudes affect teaching and learning behavior. Behavior affects performance. Educational performance determines future outcomes of individuals and society as a whole.

Recent studies of high performance schools find that an academically successful school radiates a sense of “well-being”. This sense of “well-being” is the essence of a healthy environment. For school environments to be healthy there must be a serious, if not passionate desire, accompanied with positive action, to keep the environment sanitary or restore non-performing schools to a constant healthy state.

High performance schools manifest common traits. These desirable conditions are always accompanied with good indoor air quality.

• A high performance school seeks and provides adequate space and opportunities for students and teachers to spread out, reflect, interact, exchange information, and examine and test ideas.
• The appearance of the school is inviting, students, teachers, and the local community want it to be there.
• The school has adequate natural lighting that enhances productivity.
• The school strives for student friendly conditions, throughout the building.
• The school is inviting to good teachers and supports their retention.
• The school is designed to reduce stress. It is comfortable, has a consistent temperature, and manages noise.
• The risk of an adverse health effect is very small.

These traits are functional in a school only when that school is clean, dry, and sanitary.

Healthy school environments are planned. When we find a healthy school, we find a management system that creates the healthy condition. The system is a continual cyclic management process that begins with the formulation of an environmental policy, followed by planning, policy implementation, inspection and corrective action, management review, and adjustment of the policy if necessary.

The following are recommended as the focus of an environmental management program for virtually any school:

• Environmental coordinator and reporting system
• Awareness training on the operation of a school building
• Moisture management program that emphasizes roof maintenance and drainage improvement
• Water damage response plan
• Mold management and removal program
• Mechanical ventilation systems assessment and repair
• Cleaning and restoration effectiveness that emphasizes, effective cleaning equipment, well-designed cleaning program and schedule

Along these lines, there are some steps that a school can take to achieve a healthy condition.

First, there needs to be an awareness of how the school building functions. Often, the lack of awareness creates poor environmental conditions inside the school building. A communication program should inform students, faculty and staff about some technical issues behind the school environment. For example, the building as a shelter-designed to keep the outside environment (water and dirt) out, the need for everyone to help keep the indoor environment clean and to practice good personal hygiene, and the nature and role of HVAC systems especially as it controls moisture levels.

Second, moisture in a school building is the main cause of structural damage and health risks. In order to effectively keep water from leaking into the building, the roof must be structurally sound and in good repair. All leaks must be repaired in a timely manner, now, not next year. To mitigate future costs and leaks, a simple low gradient structure above the all too common flat school roof can be installed. This will channel water off the roof.

Third, drainage systems must work around a school. No standing water should be allowed on or around a school. Drainage systems must divert water from the building. Schools should assess the drainage system, improve current drainage systems. Schools should install a drain system for the building as well as guttering where they currently do not exist but are necessary.

Fourth, HVAC aids in the regulation of moisture mitigation and the circulation of fresh air. The school should assess HVAC system performance, repair, and maintain HVAC systems regularly. A ventilation system is necessary to maintain a dry environment. A primary purpose of airflow is to control moisture and prevent the growth of bio-pollutants. This is especially important in a room like the library where books provide a continuous food supply to the organisms. Bio-pollutants (primarily bacteria and fungi) depend upon the availability of moisture and an organic food supply in order to survive and grow. A relative humidity of 70 percent or higher will lead to a moisture level best suited for microbial growth. During the humid summer, air conditioners must be kept on to control moisture. In addition, dehumidifiers should be brought in during periods of high humidity or if the school facility is unresponsive to the ventilation system.

Fifth, if significant amounts of mold exist in a school, the water source should be corrected, and the growing mold along with spores removed properly. Any material containing wet paper is a likely site for mold. Damp wallboard and Sheetrock provide excellent hosts for mold and bacteria. Worse yet are ceiling tiles and the wooden studs behind the walls, which, if they become wet, will breed fungi. If mold is not managed properly, spores will become airborne and spread throughout the building causing allergic reactions. Every school should establish a training program for the identification and safe removal of mold in the building.

Finally, cleaning is the most effective means of achieving a sustainable high level of environmental quality in a school. The primary objective of cleaning is to keep or get pollutants out the building envelope thereby reducing human exposure. A cleaning effectiveness program should include the following:

• Training programs for custodians and teachers
• Doormats as particle barriers
• High efficacy extraction cleaning equipment (vacuum cleaners)
• Hot water extraction of carpet
• Damp mopping of hard surfaces
• Reduced VOC emissions of products

Previous studies have shown that cleaning, maintenance and restoration, when consistently implemented are cost effective and can lead to measurable environmental improvements in school environments. For example, an EPA sponsored study (1994), “The Total Building Cleaning Effectiveness Study,” conducted in collaboration with the professional cleaning industry, demonstrated that an organized cleaning program contributes to reductions in indoor air particles, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and biological pollutants in the range of 50-90 percent.

Every school should establish a cleaning training program for the custodial staff. The custodians must be trained to clean effectively and efficiently. By instructing them on proper use of cleaning materials, proper techniques, the building will become a much healthier environment with far less wasted labor.

The best available cleaning technology and supplies should be provided to school custodians. With effective cleaning equipment and an organized cleaning program that emphasizes the correct use of equipment and the importance of extraction, exposure to particles, bio-pollutants and VOC can be greatly reduced.

Something as simple as a doormat is enormously effective in keeping dirt and debris out of a school building.

In establishing a plan for school cleaning, it is important to remember not to focus just on the floor as a primary site hosting particles, allergens and infectious microorganisms. The bulk of potentially harmful agents are situated higher than that. The hard surfaces on tables, chairs, counters, walls, doors, and sinks in rest rooms and eating areas carry a particularly heavy bio-burden.

The majority of school environments have carpet and proper equipment must be available to clean it. Schools with dirty carpet either do not know how to clean or choose not to. Clean carpet poses no health risk in schools. Some individuals have pointed to carpet as a primary cause of deteriorated IAQ. In fact, it has become politically correct to say, “Tear out the carpet if you really want to clean things up and improve IAQ.” Unfortunately, this unsubstantiated claim occurs mostly in public schools with limited accountability for decision making outcome. It dodges the issue and responsibility of cleaning, transfers pollutants to hard surfaces and indoor air, and is unnecessarily costly to the taxpayer. Most importantly, this incorrect cause-and-effect decision does not address the real need to keep the environment clean and dry, regardless of flooring type, and is a disservice to students, teachers, and staff who deserve and need an elevated level of comfort in their teaching and learning environment with the amenities that carpeting can offer: soft surface on which to stand long hours, warm and energizing colors, glare reduction, and noise control.

There is no inherent reason why any surface including carpet and fabrics in a school cannot be kept clean. There needs to be a scheduled program for cleaning with two key elements, a high flow water extraction system and high-quality vacuum cleaner, both of which minimize air contamination during and after cleaning. Effective vacuuming alone removes 90 to 95 percent of all dry particles with a routine cleaning schedule. Periodic hot water extraction of carpet removes remaining particles and bio-pollutant food sources.

Air filtration is an important consideration when choosing a vacuum for a school environment. In fact, an effective vacuum cleaner promotes good indoor air quality. Regardless of the surface to which it is applied, if not constructed properly, vacuum cleaners can be aerosol generators, simply spreading dust and dirt throughout the air. If dust and other particulates are allowed to pass directly through the vacuum, then high airflow becomes irrelevant to the removal of particles. Instead of being extracted from the environment, these particles become airborne, placing them right back into the sensitive environment from which they came.

In conclusion, school environments have an influence on the educational process far beyond that which we have previously recognized. Schools have flexible management options for creating healthy productive environments. The key to a healthy school is to know the importance of “clean and dry” and the necessary tools, techniques, and management systems to achieve those conditions. Following the “clean and dry” principle will provide for healthy IAQ but more importantly provide for environments where teachers and students can be at their best.

Dr. Michael A. Berry is a research professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he teaches and writes on business and environment, built environments, and environmental management systems. His is currently focusing his research in the area of school and health care environments. Berry retired from EPA in 1998 where as a senior manager and scientist he served as the deputy director of National Center for Environmental Assessment at Research Triangle Park, N.C. Between 1985 and 1994, he served as EPA’s manager for indoor air research. You can reach him by e-mail at DrMABerry@aol.com.

Because of the nature of IAQ work, sooner or later, most professionals will wind up in court, either as plaintiffs or defendants, or as expert witnesses. IAQ investigations, especially mold investigations, often involve the explosive combination of large sums of money, human health risks, and a lack of widely-accepted industry standards. When you make judgments or recommendations that have the potential to displace people from their homes, shut down businesses or schools, slow real estate transactions, you incur the risk of getting pulled into ensuing litigation.

In this environment, what can you do to limit your exposure? Here are some tips on how to protect yourself:

• Education and Training: Stay on top of the industry and make sure that your knowledge of science, standards, protocols and interpretation is up-to-date. If you do not have the depth of knowledge you would like, then take some additional courses, especially those that provide certifications or credits that you can use to defend your expertise in court.
• Insurance: Carry sufficient insurance that includes Professional Errors and Omissions in addition to Professional Liability. Being good isn’t enough – you also need insurance.
• Procedures: Use standardized investigation procedures and protocols; keep equipment maintenance records; and document everything you do, including legible inspection records, clear communications with your clients, and copies of all reports.
• Choose the Right Lab: A good lab will be an asset, rather than a liability, when it comes to legal challenges. A lab with degreed, experienced analysts who can defend their work in court, well-documented procedures, and a world-class quality system can help your recommendations stand up in court.

Choosing the right lab is an important part of reducing your risk because it can significantly affect your ability to defend your findings in court. Nevertheless, it is not always obvious how to pick the right lab. Consequently, the focus of this article is how to insure that your laboratory will be an asset, not a liability.

Most IAQ professionals would like a laboratory that provides high quality analysis, good service, fast turnaround time, and reasonable prices. The first step in selecting a lab is to decide which factors are most important to you. When data needs to stand up in court, then quality and reliability should be important factors in choosing a lab.

Selecting a reliable laboratory is an important business decision. How do you know that your data is accurate? Is the quality system documented and proven? Are your samples analyzed by a degreed, experienced, trained mycologist every time, or do experienced mycologists only supervise unskilled analysts? Does each analyst think about your sample, your project, and understand what you are looking for? Can you call the analyst and ask them “what’s going on here?” and get a helpful and insightful answer? Do they call you proactively if they notice something unusual? The answers to these questions can mean the difference between winning lawsuits and leaving you and your clients exposed.

A reliable lab should help you make better recommendations by providing good quality data and excellent service. They should also help you make decisions by helping you understand the process of interpretation and the science behind it. Choosing a lab that can support you in these ways will add clarity to your investigations, not confusion.

What do I mean by “quality”? Well, for example, how confident are you that starch granules, which can be common in indoor environments, are not being reported as mold spores? This is just one of the common mistakes I have seen from experienced laboratories due to poor quality systems or inadequate analyst training, education or experience. A mistake like that can lead to inappropriate recommendations, unnecessary expenditures, or can cause your client to lose a lawsuit.
Asking the following questions will help you identify the most reliable and accurate laboratories:

The Analysts
The analyst is the person who identifies and counts the mold spores or colonies. Ultimately, the quality of your analysis depends upon the quality of the analyst. To do their job well, an analyst needs the education, training, and experience to correctly identify the more than one hundred fungal genera and species commonly found in indoor environments. They should also understand the science of mold growth and indoor air quality investigations.

In the case of spore trap analysis, for example, the analyst must make decisions based upon very subtle differences in color, size and shape, between different spore types and other particles. Obscure morphological differences, such as spore attachment points, can place spores in widely differing taxonomic groups.

Currently, no automated method exists (such as PCR or computer vision systems) that can produce high-quality results as quickly, inexpensively and accurately as a well-trained human analyst. Picking a good lab is especially important here, because there is currently no accreditation or certification covering spore trap analysis, and there are no generally-accepted industry analysis standards. (Many people don’t realize that the AIHA EMLAP only covers culturable analysis).

The lesson is: when choosing a lab for spore trap analysis, make sure that every analyst is well-trained. Some labs employ only one or two well-qualified analysts who supervise large teams of low-skilled workers in a production-line environment. Think about who will actually perform your analysis and whether that person will be credible in court. One good clue to look at is the fraction of the analysts who have master’s degrees or Ph.D.s in mycology, microbiology or a related field. A good laboratory should have half or more of the analysts with advanced degrees. When picking a lab, you should also require every analyst who could analyze your samples to have at least a Bachelor’s degree in biology or microbiology.

Training
A good lab should be able to prove that every analyst has undergone formalized, documented training with a qualified expert and each analyst is qualified to release data to clients. Is training data available for review? Are analysts cross-checked and re-trained on a regular basis?
One common misperception is that a one-time course can qualify a person to analyze spore traps. Such programs can be useful and instructive; but there is no short-cut to learning the taxonomy, morphology and biology of the fungi. Learning to recognize the entire array of genera and species of fungi that are important in IAQ investigations requires months of intensive training and one on one time spent with a qualified instructor. Even an advanced degree, by itself, doesn’t guaranty that data are correct.

Accreditation
What about AIHA accreditation and or EMPAT participation? The recent AIHA Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Accreditation Program (EMLAP), in particular the most recent version based upon ISO type of standards, is a good program that provides evidence that a laboratory has formal systems for training, quality control, and other laboratory operations. This is obviously something you would like your laboratory to have, but be aware that accreditation only guarantees that a lab has quality control processes in place – it does not define exactly what those processes should be. For example, it does not require analysts to have a bachelor’s degree, which I consider to be a minimal level for quality fungal analysis.

The portion of the AIHA EMLAP that tests the analytical proficiency of the laboratory is the AIHA Environmental Microbiology Proficiency Analytical Testing (EMPAT) program. Participating laboratories should be willing to share their scores with you, but, unfortunately, most do not. If a lab is not willing to reveal their results, this should be a “red flag.” The EMPAT program sends out three sets of three fungal isolates every year to be identified by fungal culture. This program verifies that at least one person at the laboratory can accurately identify fungi by culture. However, it is important to recognize that this program does not measure the analytical proficiency of the average analyst at the lab, just the best analyst.

The Pan American Aerobiology Association (PAAA) is working on a program to test spore trap proficiency, but until that process is complete, no certification or accreditation is available for non-viable analysis.

Quality Assurance And Quality Control
Are there clear, written procedures for every function in the lab and for the quality system? Are these procedures rigorously followed and enforced? The best way to find out is to quiz laboratory employees at random (over the phone or in person) about procedures and quality systems. On the analytical end, does the laboratory perform blind duplicate comparisons amongst analysts to assure consistent, reliable and provable analytical quality?

Laboratory Tour
A lab tour gives you the chance to “kick the tires,” meet the analysts, and evaluate the overall professionalism of the lab. A reputable laboratory should always give clients the opportunity to visit. A lab tour is a great way to help make an informed decision. When you go on a lab tour, talk to the employees and quiz them on their quality systems. It’s a good way to find out if their quality systems are real, or just words.

Service
How good is the overall service of the laboratory, including phone support, web references, 24/7 access to your data online and customized reports? For example, a good lab should be proactive about calling you to discuss unusual results, mislabeled samples, etc. When you pay for rush analysis, does the laboratory consistently deliver on time? How good is their data management and tracking? Can they document who handled your sample, and when? Is their data management system secure, backed up, and prepared for events like natural disasters and hard drive crashes? Are they able to consistently remember your preferences regarding report delivery and format? Do you have someone you can call if you have a question, and does that person consistently provide you with useful answers?

Check References
Finally, before you settle on a lab, you might consider asking the advice of independent experts in the field. Ask public departments of health, recognized industry experts, or other professionals for their opinions. Choosing a good laboratory can mean the difference between winning lawsuits and leaving you and your clients exposed, and ultimately can save you trouble — and money.

David Gallup is the CEO of Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Inc. (EMLab). EMLab has over 30 years experience in mold testing and bioaerosol analysis, and helped pioneer today’s indoor air quality industry. After becoming president in 1997, Gallup has focused on recruiting and training its industry-leading microbiology team and developing and implementing systems and processes to ensure the highest lab quality and services. He has a B.S. in Engineering and Applied Science from the California Institute of Technology and a Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University, as well as many years of experience in research and development and operations management at TRW North America. You can reach him by calling (866) 888-6653 or by e-mail at dgallup@emlab.com.