Industry Checks Mold Remediation Standard Draft

Publisher's Perspective: Doesn't Smell Like Teen Spirit

Ask Dr. Burge: Mold -- Related to Efflorescence, Grows in Saltwater?

Ooh, That Smell! Sewer Gas Again -- What to Do?

Old Test Methods for Moisture in Floors Replaced

Testing for -- and Analysis of -- Indoor Allergens

New Smoking Bans Suggest Issue Turned Corner
Surgeon General Speaks, Hospitality Industry Listens
By Steve Sauer

“The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard.”

This pithy nugget from U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona was carried in a number of press accounts in June upon the release of his 670-page study, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.”

While public speakers generally eschew such sweeping statements in favor of more moderate ground, the amount of voluntary and legislative action across the country to curb pollution from indoor smoking in the days since the surgeon general spoke out suggest his remarks are being heeded.

The study imparts some premises previously uncorroborated at the federal level, including the existence of an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome and dulled lung growth among children who grow up exposed to smoking.

It also conveys the position – supported by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers – “that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.”

A section on methods of controlling secondhand smoke summarizes the findings of various experiments since 1990 in designated smoking areas and other separation strategies using ventilation. It also considers experiments conducted in settings where smoking was entirely prohibited.

This portion of the study concludes, “On the basis of this review, it is clear that banning smoking from the workplace is the only effective way to ensure that exposures are not occurring. Despite reductions in workplace smoking, significant worker safety issues remain that only smoking bans can address. The home remains the most serious venue for secondhand smoke exposure.”

The surgeon general’s reliance on ASHRAE’s June 2005 white paper on environmental tobacco smoke and other ASHRAE materials marked a success of sorts for the folks at the Atlanta-based Society, who issued a press release on July 12 celebrating its place in the report.

“ASHRAE’s position is that the only way to effectively eliminate health risk associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity,” ASHRAE President Terry Townsend said in the press release. “ASHRAE is pleased that our position was recognized by the U.S. government.”

In the meantime, ASHRAE’s work on secondhand smoke continues to evolve. Standing Standard Project Committee 62.1 in June approved the public review of an addendum to Standard 62.1-2004 that is related to ventilation for areas with environmental tobacco smoke.

According to ASHRAE public relations manager Jodi Dunlop, “This addendum eliminates the current requirement for increased minimum ventilation and/or air cleaning in Section 6.2.9. It also eliminates the current mandatory statement in Note 2 of Table 6-1, which requires that minimum ventilation rates for smoking-permitted areas be determined using methods other those associated with the prescribed rates in the table.”

ASHRAE’s public review of the addendum is expected to be announced after its text is finalized.

Reactions from Stakeholders Vary
Perhaps based on the assumption that public indoor areas do not or cannot have adequate ventilation to protect occupants from harmful exposure to secondhand smoke, lawmakers in various states and municipalities around the world have enacted bans on smoking in those areas. Many observers believe the presupposition in the surgeon general’s report that ventilation provides inadequate protection will invigorate anti-smoking advocates’ efforts to ban the activity indoors in jurisdictions where no prohibition currently exists.

On this point, the position of the Building Owners and Managers Association is clear. The organization has traditionally supported smoking bans in buildings, saying secondhand smoke is not only an indoor air contaminant but also “a significant liability concern for owners and tenants.” Its official position paper on the topic opens with a curt sentence: “Second-hand smoke does not belong in buildings.”

The brevity of BOMA International’s comments on smoking – unchanged since the surgeon general’s report was issued – contrasts with the lengthier statements issued by associations representing the restaurant and casino industries. The National Restaurant Association and the American Gaming Association, for differing reasons, do not support enacting full smoking bans in indoor spaces.

For the National Restaurant Association, the reason is a matter of choice – both for those dining in restaurants and those providing the restaurant for their patrons. “With 925,000 restaurant-and-foodservice locations across the country, our industry is one of choice,” says a statement provided by the association’s media relations manager, Annika Stensson. “Restaurant operators, like most Americans, want to be free to make their own choices – choices that are best for them, their employees and their customers. Customers also have a choice in what establishments they patronize based on their own personal needs, tastes and preferences. ...

“Customer opinion also plays a critical role in the decisions that restaurants make. For some restaurants, this means being able to declare their establishments smoke-free and for others being able to accommodate smoking customers.”

The National Restaurant Association’s statement also says there is a study that “claims smoking ordinances or bans have no impact on restaurants.” Stensson added that this claim is not correct in every situation.

“Should a smoking ban be put in place, restaurants do adapt to the new conditions, but the economic impact of that adjustment may vary,” said Stensson. “Saying all businesses can adapt without effects is too simplistic a statement.”

The American Gaming Association’s position is admittedly “neither pro-smoking nor anti-smoking” but instead strives to juggle the desires of customers and employees who smoke and those who do not. The association’s position paper on IAQ contends “that the gaming industry must make the development of an industrywide approach to indoor air quality a primary concern.” It states, however, that the release of the surgeon general’s report “suggests the industry may need to develop even more stringent IAQ controls than are suggested here.”

The position paper mentions the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, the site of separate monitoring studies published in 1999 and 2005 that tracked the indoor air and determined that the ventilation system there improves the air. “Bellagio Hotel and Casino’s system illustrates a particularly successful version of dilution ventilation,” the American Gaming Association paper says.

“However,” it continues, “the Bellagio system requires 100 percent outdoor air, which may not be feasible in all buildings. The Bellagio system also is expensive from an energy efficiency standpoint, especially during the very warm summer months in Las Vegas.”

The paper goes on to describe the process used by displacement systems that are effective and produce better energy efficiency. “There also is a significant side benefit for casinos: well designed air displacement systems would move secondhand smoke up and away from occupants and remove it from a casino with little or no mixing.”

While the association believes that “technology currently exists to provide air quality in smoking areas that is at least equal to or, in some cases, even better than outside air,” it says science supporting this thesis is not necessarily guaranteed widespread acceptance among smoking opponents.

“The gaming industry’s first efforts to use ventilation to remove secondhand smoke are promising,” says the position paper. “The monitoring results suggest that significantly improved air quality can be achieved, and perhaps can be comparable to buildings where smoking is banned completely. However, these initial indications must be tested and repeated to gain credibility. ... Such research must be independent, sound and peer-reviewed.”

Judy Patterson, the association’s senior vice president and executive director, said she expects smoking to “be a featured point of discussion at our upcoming fall board meeting.”
In the meantime, some major hotel chains have been implementing smoking bans in their facilities. Following a move by the Westin hotel chain earlier this year, Marriott International Inc. announced on July 19 that all 2,300 of its hotels and corporate apartments would go entirely smoke-free in all indoor spaces in September, including “all guest rooms, restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, public space and employee work areas.” The rule applies to all of the lodging company’s brands, including Marriott, Renaissance and Ritz-Carlton among others.

J.W. Marriott Jr., chairman and CEO, addressed secondhand smoke in a press release, saying the new measure is a matter of good customer service. “Creating a smoke-free environment demonstrates a new level of service and care for our guests and associates,” he said. “Our family of brands is united on this important health issue and we anticipate very positive customer feedback.”

Marriott said that guests’ demand for non-smoking rooms has been on the rise. It said in the release that 90 percent of its guestrooms were already smoke-free.

Filtration and the Federal Arena
The topic of filtration was mentioned during last month’s meeting of the Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality, resulting in a hearty discussion involving many of the participants. Representatives of the CIAQ agreed that the theme for the next meeting should focus on filtration.

The next meeting is tentatively scheduled to take place Oct. 18 in a room at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, D.C. For the latest information on the CIAQ meeting, visit www.epa.gov/iaq/ciaq or call Executive Secretary Philip Jalbert at (202) 343-9431.
    

Industry Checks Mold Remediation Standard Draft
By Steve Sauer

A new version of the industry’s standard for mold remediation was released for peer review last month, allowing an initial tally of 309 industry professionals some insight into the revisions that have been ongoing since the publication of the standard’s first edition at the end of 2003.

This draft version of the IICRC S520 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation” was made available on July 15 to individuals who had requested to participate in a peer review. An e-mail from IICRC standards consultant Larry Cooper the previous day explained how reviewers could gain secure password-assisted Web access to the draft. Facilitated by the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, the 45-day review period is set to end on Aug. 30, at which time access to the document should be terminated and all peer review comments should be received.

The first edition of the IICRC S520 contained a decidedly original approach toward action based on levels of contamination, rather than on size of the area to be remediated. Given the industry’s widespread acceptance of the S520 since it was introduced over two-and-a-half years ago, the standard seems to have effectively ushered in a paradigm shift in terms of its contamination levels.

Billing the S520 as a work in progress, its authors returned to the drawing board early in 2004 to update the document on a continual basis. The tangible consequence of their toils, this draft version, is not without its fair share of positions that could be viewed as prospective controversies. For instance, some newly revised sections in the draft document take stances on such contentious topics as the use of blasting in contents cleaning and when in the remediation process the use of misting is most appropriate.

The draft version of the S520 currently available for review is believed to have been given the overhaul necessary to make the document format technically acceptable for approval by the American National Standards Institute. However, one issue some in the industry believe may have the potential to derail ANSI’s acceptance of the standard is its use of the term “indoor environmental professional,” which IICRC has successfully registered with the U.S. government as a trademark.

The Use of Blasting in Contents Cleaning
An S520 draft section on the various methods available for the cleaning of contents – including air-based methods such as HEPA vacuuming, air washing and dry heat technology, plus liquid-based methods – says remediators should be cautious when using abrasive cleaning methods so that particles are not aerosolized.

While the draft document cites abrasive blast cleaning as an acceptable method to clean semi-porous contents with conditions 2 and 3 contamination, it also warns about the increased risk of spreading contaminants when techniques like sand blasting, sponge blasting, soda blasting and dry ice blasting are used indoors.

Such abrasive blasting techniques “have a strong tendency to aerosolize the particles they remove from the surface,” according to the draft document. It says this can cause “extremely high” airborne contaminant levels and possible exposure hazards in areas that were previously unaffected.

For this reason, the draft says, abrasive blasting techniques should be avoided indoors unless aerosolization “can be adequately controlled,” for instance, by using “high-volume, laminar airflow cleaning chambers.”

When Misting Should Be Applied
Another topic in the draft is misting, which the draft defines as “the method of atomizing water or other aqueous solutions as a vapor into the air for the purpose of controlling airborne and surface particulates during remediation.”

While the draft says that misting should “be considered for post-remediation dust suppression and clean up purposes,” it also notes that there is controversy within the remediation industry as to when in the remediation process the use of misting is most effective.

The draft also recommends that misting be used only “in conjunction with adequate engineering controls,” such as isolation, pressure differentials, airflow and exchange rates, air-filtration devices, HEPA and other vacuum systems, and dehumidification.

Use of the Term ‘Indoor Environmental Professional,’ or ‘IEP’
A chapter in the standard called “Indoor Environmental Professional” lays out the definition of this term as used in the standard, interchangeably with the acronym “IEP.” The standard’s defines an IEP as being “qualified by knowledge, skill, education, training and/or experience” for certain work, without addressing what party is to determine whether such an individual is qualified.

However, another definition of the term “indoor environmental professional” used by the IICRC yet not found in the S520 draft specifies that IICRC is the authority to deem whether or not an individual is qualified to act as an IEP.

“That the certified firm or member has satisfied the standards of education, training and experience established by the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification to perform investigations of mold and biological contaminants ...” reads the relevant part of the definition IICRC provided the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in successfully acquiring a trademark registration for the term last September.

A separate trademark application for the term’s three-letter acronym, which uses the same definition, is currently pending with the trademark office.

IICRC has toyed with the possibility of launching its own Indoor Environmental Professional certification or designation. While never publicly explained, the organization’s Web site contained basic information about an IEP designation for a brief period last summer. A certification program failed to come to fruition at that time, and all references to it on the IICRC Web site were removed, again with no public explanation.

A printout of the short-lived page on the IEP designation, dated July 9, 2005, was submitted on behalf of IICRC to provide evidence of the term “indoor environmental professional” being used in commerce. The page defines an indoor environmental professional: “For purposes of this certification program, an IEP is an IICRC registrant that has satisfied the IICRC requirements of education, training, experience, knowledge or skill established by the IICRC to perform investigations of mold and biological contaminants ...”

The page also outlines “Specific Qualifications of an IEP Required for IICRC Certification,” which include relevant underlying certifications, a four-year college degree in one of several specified fields, three years of field experience, membership in an industry organization, and proof of an insurance policy worth a minimum of $1,000,000. It sets an application fee of $150 and a certification renewal fee of $60.

One caveat holds that IICRC retains the right “to terminate the program.”

IICRC S520 and ANSI
The American National Standards Institute provided notice of a 45-day public review of the IICRC S520 in the July 28 edition of its weekly electronic newsletter “Standards Action.”

IICRC had said in a June 2 news release that its separate peer and public reviews of the standard would be conducted simultaneously. Larry Cooper said that since the public review with ANSI started two weeks after the IICRC peer review, he expects the peer review deadline will be extended into mid September to coincide with the ANSI public review deadline.

The IICRC S520 is likely to become the organization’s second ANSI standard, closely following the acceptance of ANSI status to the newly revised IICRC S500 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration,” published in June.
The S500 was also the first restoration standard to bear ANSI’s seal of approval. If the S520 is accepted, it would likely be ANSI’s second restoration standard.
Individuals wishing to take part in the ANSI public review of the S520 draft should contact Cooper by e-mail at textilecon@aol.com for secure online access and instructions on commenting.

‘IEP’ and ANSI
Some insiders have speculated whether or not the IICRC’s use of the term “indoor environmental professional” in the S520 complies with an ANSI rule regarding the inclusion of trademarks and the recommendation for specific services.

Both the first edition of the IICRC S520 and the peer review draft specify that certain work should be performed by an “indoor environmental professional,” or “IEP.”

While ANSI rules do not prohibit the use of trademarks in an American national standard, Section 3.2 of the document “ANSI Essential Requirements: Due Process Requirements for American National Standards” reveals the accrediting body’s official stance. It says, “Generally, it is not acceptable to include proper names or trademarks of specific companies or organizations in the text of a standard or in an annex (or the equivalent).”

The same section requires that any reference to a specific service that is “necessary to determine compliance with the standard” should be followed by the words “or the equivalent.”

IICRC attorney Mark Hansen could not be reached during the week of July 23. When dialed, his voice mailbox was full and could not accept new messages.

IICRC S500 Workshops
In other IICRC news, workshops explaining the S500 standard on water damage restoration were to begin this month, hitting cities across the country. The last August date, to be held in Detroit on the 23rd, is to be followed up with four dates in September and one in October.

Some previously announced dates and locations for S500 workshops have changed. Currently scheduled over the next two months, according to a promotional e-mail distributed on July 25, are the following:

• Sept. 6: Waco, Texas
   

• Sept. 7: Nashville, Tenn.
   

• Sept. 13: Sacramento, Calif.
   

• Sept. 24: Las Vegas, Nev., one day after the Connections Convention and Trade Show ends
   

• Oct. 10: Orlando, Fla.

For more information or to register for a one-day workshop, visit www.iicrc.org or contact Textile Consultants by e-mail at textilecon@aol.com or by phone at (303) 469-0306.
    

Publisher's Perspective: Doesn't Smell Like Teen Spirit
Glenn Fellman
Publisher

Each day on my drive to work, I pass an elementary school a few miles from my office. One day in early April, between my morning and evening drives, 10 trailers were offloaded to the school’s large soccer field. School crowding in Maryland, like in so many other places, has caused school officials to look to portable classrooms as a cheaper alternative than building new schools or expanding existing buildings.

I once heard Dr. Richard Shaughnessy of the University of Tulsa quip, “I don’t know why they call them portable classrooms. Once they are installed, they never move.” He is right. There are schools in my county that have had portable classrooms on their campuses for over a decade.

The new portable classrooms that showed up at the school near my office were constructed like double-wide trailers. Each half of the trailer was dropped onto the field facing its companion piece, ostensibly so they could be connected and made into a closed structure. The “open” sides of the trailer that would connect were facing each other a few feet apart, with plastic tarps covering the open sides to protect against the elements.

The next night, I drove slowly by the school, expecting to see that the contractors had connected the portable classroom’s sides together. Nope! And not the next day, or the next week, or the next month, either.

During those months, our area received extraordinary amounts of rain: More than 14 inches fell in June, including 10 inches in a 48-hour period. The storms brought high winds and damaging hail. During the storms, the plastic sheeting protecting the open sides of the portable classrooms unfastened. Day after day, I drove by and watched the plastic tarps blowing in the breeze, exposing the interiors of the portable classrooms. It wasn’t until early July that the sides were fastened together and sealed.

Since school is not in session, earlier this week I took the liberty of walking onto school grounds for an unofficial inspection of the new portables. A peek through the windows revealed my worst suspicions: The classrooms were filthy, with construction dust, water staining, and piles of wet debris littering the floors.

The school is currently unoccupied. Even the administration has the summer off, apparently, because I haven’t seen a car parked at the building since the portable classrooms were “completed” a few weeks ago.

So, there sit the new portable classrooms for next year’s students, sealed tight in the sweltering summer heat with no running mechanical systems and dust and soggy construction debris inside. They may very well sit like that for several more weeks, as school doesn’t begin for a month and a half.

I hope that, in August, I will start to see school maintenance working to create acceptable conditions inside those portable classrooms, if it’s even possible now. I will be watching closely. When administrators come back to school in mid-August, I am also planning to stop by and to speak with them. I doubt they are even aware of the condition of their portables, much less the potential health consequence of housing students in them if they are not thoroughly remediated. I plan to make them aware. I also plan to drop off an EPA IAQ Tools for Schools kit that I have on my shelf, and a list of state and county IAQ resources.

I am going to give this school every chance to do the right thing and to get those portable classrooms fit for occupancy, and I will do what I can to help them. If they don’t act to protect the health and safety of their students and faculty, they will have to face the media’s scrutiny – and I’m not talking about IE Connections; I’m taking about Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS. The media love stories about public officials who waste taxpayer money, neglect their responsibilities and endanger children’s health.
  

I am addressing two questions this time as they are related mycologically. And, as usual, the answers are yes and no.

First, is there a relationship between efflorescence and mold?

Second, do fungi grow in saltwater?

Efflorescence is not mold, but it is often described in the same terms used for mold – white fluffy, fuzzy, powdery stuff on walls. It occurs when water gradually seeps through masonry materials such as concrete, clay tile, or brick. As the water moves through the material it dissolves salts, which are then precipitated on the surface as the water dries. Hazy and/or crystalline blooms on artwork are also called efflorescence and, in fact, may be caused by mold. For artwork problems, I recommend that you contact a conservator. Your local museum can usually help, or you can contact the American Institute for Conservation.

Focusing on concrete and masonry, the key word for any relationship with mold is water. Where there is water, there is mold. So, to answer the second question, it is probably the case that some kinds of fungi can grow in the very salty environment that is efflorescence. Fortunately, we don’t see them often, and they are so highly adapted to the high salt environment that we don’t see them on other kinds of building materials. You can readily differentiate mold and efflorescence by touching it. The fluffy stuff will crumble while fluffy fungal growth will not. Needless to say, solving the water problem is the key to controlling the efflorescence and any mold that might result.

Similarly, there are also fungi that grow in sea water, although they are not generally the same species that we see in fresh water flooding or condensation events. Actually, a single sea water flooding event would probably lead to similar kinds of fungal growth as with any other wetting event. Penicillium and Aspergillus species would predominate, especially since these two genera include many species that are xerotolerant (they can grow in low water/high solute environments). In fact, we sometimes add salt to culture media to capture these species.

I have encountered one case where salt from ocean air accumulated inside ventilation system ductwork. Salt is hygroscopic, so there was a small amount of water associated with the salt, and a fungus called Sterigmatomyces colonized the ductwork surfaces. Sterigmatomyces is a marine fungus that had not been found in ductwork, and, to my knowledge, has still not been reported from that material. In the case that I saw, we recovered it on ordinary culture media (malt extract agar). However, it grows poorly on that medium and I think we only saw it because there was such a massive infestation. Sterigmatomyces produces very tiny white colonies, and small colorless spores that are shaped much like basidiospores. It is conceivable that reports of indoor basidiospore concentrations exceeding those outdoors could be an indication of this fungus in a marine environment.

Dr. Harriet Burge is director of aerobiology at Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Inc. and associate professor and director of the microbiology laboratory at the Harvard School of Public Health. Widely considered the leading expert in IAQ, Burge pioneered the field more than 30 years ago. She has served as a member of three National Academy of Sciences committees for IAQ, including as vice chair of the Committee on the Health Effects of Indoor Allergens.

To submit a question to Dr. Burge, write to her by e-mail at askdrburge@emlab.com. All questions posed to Burge will receive a reply, although space limitations prevent us from publishing them all. By submitting a question, you agree to have your question and its answer published in a future edition of IE Connections.
 

It’s the fourth week since school has been back in session, and on Friday morning there is a distinct smell of something like sewer gas in the teacher’s room.

This school underwent a major renovation during the past three summer periods. This past summer was the last one, and teachers look forward to returning to a now completed renovated facility with an expanded administration area, the addition of 10 classrooms and, finally, air-conditioning.

A similar sewer-like odor problem occurred near the media center after the first summer of work, when new waterless urinals were installed. There, the maintenance department managed to make the smell leave by tightening a few slip joint nuts on loose ferrules under three of the four new waterless units that appeared to have not been tightened when they were installed.

The situation in the newly renovated teachers’ room is pretty smelly, and folks have reported a burning eye sensation when in the room. Someone thought it might be a stink bomb, but the smell has continued for the better part of four hours since it began around 10 a.m.

It has been deemed unsafe for the teachers to use the room, and the health and safety department has stated that the problem must be found before the room can be reoccupied.

Let’s look at some of the likely candidates for a source of sewer gas smell.

Floor drains: Most custodial staffers know that unused floor drains dry up and let sewer gas into the building unless someone puts mineral oil or non-toxic antifreeze in them to keep them from evaporating over the summer. It turns out that there is an old floor drain in the bathroom off of the teacher’s room, but upon checking, it is confirmed that no odor is present near it, and use of a chemical smoke pencil above it shows no flow of air from it, even when the newly installed exhaust fan is operated.

Additionally, a search of the area reveals that there are no visible floor drains to be found within 40 feet of the teachers’ room.

Loose sink drain fittings: As was found previously with the waterless urinals, another standard failure point is a loose sink drain connection or a new drain line that was assembled without a sealing ferrule. A check of the sink in the teachers’ room and the adjoining restroom, including the new waterless urinals, reveals all joints tightly connected, and none have missing sealing rings (ferrules).

Failing seal under toilets: Another possible failure point is the wax ring under a floor mount toilet, or even a poorly glued or leaded joint on the toilet flange itself. Initial evaluation of the toilets in the vicinity reveals that they have been replaced and wall mounted during the renovation. There are no strong smells or air leaks indicated near the joints even when the exhaust fans are on, using a chemical smoke pencil.

Dry A/C condensate trap and a roof drain under it: Another item we have seen cause problems is a dried-out A/C condensate trap that allows the rooftop HVAC unit to pull odiferous air into the HVAC unit from above a roof drain that dumps to a smelly catch basin. It can smell as bad as sewer gas, and typically only happens when the accumulated debris in the catch basin goes anaerobic, and the building is in the heating mode inducing airflow out of the roof drain. In this case, it was determined that the A/C trap was, in fact, now dry, even though it had been wet all summer. However, adding water to the trap did not make the smell leave, and the roof drain did not smell particularly nasty.

Rooftop re-entrainment: Another fairly common event is re-entrainment of rooftop sanitary vents into air intakes under certain wind conditions. Typically, this happens when a rooftop HVAC unit has been added to serve an area, and a stink pipe already exists nearby that does not get relocated. In this case, it is determined that a new “rooftop” A/C unit with ventilation was, in fact, added to serve the teacher’s room and the adjoining administration area during this most recent renovation, replacing the ancient unit ventilators. Review of the roof layout reveals a stink pipe within about 10 feet of the A/C unit that was installed, and now there is a pretty significant odor on the roof at the unit that contains the smells. Further evaluation reveals the wind this day to be from a rather infrequent direction. When chemical smoke is released at the sewer vent, the smoke appears to move directly toward the air intake of the A/C unit that serves the teachers’ area. To find out if this is the cause of all the smells, a heavy-duty sealable bag is carefully duct-taped over the exit of the sewer vent. This action results in the smell inside being reduced somewhat, but it does not go away. Folks decide to give the situation the rest of the day to dissipate, and then check to see if it goes away. Early the next morning, the room is found to be much better than the day before, but the smell is clearly not gone.

Sewer gas vent leakage: Clearly, there appears to be a source of sewer gas smell that is somehow making its way to the newly remodeled and expanded teachers’ room, and that the pathway or pathways have not been found. There are a variety of methods for testing the sanitary vent system for leaks, as summarized below.

• Hydro test: In new construction, the vent systems would most often be tested as part of a hydro test. In renovations, this is often pretty impractical to accomplish. In addition, it also does not test the joints of fixtures that are installed after a test.
   

• Peppermint oil: Some folks have found that dumping a small quantity of peppermint oil (from the local drug store) into rooftop stink pipe vents is a useful diagnostic test. We seldom have used this method. In this case, the school district tried it, and indeed, the peppermint smell shows up inside with no one still having an idea of the pathway.
    

• Smoke bombs: There are chemical-generating smoke bombs that can be placed in a sanitary vent to reveal leaks. Sometimes, plumbers actually have them available.
   

• Theatrical smoke as a test medium: After many years of dealing with this type of situation, we have found that the most time-effective method for figuring out sewer gas smell is to attach a moisture-resistant fan to a convenient cleanout with a flexible hose and proceed to use the small flow and slight pressure from the fan to fill the entire sanitary vent system with piña colada-flavored theatrical smoke. Once this is done, one simply observes where and when the smoke shows up. (Turn off all smoke detectors first, or call the alarm company. It’s a bad idea to bring out the fire department while doing this testing.) One can test very large systems by gradually capping rooftop vents and watching the smoke move further and further away from the injection point.

In this case, testing was done, and two sources of sewer gas leakage were found. One source was a pipe with a poor chemical weld joint – one that someone had not glued. A more interesting and unusual source was found when smoke started coming out from a newly installed hat rack. It turns out someone had installed a screw anchor through a vent pipe that was hidden in the block wall and barely noticeable. Once these two sources were fixed, the smell left.

Based on the success of this rather unconventional test method, once again we located the sources and the pathways by using something that could be visually seen. We have also used laser particle counters to find very low levels of smoke leakage with the same type of testing. We know of no other method for rapidly finding these types of sewer gas leaks. When we conduct these tests, it is not unusual to find multiple leaks that have been around for quite some time that have never been found.

William A. Turner, P.E., is president and CEO of Turner Building Science LLC. He has more than 25 years of experience in IAQ/HVAC evaluation and development of solutions for building system problems. Turner supervises a group of engineers, industrial hygienists, and building scientists who serve owners, architects, general contractors, and construction managers. Turner can be reached by e-mail at bturner@turnerbuildingscience.com or by phone at (207) 583-4571 ext. 11.

Steve M. Caulfield, P.E., CIH, is senior vice president of Turner Building Science. Caulfield can be reached by e-mail at scaulfield@turnerbuildingscience.com or by phone at (207) 583-4571 ext. 14.
      

With the ever-increasing awareness of indoor air quality issues, especially in schools, moisture in many forms is a concern because of the effect of moisture on mold and bacterial growth and odor. Construction managers, IAQ professionals and engineers are increasingly being asked to investigate problems related to odors or mold, and restoration specialists may be called on in jobs related to water damage. Knowledge of the causes of these moisture related problems in interior finishes and how to test for them is required in today’s sensitive environment.

Moisture-related problems in concrete slabs continue to be a concern on a variety of levels including indoor air quality issues, and this is still a misunderstood issue throughout the construction industry. Moisture trapped between a flooring product and a concrete slab can cause adhesive to ooze between the seams, creating maintenance and odor problems, or can cause the adhesive to let go altogether, creating tripping hazards when tiles pop off the floor or when a floor bubbles. Even worse is when the moisture is not severe enough to cause these visible problems but is sufficient to create a fertile breeding ground for mold, mildew or other microbial growth beneath flooring materials or in the lower portions of walls.

It is often said that moisture related issues are less of a concern with carpet or vinyl composition tile, two common flooring materials in schools. However, this problem crosses all borders as far as flooring materials, and there are five potential sources of moisture to be aware of: water damage, outside sources of moisture, adaptive re-use, renovation projects and new concrete.

IAQ people often think of moisture issues in terms of buildings that have had flooding or other water damage. A dry concrete slab that gets wet again from a flood can take almost as long to dry as new concrete right out of the truck, so it is a very valid concern that concrete floor slabs be adequately dry before installing a new floor.

Poorly graded landscaping, sidewalks or parking lots can direct water towards a building, which can seep under a concrete slab and then come up through the slab in vapor form. Other examples of outside moisture sources are outside sprinklers that are not properly aimed, broken pipes beneath the floor, heating systems or parking lots with occupied space above them, and a variety of other sources of moisture that can cause water vapor to move upwards through a concrete slab, leading to floor-covering failures or mold issues.

Older concrete slabs can be just as much of a concern as new ones as far as concrete moisture problems even if there has not been water damage, especially when the slab has never been covered before. With so many adaptive re-use projects going on today, spaces that were once bare concrete are now being covered with flooring, such as when storage areas are converted into classrooms. The point is that these slabs were originally designed to be left bare, so they may not have been constructed with a vapor retarder beneath the slab. Without a floor covering, this is not an issue, as moisture vapor passes through the concrete slab harmlessly. However, with a floor covering glued to the top of this slab, the moisture movement is blocked and becomes trapped between the floor covering and the concrete.

There is often an assumption that if there is an existing floor covering firmly in place, one should not worry about moisture issues because none is apparent. Some may suggest that the 50-year-old asphalt or vinyl asbestos tile in the school corridor is “down like a rock” so they should just cover over it with the new flooring. The concern is that there may be some moisture movement through the joints in the existing floor that is not enough to cause bonding problems, but this movement can be blocked when a new floor is installed. Another factor is that with changes in floor covering product and adhesive formulation and construction, newer floors may be less permeable than the old ones, and the new water-based adhesives may be less tolerant of moisture than the older solvent-based formulations.

New concrete slabs, whether they are a below-grade basement installation, a first floor on grade slab, or a second floor suspended slab, take much longer to dry to a point of readiness for floor-covering installation than most people know. One laboratory study under ideal conditions (which are rare on today’s construction sites) found that a standard mix concrete slab took 46 days to dry to acceptable limits and a lightweight concrete slab took 168 days. This flies in the face of the “28-day cure” that everyone has heard about for years because curing and drying are two different things. Curing is the chemical reaction that bonds the ingredients in concrete together and drying is what happens after that when the excess water evaporates. With “fast track” construction projects being what they are, a new addition to a school that is begun in June needs to be finished by September, and the concrete is rarely dry enough when the flooring is installed.

So, how does one prevent moisture-related problems? The first step is detection! Regardless of the age or grade level, every concrete slab needs to be tested before any type of flooring product is installed. What follows are six methods for concrete moisture testing. The first three should never be used to make a decision about whether a concrete slab is ready to have a floor installed, while the last three are the latest ASTM standards.

The senses test poses that it looks dry, it feels dry, or it smells dry. However, you can’t see, feel or smell moisture coming out of a concrete slab, so this is not the way to decide if the floor is ready to be installed.

The plastic sheet test is the procedure of taping down a sheet of plastic and coming back a day or two later to see if it’s wet underneath. This has been used for many years, but the problem is that because of the effect temperature and humidity have on this test, “dry” results can occur even on slabs that actually test “wet” using other, more scientific methods, and if you have a “wet” result, there is not way to know how wet it is.

Concrete moisture meters are a spot check, but they give no indication of long term moisture conditions and there are no flooring or adhesive manufacturers who will accept this method as a “go or no-go” test for installing resilient flooring over concrete.

The following three methods are ASTM Industry standards that have been developed to provide accurate and repeatable results.

The calcium chloride test method, ASTM F 1869 “Standard Test Method for Measuring Moisture Vapor Emission Rate (MVER) of Concrete Subfloor Using Anhydrous Calcium Chloride,” has been around almost 50 years and is widely used but often done incorrectly. The four most common mistakes when doing the ASTM F 1869 test are doing it under the wrong conditions (The building must be at the same temperature and humidity it will be when the space is occupied); not preparing the surface (A 20-by-20-inch square at each test site must be ground-cleaned 24 hours before the test is placed); not waiting (Failure to wait 24 hours may result in a false high reading); and not enough tests (Three tests for the first 1,000 square feet and one test per 1,000 square feet after that). Even when done correctly, the calcium chloride test has limitations because it measures moisture vapor emissions only from the very top of the slab and because most concrete slabs dry from the top down, they are often dryer at the top than on the bottom. Two other methods have been developed that are able to “look deep” into the concrete to see if there is any moisture waiting to come to the top.

The relative humidity “probe” method, ASTM F 2170 “Standard Test Method for Determining Relative Humidity in Concrete Floor Slabs Using In Situ Probes,” involves drilling holes to 40 percent of the slab thickness – usually two to three inches down. This measures moisture inside the slab, which is thought of as a more accurate way of predicting what will happen in the future. This method is also less sensitive to fluctuations in ambient air humidity and temperature above the slab. A number of companies have developed the equipment to conduct this test.

The relative humidity “hood” method, ASTM F2420 “Standard Test Method for Determining Relative Humidity on the Surface of Concrete Floor Slabs Using Relative Humidity Probe Measurement and Insulated Hood” is a brand-new method in the United States that was published as an ASTM Standard in 2005. Like the ASTM F 2170 method, this test also measures relative humidity, but on the surface instead of inside a hole in the concrete. Like the F 2170 method, this method is not as sensitive to atmospheric conditions, unlike the calcium chloride test kits, and is gaining popularity because it requires no drilling. This method is so new that flooring manufacturers have not yet started to issue limits for moisture using this test, but readings from the hood method tend to be 5 percent lower than with the sleeve method.

How can you get trained on concrete moisture testing? Claudia Lezell, co-owner of the Flooring Technology Institute, a technical training and education center, has been involved with the development of training programs for inspectors for a number of years through her volunteer work as vice president of inspections for the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification. “The IICRC has developed a hard surface inspector training and certification program,” she explained, “and the prerequisite course is Introduction to Substrate/Subfloor Inspections, a three-day course including a 160-question exam that is open to anyone who wants to learn this material, whether or not they plan to work as an inspector.” There are a few schools around the country offering this training, and, Lezell said, “FTI offers the IICRC’s three-day ISSI course and also our own one day course, Moisture Testing and Investigation Day.”

So, now that you have determined that moisture levels are above the allowable limits, what is next? This is the time to consult with the floor-covering people to learn what the limits are for the flooring product and adhesive that are to be installed, and to learn what methods might be recommended to mitigate the problem. It might be as a simple as cranking up the heat and lowering the humidity in the building to dry the slab out or as complicated as bead-blasting the slab and applying an epoxy-based vapor reduction system and then a self-leveling underlayment. These decisions can be made with the involvement of the owner, the flooring contractor, the builder and often with some consultation from outside agencies. However, if the testing is never done and the flooring gets installed anyway, repairing these problems after the space is occupied is a lot more complicated and expensive.

A fourth-generation floor covering specialist, Christopher Capobianco has a background including work as a retailer, architectural sales representative, technical support manager, consultant, writer, educator and activist. His company, Flooring Answers, provides training, technical support, trouble shooting and testing for architects, end users, flooring manufacturers, and other companies in need of an independent third-party to provide expertise in the area of commercial resilient flooring and the related issues including concrete problems. Capobianco has written for several industry magazines, including his current columns in National Floor Trends and Floor Covering Installer, and has spoken and conducted training at conventions and industry events such as Surfaces, the floor-covering industry’s annual trade show. He volunteers as chairman of the FCICA, an association for flooring contractors; as a member of ASTM Committee F.06 on resilient flooring; and as chair of the Resilient Floor Inspector Committee of the IICRC. He can be reached by e-mail at FlooringAnswers@optonline.net or by phone at (631) 275-6494.
 

Both genetic and environmental factors are responsible for the development of allergic diseases. While the human genetic component cannot be modified, environmental factors can be controlled to some extent.

Many studies suggest that exposure to common indoor allergens is an important environmental factor in this increased prevalence of allergic diseases in developed countries. Individuals in these countries spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors and, therefore, exposure to indoor allergens is high. Genetically susceptible individuals exposed to indoor allergens, primarily during infancy, become sensitized to these allergens.

The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted by the National Institutes of Health with a large sample of individuals representative of the general U.S. population, concludes that more than half of this population is sensitized to common allergens. This finding indicates that many individuals are vulnerable to allergies.

To some extent, allergen avoidance can prevent the development of sensitization to allergens and relieve allergic symptoms in allergen-sensitized individuals. Therefore, various medical and public-oriented professional organizations have recommended several guidelines for affected subjects, encouraging the use of certain measures and products for optimal indoor allergen avoidance.
Several multi-center studies on asthma and allergens performed at the national level in homes of affected subjects, including the National Cooperative Inner-City Asthma Study and the National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing, have demonstrated the usefulness of allergen measurement in monitoring the efficacy of allergen-avoidance interventions.

The high prevalence of allergies has contributed to the increased public concern about air quality in homes, schools and the workplace during the past few years. However, due to the growing demand for mold assessments, common allergens (other than fungi) are not typically addressed during the course of IAQ assessments, although non-fungal allergens are often the causes of the allergy symptoms experienced by building occupants. The purposes of this article are to increase awareness of the importance of these common indoor allergens, to discuss different aspects of the area of allergen testing, and to propose future directions in this area to properly address current limitations.

The Most Common Indoor Allergens
A number of allergens are present indoors. A dose-response relationship between exposure and sensitization has been described for dust mite, cockroach, cat and dog allergens. Cat and dog allergens are ubiquitous and present in the majority of buildings, including buildings where these animals have never been present, like new homes and public buildings, at levels that, in some cases, exceed proposed threshold levels to cause sensitization.

Studies performed in several major U.S. inner cities have linked exposure to cockroach, rat and mouse allergens with asthma, and indicate that these allergens account for 95 percent of the indoor allergens present in some cases. Exposure to rodent allergens is also frequent in the middle class and a common cause of occupational allergies in laboratory and animal-care personnel.

The importance of allergen exposure during infancy to sensitization and development of asthma should be emphasized to the general public. Daycare centers and schools can be important sites of exposure to indoor allergens, and it has been suggested that these buildings should be target locations for interventions. Epidemiologically, it can be more effective to target a single daycare center or school than multiple homes.

Allergen Reservoirs and Sampling
Currently, most assessments of indoor allergen exposure measure allergen levels in dust samples collected from various sites within a building, such as bedding, mattresses, carpets and upholstery. This approach was endorsed by the Third International Workshop on Indoor Allergens and Asthma as the best index of exposure to indoor allergens. For cockroach allergens, kitchens are an important reservoir, although, in heavily infested buildings, high levels of cockroach allergens are also present in other locations.

Dust samples should be collected prior to the implementation of allergen-avoidance measures both for the purpose of obtaining baseline levels of allergens and to allow for the proper design of site-specific allergen avoidance protocols. Dust samples should also be collected after intervention to monitor the effectiveness of the avoidance measures and to encourage compliance.

Many variables, including the type of sampling equipment utilized, affect the efficacy of sampling. Samples should be collected utilizing sampling protocols and equipment configured and validated through scientific studies.

Vacuum sampling, utilizing a modified vacuum cleaner, is extensively used in research, and is considered the reference sampling methodology. While there are no standard protocols for vacuum sampling, the most widely used protocol recommends vacuuming an area of one square meter for one or two minutes in carpeted floors or fabrics. The area vacuumed should be larger in non-carpeted floors to obtain sufficient dust for analysis. A minimum of 100 to 200 milligrams of fine dust should be recovered from each sampled area.

Dust cassettes combined with a vacuum pump are also utilized to collect samples during the course of IAQ assessments. Recently, a number of devices to collect dust samples have been developed by different manufacturers to facilitate the collection process. A study performed at the University of Sydney in Australia compares the efficacy of these devices with the reference method, concluding that more investigation on collecting devices is needed.

Mites present in dust samples continue to grow and produce allergens even after collection. Therefore, samples should be refrigerated and sent to a laboratory as soon as possible unless testing for mite allergens is not required.

Laboratories Performing Allergen Analyses
While allergen testing was limited to research settings until recently, the number of commercial laboratories that perform allergen testing is increasing. However, at the present time, there are few recommended protocols for sample preparation and analysis. Furthermore, accreditation and/or quality-assurance programs for laboratories that perform allergen analyses are lacking.

An experimental proficiency program, developed by the National Institutes of Health in collaboration with other institutions, was administered to various laboratories that perform allergen analyses. The results of this study indicate that there is a large analytical variation both among laboratories as well as within individual laboratories in the measurement of different allergens. These findings urge the need to develop laboratory quality-assurance and accreditation programs, as well as standard laboratory operating procedures for sample preparation and analysis. A professional organization, in collaboration with a governmental regulatory organization, should develop these certification/standardization procedures.

It is recommended that the same laboratory perform all of the allergen determinations of samples collected for a specific project, particularly when samples are collected before and after implementing allergen-avoidance measures. This measure eliminates the effect of the variation among laboratories.

Ideally, in order to reduce the variation within an individual laboratory, all samples collected for a particular project should be analyzed simultaneously in the same analytical run. While this is a common measure utilized in research studies, it is often impractical to perform in IAQ assessments.

Methods to Quantify Indoor Allergens
Mite and cockroach counts have been traditionally used to evaluate allergen exposure. However, because these counts do not correlate with the concentrations of the respective allergens, reference standard techniques to measure indoor allergens are being utilized.

Allergens contained in dust samples are extracted with a buffered solution prior to analysis. However, as previously indicated, there are no standard protocols for dust extraction, and different extraction protocols have different extraction efficiency. Dust containing large particles and fibers should be sieved and only fine dust utilized for extraction and analysis.

The reference standard techniques are enzyme-linked-immunossorbent assays utilizing allergen-specific antibodies, initially developed at the University of Virginia in the late 1980s. ELISAs are available to measure the most important indoor allergens, including mite Dermatophagoides, Group 1 (Der p1 and Der f1) and Group 2 (Der p2 and Der f2); German cockroach, Bla g1 and Bla g2; cat, Fel d1; dog, Can f1; rat, Rat n1; and mouse, Mus m1. Other ELISAs less extensively used include those to measure allergens derived from the mites, Blomia tropicalis (Blo t5) and Lepidoglyphus destructor (Lep d2), as well as from the fungi Aspergillus fumigatus (Asp f1) and Alternaria alternata (Alt a1).

Since allergens derived from cats and dogs are ubiquitous within the community, Fel d1 and Can f1 should be routinely measured in buildings regardless of the presence or absence of these animals. The most common allergens measured are Group 1, Bla g1 or Bla g2, Fel d1, and Can f1.

The results of these ELISAs are typically expressed as mass concentration in micrograms of allergen per gram of dust (µg/g) or as area concentration in micrograms of allergen per m2 (µg/m2). Since allergen avoidance measures normally change the mass and/or composition of dust, the expression of the results in µg/m2 is recommended when the purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the effects of allergen avoidance interventions.

Proposed Threshold Levels of Exposure to Allergens to Cause Sensitization and Symptoms
The ELISAs mentioned above have played an essential role in establishing the importance of environmental allergen exposure as a cause of asthma. The proposed threshold levels of exposure to some allergens that cause sensitization and symptoms have been calculated using these techniques.
With dust mites, a level of 2 µg/g of Group 1 allergens is considered a risk factor for sensitization. A level of 10 µg/g of these allergens can cause symptoms in sensitized individuals.

The threshold levels for other common allergens are less straightforward. However, the estimated levels of Fel d1 to cause sensitization and symptoms are 1 and 8 µg/g, respectively; the respective levels of Can f1 are 2 and 10 µg/g; and the respective levels of Bla g1 or Bla g2 are 40 and 160 ng/g (2 and 8 Units/g). The threshold levels for other allergens (e.g., rodent and fungal allergens) have not been proposed.

Interpretation of Results
Since the variation of the ELISAs to measure common allergens is large, some laboratories express the results as the concentration of allergens obtained, plus/minus the coefficients of variation of the assays for the individual allergens, previously calculated at the laboratory. This variation should be considered in the interpretation of the analytical results.

The results of the sample analysis are typically compared with the proposed threshold levels to cause sensitization and symptoms. However, the following facts should be considered:

• The proposed threshold levels should be utilized as a general guideline. Lower levels can also affect highly susceptible individuals.
   
• Subjects sensitized to a particular allergen source may also be sensitized to allergens other than those measured. For example, while over 90 percent of individuals allergic to cats are sensitized to Fel d1, a small percent of cat-sensitized individuals are exclusively sensitized to other cat allergens.
   
• Subjects with allergies may be sensitized to allergen sources other than those typically measured. For example, many insects (including fleas) and uncommon pets (including ferrets) can cause allergies.

Kit Sets for Home Use
Several kit sets for dust collection and analysis are being developed. For example, a kit set to detect mite Group 2 allergens, utilizing the same antibodies as those employed in the respective reference ELISAs, is commercially available. This kit enables consumers to collect dust and perform a rapid assay similar in appearance to common pregnancy test kits. The results of this test are semi-quantitative (“low”, “medium” and “high”) and can be useful to conduct a general screening and differentiate low and high levels of allergens. However, this test cannot be used to estimate small differences between two samples, such as samples collected before and after the implementation of allergen avoidance measures.

Other kits include simplified devices to collect dust, educational materials, and postage-prepaid shipping envelopes. These kits allow the consumer to collect dust samples easily, but they must be mailed to the manufacturer for analysis.

Proposed Role of a Governmental Regulatory Organization and a Professional Organization in Allergen Testing
Currently, several groups are obtaining antibodies to various indoor allergens (and other products) and utilizing them to develop assays for research and manufacturing purposes. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the technical aspects of these assays. However, it is obvious that some consistency and guidelines in the area of allergen testing are needed.

A governmental regulatory organization should establish guidelines and a testing program to assure consistency in the manufacturing of the reagents employed in allergen analysis. As previously indicated, the governmental regulatory organization should also collaborate with a professional organization to implement an accreditation and quality-assurance program for laboratories that perform allergen testing. The professional organization should supervise the laboratory accreditation and assurance program, as well as develop standard protocols for dust sampling and analysis. The importance of the area of indoor allergens should be emphasized in the various training and accreditation programs for IAQ professionals (Figure 1).

In conclusion, allergen testing has been restricted to research settings for many years, and there are currently several caveats that need to be properly addressed when this testing is performed for commercial purposes. However, I recommend that allergen testing be performed during the course of IAQ assessments, when appropriate. This testing should be performed in homes of subjects with proven clinical sensitivity to indoor allergens, homes of children with a family history of allergic diseases, as well as in schools and other public buildings, where a number of individuals with various levels of genetic predisposition to develop allergies spend a significant amount of their time. The results of this testing would facilitate the implementation of efficient allergen avoidance measures in buildings and monitor their efficacy.

This article has covered the most important aspects in the area of indoor allergen testing, including the present status of the field, and suggests future directions to properly overcome current limitations. This paper complements the article entitled “Monitoring for Contaminants Other than Mold,” published in the May issue of IE Connections. Due to space constraints, information on efficient allergen avoidance products and procedures has not been included in this article. Reliable Web sites where this information can be obtained include www.aaaai.org, www.aafa.org, www.ecologyworks.com and www.natlallergy.com.

Dr. Rosa Codina is a biologist with expertise in basic and applied research and consultation concentrated in environmental allergens. She is currently principal environmental scientist at SDII Global Corporation and affiliate assistant professor of medicine with the Division of Allergy and Immunology, University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, Florida. She is a member of several professional organizations, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, and serves in various professional committees, including AAAAI’s Indoor Allergen Committee. She also serves as a reviewer of several scientific journals in the field of allergy and immunology. Codina can be reached by e-mail at rcodina@sdii-global.com or by phone at (813) 496-9634.