Survey Digs Out the Dirt on HVAC Coil Cleaning

Media Spin on Study Fuels Debate over Carpet, IAQ

Ozone: What Air Cleaner Advertisers Don’t Tell You

Word on the Street 

CLOSURE IN TEXAS
The building that was the center of attention in Texas’ mold crisis has been knocked down, and its former owner has settled her lawsuit over the mold that had been growing inside. Melinda Ballard, whose initial $32 million jury award in a winning verdict over her insurers was reduced to $4 million, has demolished the mansion that was once her dream home in Dripping Springs, Texas, and quite possibly the start of a new era in insurance companies’ response to mold. Ballard had claimed that Fire Insurance Exchange, a subsidiary of Farmers Insurance Group, acted in bad faith in not cleaning up the mold. Instead of continuing to appeal the case ad infinitum, both sides have recently come to a settlement. Ballard, who has turned to activism as president of Policyholders of America, now resides in Austin with her husband, Ronald Allison.

SMOKE CLEARS, SUPPORT RISES
One year after the smoke cleared in New York City’s workplaces, more and more people are making their support for the Smoke Free Air Act evident. When patrons took their last drags from cigarettes in the city’s bars and restaurants in March 2003 to give way for a smoke-free New York City, the media focused on opposition to the indoor smoking ban, including a lawsuit from Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment. A U.S. District Court judge quashed that lawsuit last month, at least for the time being.

Meanwhile, a joint report from three city departments in March said bars and restaurants made more money between April 2003 and January 2004 than they did during the same period in the previous year. In a New York Times letter to the editor published April 5, health department Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden writes, “The small but vocal minority that opposes this health measure has received disproportionate media coverage. The data are clear: A large majority of New Yorkers approves of smoke-free workplace legislation.”

THE INCREDIBLE BALK
A $250,000 mold lawsuit was about to be heard in court, but just before opening statements would have begun, the plaintiff reached a settlement with his insurers. Lou Ferrigno, TV’s “The Incredible Hulk,” settled his case against Mercury Insurance out of court in Los Angeles April 1, as reported by the Associated Press and local television outlet NBC 4. In Ferrigno’s home, a leak caused much of his living space to introduce mold growth, the actor’s complaint had said. Their attorney commented that Ferrigno and his family continued to coexist at home with the intruding development. A narration that opened each episode of the 1977–1982 TV series said that “an accidental overdose of gamma radiation alters [the main character’s] body chemistry.” There is no word yet on whether Ferrigno and family have experienced any unusual
physical transformations.

EARTH DAY MOVES INDOORS
In honor of Earth Day, which was observed in some parts on April 22, more than 130 public television stations across the United States last month aired an award-winning program on toxic mold funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Targeted to fifth- through ninth-grade students, “EnviroMysteries: Breaking the Mold” is an informative and fun 30-minute video that teaches viewers about mold, asthma and scientific inquiry. A Web site accompanying the show (enviromysteries.thinkport.org/breakingthemold) offers lesson plans, based on national curriculum standards, for teachers to engage students as they learn about “toxic” mold. Together, the video, educational resources and classroom activities empower students to assume an active role in environmental issues that can affect their health today and in the future. The program resulted from a collaboration between Maryland Public Television and a NIEHS-supported Environmental Health Sciences center at Johns Hopkins University. The video earned a prestigious CINE award and an ITVA-DC Peer Award last year and has appeared in numerous film festivals across the United States.

EAT YOUR GREENS
They’ll be serving up healthy natural foods with fresh and interesting ingredients at the Just Fresh Bakery Café and Market in Mount Pleasant, S.C., when the franchise opens its newest location this summer. Better yet, the building that will house this combination café-bakery-market aims to be environmentally friendly; it’s already become the United States’ first chain restaurant to join the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED for Commercial Interiors program. The Palmetto Food Group, a local franchisee in South Carolina,has committed to apply for formal certification of the Mount Pleasant location under the LEED-CI program. By meeting USGBC standards, the restaurant interior will cut energy usage 10 percent by emphasizing energy-saving natural light, minimizing electric signage and automating key comfort conditioning and lighting controls. These measures alone should save enough energy to power two single-family homes. The café will also use more renewable, environmentally friendly construction materials, but the “green” design will cost no more than a conventional restaurant interior, according to Dana Sinker, owner of the new location. “The up-front cost will be in line with conventional construction,” he said, “and we expect to save about 25 percent in total ownership cost over the life of the property.”

HOLD YOUR BREATH
A town official in Plainfield, Conn., will retain his job as economic development director, town selectmen said April 12 in a unanimous decision, 10 days after he was convicted for charges that he knowingly directed the demolition of a building without following federal workplace regulations. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Michael Saad advised a contractor to demolish portions of the Manufacturing Building at the town’s Inter-Royal Mill, knowing that the areas contained asbestos that had not been properly remediated. The contractor identified by the EPA was Edward Carroll of Vermont, who had already been convicted in the case, according to reports. Saad faces a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $250,000, although his lawyer expects to appeal the conviction.

Survey Digs Out the Dirt on HVAC Coil Cleaning
Produced by Indoor Environment Communications
By Staff

It seemed like an odd place to raise the issue. The Associate Council meeting at the National Air Duct Cleaners Association convention is where the HVAC system cleaning industry’s manufacturers gather once a year to hear about new NADCA programs for vendor members and to share ideas to help forward the mission of the association. That’s where Tom Yacobellis chose to first publicly challenge NADCA on whether its members comply with the association’s obligatory standards.

Yacobellis spent almost a decade on the NADCA Board of Directors and remains one of the association’s most active volunteers. He belongs to NADCA’s standards and certification committees, and he conducts the bulk of the association’s Air System Cleaning Specialist exam preparatory class. Yacobellis is also president of Buster Enterprises, a franchiser whose Ductbusters network extends to 30 offices across the globe.

At the Associate Council meeting, Yacobellis revealed that Buster Enterprises, as part of its regular investigations into market trends in areas it services, had discovered that a large number of contractors – both members and non-members of NADCA – do not offer coil cleaning as part of their regular service package. “NADCA standards require total system cleaning, not just duct cleaning,” Yacobellis remarked. “As vendors of equipment and services, we need to know whether or not NADCA is going to enforce this standard.” At first, the Associate Council chair tried to deflect Yacobellis’ line of questioning by suggesting he instead raise the issue with the NADCA staff and elected board members.

“I have spoken to NADCA’s executive staff and other association officials about this several times,” Yacobellis countered. “I never get an answer and, to be honest, it’s getting really frustrating.”

A member of the NADCA board who was co-chairing the Associate Council meeting suggested that if Yacobellis was so passionately concerned about the issue, he should select a more appropriate forum in which to raise it – namely, the following day’s NADCA General Membership meeting. “Actually, this was just a dry run for tomorrow,” Yacobellis quipped. But he wasn’t joking.

“Complete” System Cleaning?
The term “duct cleaning” is widely used to describe the work performed by companies that clean HVAC systems. NADCA says the term “duct cleaning” is a misnomer because it implies that only ductwork is cleaned. According to NADCA documents, “HVAC system cleaning” is a more accurate description of the work performed by its members. In fact, NADCA advocates that all HVAC systems receiving cleaning service undergo complete cleaning of all system components.

There is a section on the NADCA Web site providing consumers with a post-cleaning checklist. Among the items they are told to verify is that the service provider obtained access to and cleaned “the entire heating and cooling system, including duct work and all components (drain pans, humidifiers, coils, and fans).” Consumers are also told to verify that “both sides of the cooling coil [are] visibly clean.”

As a condition of membership, NADCA members are obligated to follow NADCA Standard ACR 2002, “Assessment, Cleaning and Restoration of HVAC Systems,” which is specific in defining coils and air handling units as a portion of the HVAC system requiring cleaning for a job to be in compliance with the standard. “All portions of the coil assembly must be cleaned. Both upstream and downstream sides of each coil shall be accessed for cleaning,” the standard says.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s consumer guidance on HVAC system cleaning parallels that of NADCA. “If you decide to have your heating and cooling system cleaned, it is important to make sure the service provider agrees to clean all components of the system and is qualified to do so,” the agency advises, also recommending that consumers select contractors who comply with NADCA standards. Like NADCA, the EPA recommends that after cleaning, the consumer should verify that all system components were cleaned. In fact, the EPA and NADCA post cleaning checklists are nearly identical. If you ask an IAQ investigator what part of the HVAC system typically harbors microbial contamination, “the coil and drain pan” will be the response almost every time. They are excellent collection points for small particles of dust that pass by or through the HVAC filter. They are moist and temperate.

The EPA’s position on mold in HVAC systems is surprisingly strong. “Do not run the HVAC system if you know or suspect that it is contaminated with mold,” says the EPA publication “Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings.” Coils are a breeding ground for mold. Everyone agrees on that point. Given that reality, one would think cleaning coils and interior surfaces of air handling equipment would be high on list of services offered by the cleaning industry. Think again.

The Horse Wouldn’t Drink
We all know the old saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. At the NADCA convention in New Mexico, Tom Yacobellis led the entire corral to water. They weren’t thirsty. During the NADCA General Membership meeting, a wide range of controversial issues came forward about the association and how it conducts its business. By the time Yacobellis made his way to the microphone, there was already a sense of vigilantism in the air. Yacobellis laid out his concerns concisely.

He pointed out that everyone in the room knows the area of the system most likely to grow mold is the coil. He explained that his organization has conducted several surveys over the years and found that many, many contractors don’t clean coils, including NADCA members. “If you don’t clean coils, I think you’re missing something, but I’m not up here today to get you to change. What I want is for NADCA to stop misleading consumers,” Yacobellis said.

During his comments, many of the more than 400 people in the room nodded in agreement. But the support seemed somewhat tentative. An observer in the room couldn’t help but wonder how many of the people present don’t clean coils. The answer seemed apparent a moment later when Yacobellis made a motion. “I move that the NADCA Web site be changed to add a disclaimer advising the consumer that not all NADCA members perform complete system cleaning that includes all components,” Yacobellis stated. His motion was seconded, discussed, and called for a vote. It was rejected by at least two-thirds of the membership.

IEC Uncovers What’s Really Going On
What we heard at the NADCA convention made IE Connections staff curious. Was Yacobellis right? Was a sizable percentage of the HVAC system cleaning industry failing to clean coils? Are NADCA standards really being upheld?

We developed a list of questions we wanted to know about HVAC cleaning contractors. Of course we wanted to know if they cleaned coils. We also wanted to know what basic methods of cleaning they use, if they follow containment protocols and whether they offered sanitizers. Other items on our questionnaire included length of job, price, and whether or not a price would be quoted before a pre-inspection. Every single company we spoke with quoted a price by phone.

Posing as consumers shopping for cleaning services, our staff interviewed 36 duct cleaners across six geographical areas. Our survey results include responses from these 36 companies. Half of those surveyed in each area are NADCA members. The NADCA members were selected from lists generated off the member listings of the NADCA Web site. Nonmembers of NADCA were found in listings at superpages.com or yellowpages.com. Several experts agreed with our estimation that the HVAC system cleaning industry is comprised of approximately 5,000 companies.

Given the size of the industry’s population, our survey has an error level of plus or minus 13.5 percent and a 90 percent confidence rating. In other words, if we were to conduct the same survey 100 times, the results would be within plus or minus 13.5 percent of the first time we ran the survey 90 times out of 100. Data was collected in the following manner. All companies were told the caller is suffering terribly from allergies this season and his or her allergist suggested getting the air conditioning system cleaned might help. Companies belonging to NADCA were also told that the caller learned about the company from the NADCA Web site.

After this introduction, the caller asked the company representative to describe the cleaning services available. During the description, the caller recorded information on our checklist of questions. Questions not answered during the initial presentation were posed in a series of follow-up questions during the call. More than 60 companies were called in order to reach 36 who had a live representative available to discuss his or her company’s services. Data was collected only on those companies that were available for the complete telephone interview.

After data were entered into a spreadsheet for interpretation, statistical analysis was performed to identify any anomalies in the data. Whenever significant anomalies were discovered, follow-up calls were made to confirm that the data originally collected was accurate. None of our original data required correction as a result of secondary confirmation phone calls.

The companies we surveyed all provide HVAC cleaning services; however, they have their roots in a wide range of industries. Only 36 percent of the companies we surveyed were primarily in the business of HVAC system cleaning. The others included HVAC mechanical contractors, carpet cleaners, chimney sweeps, restoration firms and construction firms.

Survey Results
Of the companies we surveyed, 58.3 percent did not mention coil cleaning when asked to describe their services and prices. When asked whether coil cleaning was included in their services, they said no. When subsequently asked if coil cleaning was available, half of these companies said the service could be provided at an additional fee. Thirty percent of the companies surveyed do not offer coil cleaning at all. A significantly higher percentage of NADCA members offered coil cleaning than non-members, with 61.1 percent of them including coil cleaning in their initial description of services and price quote. Only 22.2 percent of non-NADCA members offered coil cleaning in their initial descriptions.

Eleven percent of the companies we spoke to proposed replacing the coil rather than cleaning it. All were HVAC contractors. Of this group, 75 percent also said replacing the entire furnace was probably the best alterative to improve IAQ. Our callers had described their HVAC systems as less than 10 years old and in seemingly good mechanical condition.

These findings appear to vindicate Yacobellis’ convictions. Indeed, despite the fact that we disclosed we found the company’s name through NADCA and that our inquiry was based on a recommendation from an allergist, 38.9 percent of NADCA members (and 77.8 percent of non-NADCA members)
offered a service that did not include cleaning the HVAC coil.

Based on our survey, we find that a high number of “duct cleaners” do just that – clean ducts, not the complete HVAC system. Given the knowledge that mold contamination is commonly found growing on and within HVAC system coils, and given EPA’s recommendation that consumers not run HVAC systems if they are known or suspected to harbor mold, the fact that so many contractors would be willing to offer a cleaning service that completely omits the coil is hard to comprehend.

One of the items we were interested to learn about was how widely antimicrobial sanitizers are used in the HVAC cleaning industry. Our results show 69.4 percent of companies offering sanitizer application; 72.2 percent of NADCA members and 61.1 percent of non- NADCA members automatically included the sanitizer in their service description and price. Of the entire population surveyed, 13.8 percent said they could not say if a sanitizer would be needed until they had inspected the HVAC system, while 22.2 percent of the survey group did not offer sanitizers as part of their service.

Our questionnaire was also designed to determine if the companies used large negative air machines or “power vacs” to place the system under negative pressure during cleaning. This is an essential containment requirement of NADCA Standard ACR 2002. One hundred percent of NADCA members responded in the affirmative. Of non-NADCA members, 22.2 percent provide a cleaning method that does not include a large negative air machine or power vacuum. All of these companies are carpet cleaners.

The fact that non-NADCA members compared poorly to NADCA members did not come as a surprise. NADCA members invest heavily in obligatory training and certification and they are bound by an enforceable code of ethics. When we spoke to the non-NADCA members, we asked them if they belonged to NADCA, and 22.2 percent said “yes” but were not truthful.

Our survey included job completion time. We described our home as a mid-sized two story (no basement), three-bedroom residence with an HVAC mechanical room on the first floor. Because some companies send only one service technician whereas others send two or three, our figures are presented in man-hours per job rather than in job completion time. The average number of man-hours required by a NADCA member was 8.72, whereas the average non-NADCA member said they could complete the job in 6.05 man-hours. The fastest contractors were two carpet cleaners who both said they could get the job done with one man in two hours. These were also the lowest priced contractors, and neither offered coil cleaning.

They say you get what you pay for, but that doesn’t appear to hold true in HVAC cleaning. While the NADCA members had stronger responses to our questionnaire overall, the average price quoted by a NADCA member was $424.55, compared to an average price of $431.66 among the non-NADCA members. The range of prices quoted by NADCA members spans from a low of $240 to a high of $785. Among non-NADCA members, the range is $195–$710.

The survey conducted by Indoor Environment Communications for this project generated a great deal of additional data that have been statistically analyzed from a variety of perspectives. The complete survey result and analysis report are available for a fee. For a prospectus, contact Steve Sauer by e-mail at IECnews@aol.com or by phone at (301) 230-9606 ext. 17.

A study recently appearing in a peer reviewed journal and subsequent responses from the carpet-cleaning industry have fueled the decades-old question of whether carpets are good or bad for indoor air quality.

Rebuttals from the usual suspects this time call into question the findings of three researchers with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University in a study funded by the university’s Shah Family Fellowship and the Center for Indoor Air Research.

For the study titled “Source Strengths for Indoor Human Activities that Resuspend Particulate Matter,” lead researcher Dr. Andrea Ferro and colleagues Royal J. Kopperbud and Lynn M. Hildemann measured the amounts of dust particles that become airborne while Ferro performed daily activities on carpet. They found that by walking and dancing, the carpet released particles at a rate of almost two milligrams per minute.

Although the study first appeared online Jan. 31, it wasn’t until its publication in Environmental Science & Technology in March that a crafty news release began generating attention among the general media. The American Chemical Society’s attractive news release combined humorous aspects with the desirable human-interest angle. It quoted Ferro, a Clarkson University professor of engineering, on the kind of dance she performed on the carpet. “Solo salsa,” was her creative comment. “Luckily, I did not take any videotape.”

As a result, the general media reported on Ferro’s research, picking up on certain sound bytes and catch phrases. That’s the way Werner Braun introduces his side of the story. The president of the Carpet and Rug Institute, Braun said in a statement that his offices in Dalton, Ga., were “inundated with calls and questions” about the study. He added that response by the media to the journal study was sensationalistic and that reporters ignored the limitations conceded by the study’s authors.

“Talk about your killer dust bunnies,” wrote Lee Bowman for a Scripps Howard News Services article that was published in newspapers like the Seattle Post Intelligencer and the Minneapolis Star Tribune throughout mid-March. Braun said that particular coverage was over the top. “The general media, with its highly negative, sensationalized interpretation of the study, is contributing to unnecessary anxiety and a negative and false image of carpet and fabrics,” he said. Speaking with IE Connections in a phone interview last month, Ferro said she agreed with Braun’s comments relating to the media spin. “It’s concerning,” she said, adding that making consumers fear potential killers in their homes was not her intent. “My intent was to get an idea of what people actually breathe and to look at the mechanisms of how [pollutants] get up to the breathing zone.”

In the last paragraph of the study, Ferro and her coauthors announce: “Source strengths from one set of experiments in one home do not predict the range of source strengths that would be found in the United States.” The same paragraph adds that due to other limitations, “these source strengths may represent the lower end of the range.” Braun explained that these limitations of the study would be understood by academia. “Like many that have appeared before,” he said, “the study is one more very limited ‘source strength measurement’ paper that can, from an informed technical perspective, be interpreted different ways, depending on assumptions and the point of view of the readers or reviewers.”

He continued, “It is anticipated by CRI that the paper – when made known and read by the scientific community – will not be recognized as cutting-edge research. From an environmental research perspective, the paper represents a very limited five-day particle measurement exercise, in a single 75- year-old house, containing partially sealed off rooms, with relatively low air exchange rates, a high-particle-emitting vacuum cleaner, and questionable cleaning practices. One would expect these exaggerated, [atypical] and undesirable environmental conditions to result in elevated particle levels as presented.”

“He’s right in one respect, and I definitely talk about the limitations in the discussion,” responded Ferro. Braun’s full remarks were included April 5 in a report at Cleanfax Online, shortly after comments from the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification were also included in the news service. In the March 30 article, Jeff Bishop, IICRC’s technical adviser, told Cleanfax that IICRC S100 “Standard Reference Guide for Professional On- Location Cleaning of Installed Textile Floor Covering Materials” has the answer.

Bishop said “the only comprehensive study on this issue” is included in the appendix section of S100 and that it was “undertaken as a joint effort of the IICRC, the Building Services Contractors Association International and the U.S. EPA.” Its results show, among other things, that carpets accounted for 52 percent particle reduction over hardwood floors, Cleanfax reported. Through the Cleanfax article, Bishop insisted that hard surfaces allow particles to be dispersed into the indoor environment with less trouble than do carpets.

“There is not one peer-reviewed paper on that topic,” said Ferro. “As far as resuspension and human activity, those studies just haven’t been done. They’re important studies to do, and I think that’s the next step for research to be done. “And,” she hinted, “it’s some research they should consider sponsoring.”

Ferro said that the intention of her study was not to compare hardwood floors and carpets. She said the research, which has been ongoing since 2002, came about as a result of wanting to test what concentrations are discovered by doing activities in a home. “We felt the results were higher than we’d expected, so we thought it was important to publish,” she said.

A student reporter at Massachusetts Institute of Technology ended up having to go to urgent care after he took the assignment of reviewing an ozone producing air cleaner for the school paper. Hopefully, awareness of the dangers of ozone producing air cleaners will grow, and changes will come. At press time, I am aware of four class-action lawsuits that have been filed recently against the manufacturers, distributors and retailers of ozone-producing air cleaners. It’s happening. People have gone to the window. They’ve opened it. They are sticking their heads out and shouting that they are mad as hell, and they aren’t going to take it any more.

Frank Hammes is the director of research and development at The IQAir Group in Switzerland and president of IQAir North America in Santa Fe Springs, Calif. IQAir North America has partnered with the American Lung Association to educate the public on the importance of indoor air quality. Hammes has been involved in the development of affordable customized air cleaning solutions for residential, medical and commercial applications for nearly 20 years. After graduating with a master’s degree in law from Trinity College, Cambridge University, England, he joined the then-35-year-old, family-owned air filtration business. He has been responsible for the development of air cleaning systems for automobiles, residential and medical applications. Hammes currently holds several patents relating to improving the design and performance of air cleaning systems.Living in Switzerland and California Hammes has a unique insight into the IAQ issues both in Europe and the United States. He is a regular contributor to indoor air conferences and publications in Europe, the United States and Asia. He is the course leader for IQAir Air Cleaner College. He can be reached by e-mail at fhammes@iqair.com  or by phone at (562) 903-7600 The opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Mr. Hammes and are not the opinions of this publication or the publication’s staff. Persons holding opposing views are invited to submit articles to IE Connections for publication.