Memberships Unanimously Approve Consolidation

IICRC Gains ANSI Accreditation, Submits Standards

VOC Detection in Flooded Indoor Environments

Common Mysteries Encountered in IAQ Surveys

Is There Anything Right with This System?

Word on the Street 

VOICES

“I’ve never seen 350 people all agree on the same thing. That was amazing.”

— David Bell, PhD., president of Environmental Microbiology Laboratory and a member of the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization’s Board of Directors, minutes after the membership of the Indoor Air Quality Association unanimously approved a proposal to consolidate its programs with those of the American Indoor Air Quality Council and IESO

PICK UP YOUR PENCILS
Comments are sought on a study on marketing opportunities for moisture management in buildings. The study, which is being funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, recommends empowering a single contractor to be responsible for a “moisture management program” during a construction and renovation project, keeping critical building components free from moisture damage. Competent contractors could also offer retrofit packages of preventive measures for existing buildings, which the study’s literature review says is a market with over $150 billion of building asset value annually at risk for moisture damage by 2008.

“We are asking for comments on the results of the first phase of research on the market potential and challenges to development and implementation of a comprehensive moisture management program by contractors,” said Terry Gorski, senior engineer with Chelsea Group Ltd., which is preparing the study for the National Center for Energy Management and Building Technologies. Those wishing to view the report and comment should visit www.chelsea-grp.com/moisture/.

NOW PUT YOUR PENCILS DOWN
The public comment periods of two proposed ASHRAE standards dealing with indoor air quality were scheduled to end Nov. 7. One of them, being developed in conjunction with the American Society for Health Care Engineering, is standard 170P, “Ventilation of Health Care Facilities.” “Poorly ventilated health care facilities are places where the likelihood of pathogenic particles occurring in the air is quite high,” said Richard Hermans, P.E., 170P Committee chair. “Because such pathogens can be found everywhere in health care facilities and because patients are susceptible to them, additional care should be taken in the design of ventilation systems.”

ASHRAE’s other proposed IAQ standard under review through Nov. 7 is standard 161P, “Air Quality within Commercial Aircraft.” The proposed standard requires a minimum total air supply of 15 cubic feet per minute and recommends 20 cfm per person. The requirement may be met with a mixture of outside air and filtered recirculated air or with 100 percent outside air. A minimum of 7.5 cfm per person of outside air is required. No such standard encompassing ventilation, thermal comfort and filtration currently exists for aircraft. “The environment aboard commercial aircraft is different than that found in other spaces commonly occupied by people,” said Byron Jones, Ph.D., 161 Committee chair. “While aircraft are operated with the comfort of passengers and crew in mind, their safety and health must always be paramount.” Nov. 7 also marked the scheduled end of the public comment period for the aircraft standard’s proposed companion, Guideline 28P.

NO PLACE FOR CHILDREN
Two pediatrics organizations issued a joint statement Oct. 7, titled “Clinical Recommendations Regarding the Safe Return of Children to Areas Impacted by Flooding and/or Hurricanes.” Released as evacuees of New Orleans and other areas affected by Hurricane Katrina were returning home, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units released a list of issues determining whether or not children should reoccupy hurricane-ravaged quarters. “Children, and whenever possible teens, should not be involved in clean up efforts but should return after the area is cleaned up,” it says. “In short, children should be the last group to return to areas impacted by flooding and/or hurricanes.” A section on “living and learning spaces” said homes, schools and daycare facilities must be “free from physical and environmental hazards to children.” Among other things, the three-page statement advises that only “properly trained and qualified” contractors should perform rebuilding and remediation work and that “grossly contaminated wallboard, insulation, flooring, and other porous materials” should be “removed and replaced following existing EPA guidelines.”

AND, SPEAKING OF CHILDREN ...
Asthma rates among U.S. children in inner cities are the worst among other comparable categories. A two-year study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology now finds in-home asthma intervention to be a low-cost way to reduce rates among inner-city children. For the study, intervention plans tailored to the individual asthmatic children in each inner-city family determined what environmental allergens and irritants (“dust mites, cockroaches, pet dander, rodents, passive smoking and mold”) needed to be eliminated or reduced in their homes. The health benefits of the interventions were noticeable almost right off the bat.

“While the interventions were clearly effective in reducing asthma symptoms, we wanted to know whether the measures were cost-effective,” says Meyer Kattan, M.D., a pediatric pulmonologist with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and lead author on the study. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, the researchers calculated the direct costs of the services provided to each child, along with an estimate of the symptom-free days gained as a result of the interventions. “The asthma intervention resulted in an average increase of 37.8 symptom-free days over the two-year period, at an estimated cost of $27.57 per symptom-free day,” said Kattan.

“The findings of this study will enable policy makers and health care providers to more effectively allocate resources to achieve maximum benefits,” says Peter J. Gergen, M.D., M.P.H, of NIAID’s Division of Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation, an author on the paper. The study is part of the larger Inner-City Asthma Study, a multicenter project created to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental interventions on asthma incidence.

RANK AND FOUL
In Hong Kong last month, the body of a woman who had been missing for 13 days turned up in a government building’s equipment room, according to a report published Oct. 26 on the Web site for the Electric New Paper. An IAQ professional who offered to decontaminate Environmental Protection Department offices provided IE Connections with some details about the discovery. “This morning the body of a woman with her hands tied behind her was found on top of an air-handler in a mechanical room in the office building of the Environmental Protection Department in Hong Kong,” the contact reported on Oct. 25. “She had been there three days and the smell led them to the body.”

Memberships Unanimously Approve Consolidation
By Steve Sauer

The proposal to unify and consolidate the activities of three organizations in the indoor environmental arena was ratified last month with two unanimous votes during the general membership meetings of the Indoor Air Quality Association and Indoor Environmental Standards Organization. As a result of the approval, both organizations – joined in their efforts by the American Indoor Air Quality Council – will prepare to complete their unification by Jan. 1.

The historic votes took place against the backdrop of the best-attended conference ever to concentrate solely on indoor air quality. According to attendance figures IAQA provided for the IAQA-AmIAQ-IESO Annual Meeting and Expo, the number of pre-registered conference attendees was bolstered by approximately 130 on-site registrations, bringing the full number of attendees to more than 1,100. “Attendance would have exceeded 1,400 were it not for Hurricanes Rita and Katrina,” said Farzana Shakir, IAQA Membership Director. “Many members are in the Gulf region doing relief and restoration work.”

Other bragging points for organizers of the conference – which was held Oct. 6–9 in Orlando, Fla. – were an array of speakers and technical sessions as well as a sold-out exhibit hall featuring about 120 booths, which represented a wide range of companies and organizations that make IAQ such a multifaceted industry. Another highlight was the three-hour general session during which the leaders of IAQA, AmIAQ and IESO explained the rationale behind their unification and answered the specific questions attendees raised. Many of the queries posed during the session pertained to how certifications would be affected by the transition.

AmIAQ Executive Director Charlie Wiles explained via telephone to attendees of the general session that he was unable to attend in person due to a conflicting chemotherapy schedule. “I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in July of this year – long after we had planned the unification and committed to the convention in January,” he said. “The chemo treatments seem to be working, as the swelling in my neck has literally gone away.”

Before he introduced Adam Andrews, who had been appointed as assistant director of AmIAQ, Wiles offered his own personal reflection on the three organizations’ consolidation. “With regard to the unification efforts that you are going to hear more about, I can tell you that few things have excited me this much since starting the American IAQ Council from scratch 13 years ago,” he said.

Andrews faced a good portion of the questions seeking the particulars of the consolidation. His clear answers left members of IAQA, IESO and AmIAQ satisfied with the changes to their industry certifications that would take place under the consolidation plan.

Also on hand during the general session were IESO President David Fetveit, who spoke about how the organization would morph into a standards-setting body for the IAQ industry; IAQA President Bob Baker, who detailed the future of IAQA as an organization focused solely on membership; Glenn Fellman, executive director of both IAQA and IESO, who spoke primarily about the benefits IAQA members would enjoy in the future; and Tom Yacobellis, immediate past president of IAQA, who provided a detailed history of the association.

Fetveit said many of the specifics of standards development had yet to be determined, but he outlined a broad scope of areas IESO’s standards boards would attempt to pursue in the future. Fetveit also announced that IESO would seek accreditation through the American National Standards Institute.

Technical Sessions
One technical presentation that especially seemed to sit well with all those who witnessed it was an explanation of what one researcher from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hopes the agency will adopt as “the EPA Relative Moldiness Index.”

Seeing the need for a reliable and standardized method to identify and quantify residential mold, the EPA’s Stephen J. Vesper, Ph.D., offered mold-specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction. He said the method, which is abbreviated MSQPCR, yields “a highly quantitative estimate of the population of each species of mold.” Listing the method’s strengths, Vesper said MSQPCR requires only about three hours and involves “a DNA probe that is unique to each of the targeted indoor molds.”

Two recent studies identifying various mold species found in residences in two Ohio cities have succeeded in reporting separate groups of mold species that are found in moldy and non-moldy (“reference”) houses.
A group of mold species was common to reference houses in the two separate studies, which were conducted in Cincinnati and Cleveland. Among the species common to reference houses in both studies are Acremonium strictum, Alternaria alternata, Aspergillus ustus, Cladosporium cladosporioides, Cladosporium herbarum, Epicoccum nigrum, Mucor racemosus, Penicillium chrysogenum and Rhizopus stolonifer. Vesper said this list of molds defines the “mold ecosystem” found in typical homes.

“This type of analysis would be simply impossible with the traditional methods of mold analysis,” said Vesper.

The findings pertaining to a “mold ecosystem” support the theory of recognizing a “fungal ecology,” which is espoused in documents including the IICRC S520 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation,” released in December 2003.

The S520 standard was one of 10 microbial guidelines included in another presentation, by Gail M. Brandys, surveying popular recommendations pertaining to post-remediation verification, also known as clearance testing or close-out.

Based on her comparisons of the same 10 documents’ requirements in several other areas, Brandys determined that post-remediation verification should take into consideration eight specific factors: (1) visual inspection, (2) elimination of the water source, (3) sampling, (4) control of moisture and odor levels, (5) documentation of the remediation process, (6) documentation of the condition of the remediated area, and (7) remediation and (8) verification protocols that are individually tailored to the job.

She also listed five major issues that influence “the necessary degree of cleanliness assurance.” These five, taken from a list she provided, are as follows:

1. What is necessary to reduce the risk of potential adverse health effects of the exposed population;
2. What is necessary to establish the standard of care expected of an IEP, remediation contractor, etc.;
3. What is necessary to minimize the risk of potential litigation and legal liability;
4. What is the appropriate level of proof that is needed to ensure that the affected area has been restored to a normal or pre-loss condition; and
5. What is a reasonable expectation for the financial burden of PRV, particularly for projects with a modest budget.

Her presentation directly followed a closely related lecture by her husband, Robert C. Brandys, Ph.D. Like his wife’s, Brandys’s speech was excerpted from the book the husband-and-wife team coauthored this year, “Post-Remediation Verification and Clearance Testing for Mold and Bacteria.”

Among other papers presented at the conference was one on the efficacy of air-cleaning devices, presented by coauthor Richard Shaughnessy, Ph.D. Analyzing the clean air delivery rate, which is part of the method most often used in the United States “to assess the performance of new air cleaners,” Shaughnessy described another measurement he says is actually “more important than CADR itself” – the removal ratio. He defines this as “a relationship between effectiveness and the contaminant removal processes.”

While some of the paper’s findings are new, Shaughnessy said some of his presentation contained some of the same information he had been imparting for years. While a slide labeled “Misleading ads” displayed some actual claims found in air cleaner advertisements, Shaughnessy said, “I’ve been showing this for years, and it hasn’t changed. ... There are so many misleading ads related to air cleaners, and the point is you can’t always believe what you see in print, and the general public doesn’t always know that.”

Furthering a perception of an uneducated public when it comes to air cleaners, Shaughnessy revealed some survey results that indicate half of air-cleaner owners surveyed said they own a HEPA filter air cleaner, one-fifth said they own a machine with an electrostatic filter or electrostatic precipitator, and one-quarter said they were not sure what kind of air cleaner they owned.

Shaughnessy’s paper on the efficacy of air cleaners was co-written with Richard G. Sextro, Ph.D., of the Indoor Environment Department at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif. It is set to be published in the Journal of Environmental Hygiene, and it was also presented in September at the Indoor Air conference in Beijing, China.

The organization that produced the first standards for the restoration of water damage and mold has now earmarked the same two standards for approval by the American National Standards Institute, whose rigorous process for the creation of standards is marked by the transparency of public comments.

The S500 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration” and S520 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation,” both from the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification, have become household names in the national IAQ industry in the time since each was released. This has happened despite the IICRC, an institutional member of ANSI since May 2004, never having publicly announced it would seek to have the standards approved by ANSI – until just last month.

Versions of the S500 and S520 standards were submitted late last month to ANSI’s Board of Standards Review, according to the Oct. 28 edition of a weekly newsletter published by ANSI, which oversees the conformity of all standards used nationally. Earlier in the month, ANSI added IICRC to its long list of over 260 accredited standards developers.

“It is anticipated that IICRC standard development activities will continue to expand into other segments of the cleaning, restoration, remediation and inspection industry, particularly those involving the indoor environment, or into related fields and industries,” states a note on IICRC in the official list of ANSI-accredited standards developers.

ANSI’s accreditation of IICRC, and subsequent consideration of standards, will signal a shift in the methods whereby the organization seeks and responds to public comments on standards. “Receiving ANSI accreditation is a major advancement for the IICRC,” Standards Committee member Larry Cooper said in a statement released Oct. 18 by IICRC. “Having an outside organization review and audit our policies and procedures gives our policies additional credibility that our industry needs.”

In the past, IICRC has collaborated with selected and appointed stakeholders in the creation of standards. Committee membership was limited. Comments on drafts were sought from a select, albeit talented and experienced, pool of a few hundred industry leaders and volunteers.

ANSI’s standard-writing process, on the other hand, requires that proposed standards are available to the public for a minimum 30-day comment period, allowing their contents to be digested and analyzed by an unlimited number of stakeholders. Further, the ANSI process governs the procedure by which comments are addressed in writing.

ANSI’s standard-writing process focuses on “due process,” which it says “allows for equity and fair play.” The document “ANSI Essential Requirements: Due Process Requirements for American National Standards” outlines nine traits that “constitute the minimum acceptable due process requirements for the development of consensus.”

One of the essential requirements ANSI lists is openness. This trait mandates that “Participation shall be open to all persons who are directly and materially affected by the activity in question.”

Other maxims contained in ANSI’s standard-writing process are about the availability of a standard’s full text to all interested parties who are “materially affected” by the standard. The ANSI process emphasizes the visibility of public comments submitted, and it maintains that all comments must be submitted – and subsequently addressed – in writing.

Throughout 2002 and 2003, the members of IICRC’s S520 Committee cooperated with more than 200 industry professionals to prepare what is now regarded as the nation’s first mold remediation standard. However, these industry professionals who participated in peer review of the document were hand-picked, and no copies of the proposed standard were ever issued outside the selected review circle.

The S520’s long-anticipated initial release in December 2003 introduced a “philosophical shift away from setting numerical mold contamination action levels.” While the standard has been widely accepted, other organizations in the indoor environmental arena remain unconvinced and still rely on levels of contamination as a determining factor.

Sales figures show the S520 sold steadily through 2004. The industry began to incorporate it and, halfway through the year, S520 garnered nods from the national government and research circles. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration began listing S520 as an IAQ reference, and the Institute of Medicine’s final report on indoor dampness and health included a reference to S520 as a source for information on the removal of mold from damp buildings.

All the while, IICRC officials insisted that the S520, along with all other IICRC standards, is intended to serve as a “living document.” They said this meant the standard would continue to be updated as needed. Those wishing to comment on the standard were always informed of a method by which they should send their comments.

However, the general public has never been provided unrestricted access to the document; only through purchase has the published S520 been made available to the general public. In addition, the method for comment has always been invisible, with no obligation for IICRC to acknowledge receipt of any comments or incorporate the comments into the document.

IICRC’s first press release to highlight the ANSI accreditation, dated Oct. 18, says IICRC had “participated in a 10-month review process to gain [ANSI] accreditation.” IICRC added that during this process, the organization’s standard policies and procedures were amended to conform to ANSI policies.

For more information on the IICRC’s filing of S500 and S520 as national standards have until Nov. 27 to contact Cooper, IICRC’s contact on the standards. He can be reached by e-mail at textilecon@aol.com or by phone at (360) 693-4858.

Much of the attention regarding indoor environmental conditions in the flooded buildings of New Orleans involves potential bacterial growth in standing water and subsequent mold growth in building materials after floodwaters subside. While these are viable concerns, volatile organic compounds are a legitimate and serious personal safety concern for anyone entering flood-damaged buildings in New Orleans or other flood-exposed areas.

Whether you are a mold inspector, remediator, structural specialist, insurance adjuster, electrician, air-conditioning contractor or any other concerned party, an awareness of the chemical conditions affecting the indoor environment around you is very important, even if you have no experience in chemistry or VOC detection.

In the post-flood environment, chemical exposure can come from many sources. Floodwaters in New Orleans spanned several miles through residential, commercial and industrial areas, resulting in a witch’s brew that consisted of an unpredictable and wide range of both dissolved and undissolved inorganic chemicals, low-density liquid petroleum distillates and other insoluble floating substances, and other more dense substances that are merely pushed along by the water.

When floodwaters rise and enter buildings, chemicals enter along with the water. These chemical substances permeate absorbent building materials and personal property. They can remain after the floodwaters recede. Additionally, liquids can be retained in basements, pools or other areas below grade. VOCs in this mix will vaporize and become established as gases.

VOC infiltration in buildings can also originate from sewer pipes. Normally, drain and sewer lines have traps that prevent the intrusion of sewer gases into buildings. However, damaged traps and pipes can allow continual intrusion of VOCs into the interior air space. Damage to traps and sewer pipes is certainly possible in flooded buildings. Due to the wide variety of VOCs (and other compounds) present in sewer gases, an unpredictable mix of substances is likely to exist in these indoor environments. Sewer gases may contain ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and an unpredictable mix of VOCs and compounds contributed by chemicals from runoff from floodwaters. The high temperatures in New Orleans can easily result in elevated levels of vaporized volatiles in flooded indoor environments. If these chemicals contact each other, it can lead to reaction byproducts that are frequently more hazardous than the original compounds.

Adding further to the equation are the chemical substances produced by microorganisms. These are typically referred to as mVOCs, or microbial volatile organic compounds. Many mVOCs will be present in both sewer gases and ambient air in highly contaminated buildings. Some mVOCs are well documented, although most are probably unknown.  Many bacteria produce methane or nitrogen-based organic and inorganic gases resulting from protein degradation. Fungal growth can produce many mVOCs and can certainly increase the carbon dioxide levels when growing in large concentrations. Like VOCs of non-biological origin, the potential gaseous exposure to building occupants is unpredictable and vast as the variety of organisms present in any building.

Detecting VOCs

Various techniques and equipment are available to detect and quantify VOCs. Each has its own strengths, limitations and applicable uses. The typical project specifically focused on contaminant VOC detection usually involves just one or a few compounds, and the identities of the VOCs present are generally suspect and predictable. These projects include overturned chemical train cars, accidents involving storage drums, emissions from factories, process monitoring, and a host of others. In these cases, instruments are generally calibrated or otherwise readied for the predicted substances. In flood situations like those in New Orleans, the luxury of predictability does not exist.

Techniques available for VOC detection range from air and liquid sampling for subsequent lab analysis, to on-site handheld devices. Selection of the best technique will depend on whether precise identification and quantification of compounds is required or if a rapid, non-specific assessment of total VOC levels is preferred.

Laboratory Services

The use of testing laboratories to analyze samples will likely provide the highest level of accuracy and reliability. There are several sampling techniques available.

One involves the pumping of ambient air into airtight bags, which are forwarded to laboratories. Another technique employs the use of negatively pressurized canisters that “suck” air in when a valve is actuated; the valve is closed when sampling is complete, and the canister is forwarded to a testing lab. Still another technique involves pumping air through tubes containing an absorbent material that is selective for target gases.

While very accurate, each of these techniques in limited by the obvious time delay involved with shipping and lab analysis. This may not be practical for on-site situations necessitating immediate assessment.

VOC-detecting Devices

Several types of devices are available for on-site detection of VOCs. Each has unique strengths and drawbacks. Each is a compromise of weight, precision, cost, complexity of use and prerequisite technical knowledge. To be precise, volatile organic compounds do not include other toxic gases such inorganic gases. Detection of these substances requires different devices than those described below.

Photoionization detectors: The simplest and lightest VOC-detection devices are photoionization detectors. Photoionization refers to the exposure of gases to high-energy light to knock electrons out of gas molecules, creating a transitory ionized gas with a positive charge. The magnitude of the positive charge is proportional to the concentration of gas present.

Photoionization detectors, or PIDs, do not specifically identify individual VOCs present; they simply present a set of data and interpretation by the operator is crucial. In this respect, using photoionization detectors for VOC detection is similar to using thermal infrared cameras for moisture detection: User interpretation is key to making valid conclusions. This is because the level of VOCs displayed by the PID is dependent upon the sensitivity programmed into the device prior to use. This is done by selection of a calibration gas and a target gas. Based upon these selections, the device’s internal database sets the sensitivity to these gases providing the best reliability of the displayed VOC concentration. Therefore, the displayed VOC concentrations on PIDs are accurate only when the detected gas is the same as the target gas; otherwise, VOC concentrations detected by PIDs are only relative but can still be useful. It is important to understand this limitation which will apply when unknown or mixed gases are present.

The exact operational theory of these devices is beyond the scope of this article but can be researched in online databases. Photoionization detectors provide a quick way of assessing relative interior VOC levels compared to outdoor air. They have the advantages of being lightweight (truly handheld at under two pounds), less expensive than other types of devices, and can give rapid and continuous on-site results. Historically, PIDs have been limited to detecting VOCs in levels of parts per million. Since the permissible exposure levels for many gases is in the parts-per-billion range, PIDs have been traditionally been used in assessing spills or other applications when the existence of VOCs is already known. However, in recent years, PPB-level PIDs have become readily available from most manufacturers. With many different PIDs available for a wide variety of applications, users should thoroughly research their applications prior to purchase.

Flame-ionization detectors: Similar in principle to the photoionization detector is the flame-ionization detector. As the name implies, this device ionizes gases with the use of a flame. It uses the same physical principles as photoionization and possesses some technical advantages over photoionization detectors. However, there are many drawbacks. The flame used by these devices is maintained by a flow of flammable gas from an internal cylinder. Obviously, this gas cylinder adds weight (around six to eight pounds total device weight) and needs to be refilled when the gas is depleted. They are also more costly than photoionization detectors, which aren’t exactly cheap themselves. The use of a flame in an environment where flammable gases may be present due to suspected VOC infiltration makes me a bit nervous, although the flame is buffered from the exterior and regarded as intrinsically safe.

Both the photoionization detector and the flame-ionization detector have the advantage of being able to provide the user with continuous data streams. These devices continuously read VOC concentrations allowing the user to walk thorough buildings and assess how levels change. Users can quickly determine high- and low-concentration areas in a building and narrow in on a central source of the VOC if a central source exists. This data can be invaluable in providing a site survey for other workers or for setting up a safety perimeter.

Gas chromatograph: The most accurate and technically sophisticated instruments available are the gas chromatograph and the closely related mass spectrometer. These devices analyze spectral or charge characteristics of gases and produce a unique curve, or spectral fingerprint for compounds present. The unique curve generated for test samples is compared to curves for known compounds. Matches with preprogrammed curves of known compounds results in successful identification of the test sample. Gas samples sent to laboratories are typically analyzed with these devices. Where critical analysis and identification are required, there is no substitute.

However, these devices also have drawbacks. They are the most expensive of the devices detailed in this report. Also, while portable gas chromatograph units exist, none is light enough to be regarded as handheld. Additionally, they do not provide a continuous data stream. Collected samples are injected into the unit, and a specific profile is generated for the sample. A gas chromatograph test therefore represents a “snapshot in time” from the sampled environment, whereas the photoionization and flame ionization detectors provide a “continuous video” by comparison.

Which Approach Is Best?

Answering this question will depend upon the role of the individual, but imagine the scene: You are in New Orleans for post-Katrina assessment or restoration work. The floodwaters that permeated the building you are now inspecting were inundated with fertilizers, pesticides, gasoline, motor oil and assorted petroleum distillates, industrial chemicals, solvents, bacteria exceeding 1 billion cells per gram of water, decomposition gases and many other substances. Additionally, sewer gases, as well as mVOCs from actively growing fungi, have permeated the air space around you. Detectable odors may or may not exist.

If your job specifically involves analysis of VOCs, then you may commence with one of the ionization detectors to rapidly screen for the presence of VOCs and then perform sampling either for subsequent lab analysis or for on-site analysis with a mobile gas chromatograph. The wide variety of gases present may preclude the use of the ionization detectors for identification purposes.

The lightweight and relatively cost-effective nature of the photoionization detector may be preferable to the heavier and more expensive flame-ionization detector.

As for costs, photoionization detectors start at about $2,000. One unit from a well-known manufacturer also detects carbon monoxide, oxygen levels, hydrogen sulfide and LEL (low explosive level) of gases. Many models exist, each optimized for unique operating environment, and cost can exceed $5,000.

Flame-ionization detectors are considerably more expensive but have greater accuracy at higher gas concentrations. Mobile gas chromatographs are very expensive and can be beyond the equipment budget of many IAQ professionals. Their use is specialized. Some mobile GC units have built in photoionization detectors for dual-purpose applications and some offer wireless transmission of data to remote computers.

For me, personally, if I am recruited to participate in assessments of flooded structures in New Orleans, I will use my photoionization detector for preliminary VOC detection as a personal safety measure and then follow up with other methods where warranted before commencing other assessment procedures. Your needs, and therefore your equipment selection, may differ depending upon circumstances.

While this article describes some basic principles of applications and operation of gas-detecting devices, it should be noted that these devices require extensive knowledge of operational theory to be used correctly. Additionally, one must understand the physical properties of VOCs, e.g., photoionization potentials, and be aware that non-VOC compounds, such as inorganic gases, may exist in the flooded or contaminated environments, and their detection may require different devices. A thorough education in the use of gas-detecting devices is well beyond the scope of this article, so this article should not be solely relied upon. Proceed cautiously since the well-being of others and even yourself may depend upon your skills in this discipline.

A very good treatise on devices for VOC detection can be referenced at www.raesystems.com/AppTech_Notes/AP/.

Jeff Deuitch is a microbiologist and mycologist with significant background in affiliated scientific disciplines as well as real estate and construction services. He is owner of Int’l Microbiology & Mold Group, an IAQ company performing biological assessment, building inspections and thermal IR imaging. He is also owner of Manatee Appraisal & Valuation Services, which provides construction cost estimating and real-estate valuation services. Both companies are located in Palmetto, Fla. Deuitch can be reached by e-mail at moldgroup@aol.com or by phone at (800) 261-8132.

Common Mysteries Encountered in IAQ Surveys
Florence Q. Wu, Ph.D.
Principal Mycologist
Aemtek Inc.
Fremont, Calif.

Numerous indoor air quality surveys have been conducted in the past few years, yet certain aspects of mold investigations remain mysterious to mold investigators. Drawing from my 20 years of mycological experience, I can try to understand the complexity of mold investigations. As a principal mycologist at a commercial laboratory, I often talk to IAQ professionals and discuss indoor fungi. This gives me ample opportunities to understand what bothers the mold investigators the most. This article summarizes what I have learned over the years and offers a mycologist’s perspective.

Is this just a mold problem? “If it looks like a mold and smells like a mold, then it probably is a mold.” However, sometimes it is not that simple. Even when mold colonies are found in the building, how can you be certain that it is the direct cause of all the health complaints? An IAQ consultant’s professional service is requested to find out what is wrong with the building and what may cause the health problems that the occupants are experiencing. After investigating the building history, listening to the health complaints, looking for signs of mold growth, and performing other activities required in the protocol, consultants often wonder if the problem is only mold-related or if something else is happening.

Accurate account of the health complaint is very helpful for understanding the scope of the problem and for planning investigation. A comprehensive checklist of common indoor pollutants and their health effects may be a good reference. However, it is prudent to focus on correcting the building problem and leave the health issue to a physician. Some IAQ problems may be more complicated than the surface mold. Before you take out of the pump and start sampling, it is always helpful to note and record any other abnormalities, even when you do not know their importance or relevance. Presence of other factors that may influence the IAQ should be discussed in investigation reports.

Why do I need a hypothesis? We often hear that mold investigators should have a hypothesis before sampling. Some investigators may be puzzled by such a scientific concept. However, many IAQ professionals often do have hypotheses and design sampling protocols based on the hypotheses, intentionally or otherwise. Having a written hypothesis is helpful for sorting through the problem and designing a proper sampling protocol.

“Hypotheses are single tentative guesses – good hunches – assumed for use in devising theory or planning experiment, intended to be given a direct experimental test when possible,” Eric M. Rogers said in 1966. In other words, a hypothesis is an “educated guess” or an idea. It takes experience, skill, knowledge and intuition to generate a scientific hypothesis. In order to be considered scientific, hypotheses must meet two requirements: They must be testable (can be tested by observations or experiments) and falsifiable (can be proven incorrect).

For example, “there is no mold growth in this building” is a scientific hypothesis. It is testable; you can perform a thorough visual inspection or sampling to test it. It is also falsifiable; if you find one fungal colony inside the building, then you have proven the hypothesis wrong.

By the way, it is very difficult to prove this hypothesis correct. In order to prove that there is no mold growth in the building, all possible places have to be searched, which is practically impossible.

How do I obtain data that can tell me something? We live in a world believing in numbers and people having a tendency to take numbers as facts. In reality, if data are not collected in a scientific way, they may be meaningless or misleading. Many experimental factors such as sampling efficiency and sampling design, as well as environmental factors such as variations in spore dispersal and distribution, can influence data validity and utility.

Unfortunately, there is a general lack of knowledge of how to collect meaningful data in indoor mold investigations, which means there is currently no simple way to solve this mystery. Let us hope that there will be evolutionary innovations in sampling and analysis technologies in the near future.

Meanwhile, using what is currently available with a proper sampling design that can test your hypothesis is a reasonable approach. Depending on what you want to know, either a general sampling or targeted sampling can be performed. General sampling is best used to obtain baseline data or get a glimpse of the indoor mold composition. This often means collecting many samples at variable times and locations. Targeted sampling refers to sampling in pre-determined areas, whether a water-damaged area or an area with the health complaints.

For a set of data to be meaningful, it should possess certain characteristics, such as accuracy, lack of bias, precision, completeness, and representativeness, all of which should be considered when planning investigation projects.

How do I know I have met the industry “standard of care”? It is very difficult to evaluate a mold investigator’s practice according to an industry standard where the standard is nonexistent. The good news is that the Indoor Environmental Standards Organization has published a standard of care for some mold sampling procedures, and various subcommittees of ASTM International are working on mold sampling and analysis standards. The bad news is that the published or upcoming standards are mostly procedural; for example, a published standard may explain how a tape-lift sample should be taken but cannot tell you when, where and how many tape-lift samples should be taken. You still have to rely on your professional experience and judgment to perform appropriate investigations.

In the absence of a standard for project design, mold investigators may exercise professional care by adopting good quality-assurance and quality-control measures that ensure data are collected in a systematic, accurate, unbiased and fully documented manner. This is especially important when a consultant is called upon to collect mold samples that will be explained in a legal environment; the credibility of the consultant’s sample results and ability to defend them in court become important considerations.

How can I be assured of the accuracy of lab data? For many mold investigators, what happens to their samples in a laboratory is a big mystery. They may have appreciation for the presentation of data but often feel uncomfortable to evaluate accuracy and precision of the data. If two laboratories use the same spore type listing and the same report format, it is really difficult to judge which set of data is more trustworthy than the other.

One way to approach this is to look at the factors that may influence the accuracy of laboratory data, for example, analytical protocols, experience and qualification of the analysts, QA/QC system and laboratory accreditations. Getting to know the analysts, asking technical questions, requesting explanations on analytical procedures and checking QC data can help you to select a laboratory. The reliability of a laboratory’s data is commensurate to the lab analysts and data-generating and QA/QC practices. Size, locations or marketing power is not relevant to a laboratory’s data quality.

What about this mold genus I’ve never heard of? What is its health effect? Just when you think you know every fungus that can grow in an indoor environment, a weird fungal name like Doratomyces stemonitis appears on your lab report. Luckily, this is one area where the laboratory can help. By searching literature, we can obtain information on the ecology, substrate and reported health effect of a fungus. Many uncommon fungi have not been studied for their medical significance, which does not necessarily mean they do not have any. The common advice for mold investigators is to leave the health effect of mold to the physician, but as a community, we need to document what fungi have been reported in what health environments in order to gain better understanding of mold related health issues.

What conclusion can be drawn from the data? Outdoor samples are most commonly used in contrast to the indoor samples to determine if indoor mold contamination is present. Although this practice is widely accepted, it has fallacies. One of the biggest fallacies is that spore count comparisons assume that the spore category represents the same fungi for the sampled indoor and outdoor area. Another one is that outdoor airborne spore level is so variable that spore level estimated by a five-minute grab sample may not be a good representation.

More emphasis should be placed on obtaining accurate assessment of indoor fungal growth and airborne spore level. Contrast to the rich outdoor fungal diversity and high variability of airborne spore level, there are only about 100 species in about 40 genera of fungi that are commonly found capable of growing in indoor environments; even fewer are commonly associated with water damage. This is a workable number for thorough analysis to come up with some consensus. Presence of moisture-indicator fungi in the indoor environment, even when its level is lower than that of the outdoor, should be considered carefully, because the current methodologies cannot differentiate the source of spores.

So, is it “clean” or not? A remediation crew is waiting, a decision needs to be made, and the lab report is in: There is one Stachybotrys spore found in the air sample collected from the treated area. Pass or fail the job? If Stachybotrys is too notorious to let it go, how about Chaetomium or Ulocladium? At what spore level is the air considered “clean”? These are the decisions that IAQ consultants often have to make but never feel comfortable with. Unfortunately, currently there is no standard to lie back on.

One possible way to solve this mystery is to communicate effectively among all parties the objective of the remediation. Having clear and detailed criteria for “pass” or “fail” that all parties have agreed on would help the consultants make the decision painlessly. When in doubt, choosing the stricter criteria may help consultants avoid sleepless nights.

What did my client ask me to do, and what do they actually need? These are often two very different things. In certain aspects, the tasks of an IAQ professional are similar to that of a medical doctor. However, IAQ professionals are far less trained and have far less paperwork needed for handling conflicts than doctors do.

A typical investigation may involve steps such as performing a visual inspection for signs of contamination, gathering baseline data of history and moisture, ordering some lab tests, coming up with a diagnosis, and then discussing the treatment options with the client. Hopefully, these steps lead to a reasonable conclusion and the client appreciates your professional opinion of what they really need. However, the client may have a perspective of the problem or an agenda that is different from yours. In this situation, do what a doctor may do: Communicate, suggest the client get a second opinion, document conversations, request written consent, etc.

Where is the indoor mold industry going? Many seasoned experts have insights into this question, while the majority of IAQ professionals may be wondering. I wish I had a magic crystal ball, but I don’t, so I leave this mystery to the future.

It is conceivable that because indoor mold problem is real and recurring, and because IAQ is an important issue to health, there will always be demands for mold-related professional service. However, we have to hold high standards in both ethics and technology to prevent our profession from sliding down to a non-professional level. As our knowledge and experience accumulates, we will be more confident in answering the above questions and many aspects of our work will no longer be mysterious.

HVAC system hygiene is one of the most frequently ignored or misunderstood components of indoor environmental quality. The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system can serve as a transport system for contaminants and, in some instances, can actually be the source of those contaminants. Yet in many indoor environmental assessments of both commercial and residential buildings, the HVAC system is treated as an afterthought.

In my business, I read literally hundreds of building-assessment reports in the course of a given year and, often, the only reference to HVAC system hygiene is a line or two about cleaning the ductwork. The intricacies of HVAC system hygiene can rarely be addressed by simply cleaning the ductwork.

In the following case study, I will describe a real-life scenario that happened recently and truly highlights how complex and diverse the potential indoor environmental concerns associated with HVAC systems can be. After reading this case study, I think the reader will ask: Is there anything right with this system?

The Scenario

The woman’s voice on the other end of the phone sounded extremely distraught. She had been referred to me by her mother, for whom I had done some work the previous year. The frantic woman explained that every time she turned on the heat, she was having a terrible reaction. Since she had recently been diagnosed with mold allergies, she was afraid that there could be mold in her HVAC system.

She said she was having her house “tested” for mold but wanted to take her mother’s recommendation to have me look at her HVAC system and give her a cost for cleaning. I suggested that she wait until the results of the testing came back so that we could look at the bigger picture, but she pleaded with me to come out immediately. Finally, I agreed to come out that afternoon.

The house was a luxury townhouse in a luxury townhouse complex in a very luxurious area. (My reason for stressing the luxury aspect will be made clear later on.) She greeted me at the door accompanied by a young man whom she introduced as the consultant who was performing the mold testing. She pointed me toward the finished basement where the HVAC unit was located and said she would leave me alone to look at what I needed to look at. To my surprise, the consultant asked if he could accompany me and ask some questions, and I said, “Sure.”

As we walked downstairs, I asked him what type of assessment he was doing, and he informed me that he was taking air samples throughout the house to see if there were any elevated mold levels in the air. I asked him if there was any evidence of water damage or odor problems or visible mold growth anywhere, and he said no. I asked him if he had looked at the HVAC system, and he said no. I wondered what he would recommend if his test results came back as elevated, but I bit my tongue.

The HVAC unit was in a small mechanical room. I switched off the power, locked it out and popped the front panels off the unit. I shined my light into the blower compartment, looked around, stepped back and looked at the system and room as a whole. I turned to the consultant and asked him what he thought, and he threw it back at me and asked what I thought. We were at an impasse! Reflecting on the idea that it is usually easier to look smart if one keeps one’s mouth shut, I then threw caution to the wind and proceeded to point out those items that I saw as at the least potential concerns.

I pointed out that although the filter was a decent quality pleated filter, the side of the filter compartment was completely open. I also pointed out that the mechanical room was extremely dirty and that less than 12 inches away was a sump pump well with standing water.

Shining my light into the blower compartment, I could see that the return air coming into the right side of the blower compartment was filtered, but there was another return on the back left side that was not filtered at all. The blower motor fan blades were clogged with caked-on debris.

Moving up the exterior of the air-handling unit to the supply plenum, I next pointed out the humidifier that had been sloppily installed. Rust and corrosion were running down the front of the sheet metal under the humidifier, and a knock on the plenum confirmed that it was internally lined with fiberglass. I also determined that the coil was inside that lined box and that there was not any access door to gain entry to the coil.

Moving outward along the supply ductwork, there were a couple of short flexible duct sections that dumped into small lined boxes that each had two or three flexible duct lines that extended outward through the solid basement ceiling or upward into the main house. I managed to pop my head above the open section of ceiling in the mechanical room and observed a snaking mass of flexible ducting wriggling in all directions. I paced off a few of the longer duct runs, and they easily ran 50 feet or more.

Right about this time, my young consultant friend was looking a bit glassy-eyed. I asked him if he had inspected the coil or lining, and he responded that there was not an access door. I suggested that one of the short flexible duct sections could be removed to gain access, and he replied that he was not a “mechanical” guy and was not allowed to take things apart. I felt no such inhibition and gingerly clipped the zip tie and slowly eased the flexible ducting off of the cuff just enough to peak inside.

Trying to avoid overly disturbing what could be inside, I eased in to get a look. The coil was completely black with debris and degraded lining. The edges of the lining had been cut to facilitate the installation of the humidifier, and they were badly frayed. All of the lining that I could see had significant water staining, was badly abraded, discolored, dirty and appeared to have visible microbial growth. I carefully reattached the flexible ducting and put on a new tie.

I put the unit back together, removed my lock and turned the power back on. I did not turn the system on. I met briefly with the homeowner and described what I had found. I informed her that given the number of things that were wrong with her system, I was unwilling to simply “clean” it. I told her that although I could put together a remediation plan, she might want to consider replacement. I explained to her that there were fundamental design flaws that would be costly to correct and that since the system was more than 12 years old, replacement might deliver a better value in the long term. She thanked me for the advice and said she would talk it over with her husband. As I walked up the stairs to leave, I noticed that the consultant had gone back to finishing his air sampling.

Two days later the woman called to tell me that she was looking into having her HVAC system replaced and that she had hired a different consultant to evaluate her home further.

I told this story exactly as it happened. I did not tell it to denigrate consultants or to show how smart I am, because I certainly know that I am not all that smart. I do not know if the described HVAC system is affecting that woman’s health in any way, and I would never make that claim. However, let’s look at what I did find and how it might possibly be impacting the indoor environment:

·         The side of the filter compartment was open, and the mechanical room was very dirty with an open sump pump well with standing water. There were also paints and chemicals stored in the mechanical room. When the blower is in operation, the blower chamber is pulling a negative pressure, and the gaps around the open filter compartment could pull potential contaminants into the system distributing them into the living space.

·         There was an unfiltered return at the back of the blower compartment, and the blower motor fan blades were clogged with caked-on debris. Certainly, this shows a potential for particulates that get pulled in through the return to be redistributed back into the living space. The buildup on the fan blades shows that in fact particulates are accumulating in the system serving not only to reduce efficiency but also as a growth medium for microbial growth.

·         The leaking humidifier was clearly saturating the deteriorating and dirty fiberglass lining. I would suggest that this is much like having a very dirty sponge in the air stream, and there is certainly the potential for elevated microbial growth. There is also the potential for fiberglass fibers and accumulated debris to migrate out into the living space.

·         The impacted coil could be dramatically reducing system efficiency and is also a prime suspect for elevated microbial growth.

·         The internally lined diverter boxes are suspect because of their close proximity to both the humidifier and the coil. If the conditions already found within this system are any indicators, it is likely that the interior of those boxes are dirty, water-stained and deteriorating. Further investigation would be necessary to determine the validity of this theory, but if it is accurate, there is another source for microbial growth, debris and fiberglass particles.

·         The snaking labyrinth of flexible ducting detracts from system efficiency, and the dipping troughs inside the ducting are great places for debris to accumulate.

I would like to say that the system that I described is highly unusual. Certainly, most HVAC systems do not have as many things wrong with them as this system did. But in reality, many of the described conditions are all too common. The HVAC system in this story was in a luxury townhouse, and yet its design and maintenance were hideous. A mechanical contractor regularly serviced the system, and yet it was dirty and deteriorating. A consultant was brought in to assess potential health concerns in the home, and yet the HVAC system was not even considered – despite the fact that the woman clearly stated that she had symptoms only when the heat was turned on.

So, why was it that she had symptoms only when the heat was turned on but not when she operated the air conditioning? I have an opinion, but I would love to hear what other think.

Steve Goselin is the vice president and cofounder of Envirotech Clean Air Inc. of Stoneham, Mass. He can be reached at sgoselin@breatheasier.com or by phone at (800) 698-1300.