Groups Propose Clarity on HVAC System Maintenance

Manufacturer Lodges Ethics Complaint with IICRC

EEF Continues to Dispute with EPA over Contract

Ask Dr. Burge: Interpreting Low to Mid Levels of Airborne Fungi

Portable Air Purifiers for Airborne Infection Control

Practical Aspects of Measuring Moisture in Buildings

“Wow, ‘cheap shots.’ I’d like to know who accused me of that.”

— Glenn Fellman, IE Connections publisher and IAQA executive director, in a Sept. 8 guest appearance on “IAQ Radio,” responding to co-host Cliff Zlotnik, who had asked: “You’ve been accused of taking cheap shots at the IICRC, especially with respect to their publication of standards last year; would you like to respond to these accusations?” Fellman then addressed the question for more than three minutes; the entire program can be downloaded or played online at www.talkshoe.com.
 

Word on the Street

AIHA AND IAQA OPPOSE USE OF ‘IEP’ IN S520
The American Industrial Hygiene Association and Indoor Air Quality Association have gone on the record as having formally challenged the inclusion of the term “indoor environmental professional” within the mold standard proposed for approval by the American National Standards Organization. In comments the organizations submitted in August and September in reviewing the draft version of the IICRC S520 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation Standard,” they objected to the document’s use of the phrase “indoor environmental professional” and its three-letter acronym, “IEP.” The American Industrial Hygiene Association contended that the term is too broadly defined, while the Indoor Air Quality Association questioned whether the standard’s use of the term, which is a trademark, constitutes a violation that would hinder the standard’s successful ANSI approval. The newspaper received copies of the comments these associations submitted to the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification.

In a four-page letter sent Aug. 24 on behalf of AIHA’s national office in Fairfax, Va., governmental affairs director Aaron Trippler suggested that if the term “indoor environmental professional” is to be used in the S520, an IEP’s specific qualifications should be delineated. “The definition of an IEP (at least for the analysis and assessment of mold) should include a requirement that the individual possess some type of initial certification or license granted by a nationally recognized and accredited body or by a state entity,” Trippler wrote in the letter. “We believe the proposed standard would be much more acceptable to policymakers and the public if the IEP definition included the CIH and other accredited certifications and licenses to make clear that these professionals are the types of individuals who at least meet the minimum education and training required. The definition could then be expanded to require that these individuals also show proof of continuing education in the field of mold analysis.”

While the crux of AIHA’s comments on the term seeks to prevent under-qualified individuals from being recognized, IAQA submitted comments last month that argue the term’s use would “require that users of the standard engage the services of an individual certified or otherwise qualified by IICRC itself.” Further, IAQA suggested that any reference in the S520 to the trademark “indoor environmental professional” or the acronym “IEP” may block ANSI approval of the standard. IICRC holds the trademark “indoor environmental professional” and has also proposed the acronym “IEP” for a separate trademark, according to records available from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Organization.

While the proposed S520 draft defines an IEP in generic terms, IICRC has also used the term to denote a proposed certification. Details of this appeared on, and were subsequently removed from, a Web page proposing IEP certification program – all without any public explanation. A record of the Web page remains to be an official part of the public docket because IICRC submitted a three-page printout of the IEP Web page to the federal patent office as part of the process to trademark the term “indoor environmental professional.”

IAQA said the S520’s inclusion of the term “indoor environmental professional” appears to violate a particular ANSI requirement regarding endorsement of a specific product or service for which competitors exist. IAQA requested justification from IICRC that the inclusion of the term does not constitute a violation of Section 3.2 of the ANSI document “Essential Requirements,” which begins: “The appearance that a standard endorses any particular products, services or companies must be avoided.”
A source close to the S520 review said that shortly before the review deadline of Sept. 15, IICRC had already received sets of comments from about 75 reviewers.

EMLAB OWNERS SAID TO BUY SEVERN TRENT LABORATORIES
Severn Trent PLC has sold its American laboratory interests, according to reports dated Sept. 25 attributing the news directly to Severn Trent PLC. TestAmerica Holdings reportedly purchased Severn Trent Laboratories for 85 million British pounds, or nearly $162 million. This transaction would align Aerotech P&K, which is part of Severn Trent Laboratories, with TestAmerica’s other lab locations throughout the United States, including 18 locations of Environmental Microbiology Laboratory, or EMLab. Aerotech Laboratories Inc. became part of Severn Trent Laboratories in 2004 and also that year merged with P&K Microbiology, becoming Aerotech P&K. Speculation in recent months by U.K. news sources had predicted the sale, citing a statement by Severn Trent chief executive Colin Matthews that “the last [two] years have been challenging” financially for Severn Trent’s U.S. Laboratories division and that the division “is no longer regarded as being a core business for the future.” Affiliates of Severn Trent Laboratories in the United States include Aerotech P&K, QED Environmental Systems and STL. According to Severn Trent PLC’s annual report in July, 87,923 shareholders held a total of 348 million shares in Severn Trent stock as of March 31.

COMPANY AWARDED FOR GIVING BACK TO COMMUNITY
The annual Leadership Awards given by the New Jersey Clean Energy Program, part of the state Board of Public Utilities, included one award presented to chemical company BASF Corp., based out of Florham Park, N.J. The award recognized the corporation’s “Better Home, Better Planet” initiative, an energy-efficient demonstration home in Paterson, N.J., that is designed to highlight the broad portfolio of BASF products that are pivotal to creating high-performance, near-zero-energy homes. Accepting on behalf of BASF at an awards ceremony held last month was Jack Armstrong, the company’s director of building and construction, who explained why the prototype home was built in that state. “BASF’s national headquarters are located in New Jersey, and we wanted to give back to the community that has offered a receptive business climate for so many years,” Armstrong is quoted as saying in a BASF press release. “Building the [home] in New Jersey – a state that is way ahead of the pack when it comes to supporting energy-efficient, sustainable development – just made sense.” The company said it expects the project to receive the U.S. Green Building Council’s highest certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system this fall.

UNIVERSITY BUILDING STRIKES GOLD
In Dallas, Southern Methodist University cut the ribbon last month on a campus building newly certified Gold under the LEED program. The building houses the Mechanical Engineering Department in the School of Engineering, which the university president, R. Gerald Turner, noted in a statement released in anticipation of a Sept. 8 dedication ceremony. “It is appropriate that a building devoted to educating engineers represent the responsible use of resources through innovation in design and systems,” said Turner. “The building itself will be a teaching tool for engineering students, who will take its lessons and apply them to their own studies and careers.”

Groups Propose Clarity on HVAC System Maintenance
By Steve Sauer

Seeking to resolve inconsistencies in the ways HVAC systems in commercial facilities are maintained, volunteers from two industry standards-writing organizations have outlined procedures they believe would provide uniformity in this area. A public review began Sept. 22 for Standard 180, “Standard Practice for Inspection and Maintenance of Commercial Building HVAC Systems,” written over the past year by a committee of volunteers from the Air Conditioning Contractors of America and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

The draft standard’s major distinction from the existing National Air Duct Cleaners Association standard for HVAC system cleaning is that ACCA and ASHRAE take into consideration not just inspecting for cleanliness but also for mechanical operation. Comparing the two documents’ focus on cleanliness, the proposed standard is more thorough than its NADCA counterpart, ACR 2006, “Assessment, Cleaning and Restoration of HVAC Systems.” The draft also mandates more frequent inspections of system components than does NADCA.

The proposed standard, as indicated in its name, applies to HVAC systems in commercial buildings – and also to high-rise residential buildings. It does not apply, however, to “single-family houses or multi-family structures of three or fewer stories above grade.”

A section of the document named only “Implementation” calls for the development of a maintenance program for each individual HVAC system “that, at a minimum, preserves the condition of the HVAC system and its elements in a manner that enables the system to provide the intended thermal comfort, energy efficiency, and indoor air quality required for the building.” The section continues, “At a minimum, the maintenance program shall contain: an inventory of equipment and systems to be inspected and maintained and a maintenance plan describing the goals, objectives, and execution of the program.”

One table intended to be included with the final standard is not available in the draft form supplied to reviewers. According to a note to reviewers contained in the public review document, the standard’s authors intend to include the missing table as a spreadsheet, stored on a CD-ROM that can be accessed with computers. The spreadsheet would “allow users to perform searches and sorts and thus create a variety of custom maintenance tables to assist in developing the written maintenance program,” says the note to reviewers.

Fifty-seven required inspection and maintenance tasks are to take place with frequencies ranging between once a week and once a year, according to the document. Only one of these tasks is required to occur once a week – checking the absorption chiller “for the presence of noncondensibles” and undertaking “necessary steps to eliminate” them. All of the other tasks identified within the draft standard take are to take place at least monthly; four tasks fall into this category, with 12 tasks taking place quarterly and half as many taking place twice a year at a minimum. The remaining 34 tasks are required annually.

The inspection schedule proposed in this draft standard is more rigorous and detailed than that contained in NADCA ACR 2006, which recommends commercial supply and return ductwork be inspected every two years and annual inspections for air-handling units.

The draft standard lists 24 subsystems within an HVAC system, such as the air handler, cooling tower, evaporator coil, fan coil, furnace, variable-air-volume box and water-cooled chiller. A table lists which inspection and maintenance actions apply to which subsystems. The numbers assigned to each task correspond to the numbers assigned them in a separate table listing only the tasks and their required frequency under the proposed standard.

In addition to these two tables, the draft standard’s 20 pages also include appendices that itemize sources of performance objectives, suggested practices for identifying indicators of unacceptable conditions, recommended tasks for development of HVAC maintenance programs, and other sources of information.

NADCA ACR 2006 is listed in the draft standard’s bibliography, among 64 sources highlighted for their informative quality. These include other ASHRAE and ACCA standards as well as publications from the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association International, the National Air Filtration Association, the National Fire Protection Association, the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association, the U.S. Green Building Council, and various journal articles and guidance from the federal government.

ASHRAE’s collaboration with ACCA represents a key collaboration between two stakeholders that had previously planned to offer separate, and perhaps conflicting, standards on the topic. ASHRAE approved the creation of its 180P Committee in January 2004. The person selected to chair it was Bob Baker, who had spearheaded the effort to have the committee formed within ASHRAE. The organization published a press release that March declaring that the project to produce an HVAC system maintenance standard was underway. ACCA followed up this news that October with the announcement that its own standard for the extended care of commercial HVAC equipment was in the works.

IE Connections in November 2004 quoted ACCA’s top official, President and CEO Paul Stalknecht, as saying that combining efforts “would be a prudent thing to do” but said there was “no activity to merge the two” projects at the time. The organizations had both agreed to combine their efforts by March 2005.

Another standard project ACCA announced in October 2004, related to the extended care of HVAC systems in residential settings, is going forward within ACCA, having been taken on by its Standards Development Committee for HVAC System Cleanliness. A complete draft of this standard is expected by the end of October, a committee member told IE Connections at press time.

ACCA and ASHRAE’s draft Standard 180 is under review for approval by the American National Standards Institute. Its 45-day public review is scheduled to conclude Nov. 6.

Also introduced Sept. 22 with 45-day public reviews were one addendum to ASHRAE Standard 62.1 “Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality,” and two addenda to Standard 62.2 “Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings.” Addendum 62.1i allows for specific ventilation rates to be set even without determination of an acceptable level of environmental tobacco smoke. The controversial Addendum 62.2j seeks to clarify a section on mechanical ventilation some say is confusing or misunderstood. Under Addendum 62.2k, the opening of windows would no longer be recognized as an acceptable alternative to Standard 62.2’s ventilation requirements.

For the duration of the public review, draft Standard 180 and the 62.1 and 62.2 addenda can be viewed online at ASHRAE’s recently revamped Web site, www.ashrae.org, under the “Publications” section. This page also contains information for how respondents may voice comments.

Manufacturer Lodges Ethics Complaint with IICRC
By Staff

[Editor’s note: Misreporting in this article prompted a letter to the editor that is scheduled to be published in the November issue of IE Connections. “The role Jeff Bishop played in the federal lawsuit filed by Water Out against Munters Corp. and Patrick Dowling was incorrectly reported. Bishop never testified, since a settlement was reached after two years of depositions and testimony,” Charles Cressy said in the letter.]

Hundreds of people in the water damage restoration and IAQ industries in mid September received an unsolicited e-mail from TheRestorationForum.com, an online discussion place for water and fire damage restorers. The e-mail directed recipients to view a draft complaint to the IICRC Ethics Committee prepared by Charles Cressy, president of Water Out Drying Corp.

Cressy’s complaint accuses IICRC and some of its certified instructors and representatives with “intellectual dishonesty, shameless selfpromotion [sic], accepting gratuities from manufacturers to promote specific products and methods, product disparagement, and consumer fraud.”

The complaint cites actions by two individuals, Jeff Bishop and Barry Costa, but impugns IICRC as a whole. “The very credibility and survivability of the IICRC as a credible institution rests, in my opinion, on if and how these examples of unprofessional and unethical practices are met,” Cressy states in his complaint. I say practices because while my examples of misconduct are specific I believe it points to an accepted culture within the IICRC leadership to condone unethical behavior.”

Those strong words are followed by a recitation of the IICRC mission statement.
Bishop has been active in water damage restoration in since 1970. A second-generation restorer, he is a certified master cleaner, master restoration technician, a certified carpet, vinyl and wood laminate inspector, and a certified mold remediation supervisor, who has been teaching restoration for more than 20 years and has produced 13 books and seven videos on the subject. As IICRC’s technical adviser, he has participated in the development of nearly every IICRC certification program and standard. He also represents IICRC on industry technical issues at trade shows, conferences and other forums.

Costa is also a very well known person in the restoration industry, chosen as the 2003 CM/Cleanfax Person of the Year. That honor was bestowed on Costa for a wide range of accomplishments, including his career spent “teaching in the carpet industry.” He began installing carpet with his father at age 12 and started in the cleaning business in the early 1970s. Costa currently chairs the IICRC Standards Committee responsible for the oversight of all four published IICRC standards.

Both Bishop and Costa are instructors at IICRC-approved schools and perform a lot of public speaking on IICRC’s behalf. Most recently, the two were announced as speakers at IICRC workshops presented by IICRC S500 Standard Committee members. The seminars are designed to teach people about the S500 “Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration,” which received approval this year from the American National Standards Institute.
In his complaint, Cressy alleges that IICRC instructors abuse the trust inherent in a student-teacher relationship by accepting money from manufacturers and then promoting the manufacturer’s products in the classroom. “The IICRC instructors are acting as salesmen and the students are the unwitting victims,” writes Cressy. As evidence for his claims, Cressy points to specific incidents involving his company, Water Out Drying Corp.

Testimony in Defamation Suit
In 2004, Water Out Drying Corp. came to a settlement agreement with water-damage restoration giant Munters Corp. of Amesbury, Mass. Water Out claimed in its suit that Munters had defamed Water Out and its products among contractors in the water damage restoration industry. Water Out officials said that under the settlement, Munters agreed to pay a “substantial financial settlement.” The exact terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Prior to reaching a settlement, Bishop appeared in court as an expert witness for Munters [Editor’s note: The case did not go to trial, but Bishop testified during deposition for Munters.]. According to Cressy, during those 2004 proceedings Bishop cited “his position as a Technical Advisor to the IICRC and a teacher for the IICRC in numerous IICRC-approved courses” to prove his expert status to the court. In his testimony, Bishop is quoted as speaking against the use of heat-based technology, such as that manufactured by Water Out, in drying water-damaged buildings and materials.

In an apparent reversal of positions, Bishop wrote favorably regarding similar technology in ICS magazine earlier this year. In that article, Bishop described how the Bridgepoint “tes” system was effective in promoting drying and evaporation of both building structural elements and contents. “Using direct application of hot air drying technology, we were able to dry carpet in three hours and pad in less than eight hours,” Bishop wrote.

If it seems like Cressy holds a grudge against Bishop, that’s putting it lightly. In the conclusion to this complaint, Cressy writes, “My attitude towards Jeff Bishop, in spite of the fact that I have never met him, borders on personal loathing…Mr. Bishop displayed a cavalier attitude toward the truth and a disregard to personal responsibility [in the Water Out vs. Munters suit] at a level to which I am unfamiliar. The IICRC’s continued association with Mr. Bishop brings the institution into disrepute.”

Panel at DRC Convention Drives Second Complaint
Cressy’s complaint against Barry Costa stems from the Disaster Restoration Contractors Conference and Trade Show in Toronto this June, during which he sat on a panel discussion with Dave Hanks of Salt Lake City-based Bridgepoint Systems. The Bridgepoint tes Drying System uses heat to remove moisture and reduce evaporation and drying time, according to the Bridgepoint Web site. During the DRC panel, Cressy claims that Hanks “offered up to the attendees, that any one that purchased tes would have Dave Bernazzani, Jeff Bishop, or Barry Costa to help them sell the tes equipment to their customers.”

Hanks’ recollection of the session differs from that of Cressy. In a letter from R. Doyle Bloss, Bridgepoint’s VP of education and technical resources, he relates Hanks’ account of the DRC panel. “I do not remember my ‘exact’ words at DRC; but I have never implied that [Costa] represents Bridgepoint or tes. In my presentations I have said before that there are marketing opportunities in being one of the first to own a tes, and that owners should consider sponsoring an agent/adjuster’s meeting by hiring the likes of Jeff Bishop, Dan Bernazzani or Barry Costa, who are familiar with the system and speak highly of it. But I never implied that they would do it as a representative of IICRC, and actually went out of my way to stress they are independent instructors,” Hanks said.

Cressy’s allegations also cited statements previously appearing on a Bridgepoint Web site FAQ sheet about the tes System. “Neither DriEaz, nor Thermastor [Bridgepoint competitors] has anything that can match this currently. Because they both manufacture competing equipment, it may be difficult for them to endorse tes. Many other industry leaders such as Barry Costa, Jeff Bishop and Dan Bernazzani support tes and are behind it 100%,” the FAQ page said.

According to Bloss, that information was never intended for public viewing and was removed from the Web site after it was brought to the attention of company officials.

“Our company drafted a set of Frequently Asked Questions that was designed originally as an internal document between us and our distributors. One of the questions asked about well known industry individuals and/or companies in the related water damage restoration industry who might have had the opportunity to look at the science behind tes and/or to view a demonstration of the tes Structural Drying System,” Bloss told IE Connections in a September letter.

He added, “This entire section was intended to be deleted before these questions were posted on a ‘public’ web site meant for advertising tes. Unfortunately, our webmaster misunderstood what sections were supposed to be deleted and the statement ended up being posted as it was. As soon as it was brought to my attention by Mr. Costa that this reference to Mr. Costa, and others was on the web site (June 7th, I believe), I immediately had our web team eliminate the entire reference and question, as was originally intended.”

Cressy said the FAQ sheet existed online for several weeks after it was brought to Costa’s attention, and said the FAQ is demonstrative of unfair product endorsement practices taking place at IICRC-approved schools. He claims that at an IICRC Water Restoration Technician class held in June and hosted by Interlink Supply, “fully 25% of the classroom time, one morning session, was devoted to a hands-on demonstration of the tes equipment. All this is in spite of the fact that there is not one question on the IICRC [WRT] exam relating to that topic.”

Bridgepoint vehemently denies paying Costa or Bishop to make product recommendations or endorsements. “Costa has received no compensation from Bridgepoint Systems and/or Interlink Supply for consultation or endorsement of any Bridgepoint product, including the tes Structural Drying System. This includes direct payments, ‘gratuities’, or even buying dinner,” Bloss told IE Connections. He added, “Statements about myself, and Bridgepoint Systems made by Mr. Cressy in circulated emails, and now in this formal letter to the IICRC Ethics Committee, are slanderous and factually incorrect.”

According to Bloss, both Costa and Bishop have been hired by Bridgepoint and several of its distributors to teach IICRC courses and were compensated the same fees charged any supplier-sponsor. Cleaning industry manufacturers and distributors commonly “host” IICRC courses using IICRC-approved instructors to deliver the course. “Mr. Costa has been hired by several Interlink Distributors to host evening workshops that were not IICRC classes and has been compensated according to the same teaching fees he charges any supplier-sponsor, including our competition. In these workshops, Mr. Costa is asked to review the history of restoration and provide an ‘educational/science’ viewpoint to any products being demonstrated. The sponsoring distributor provides the marketing and sales viewpoint for products being demonstrated,” Bloss explained. He added that Bishop has likewise been retained by Bridgepoint and several of it’s distributors to teach IICRC courses.

“[Cressy’s] attempts to defame the character of good people as a means of business competition are the only questionable activities going on here,” Bloss concluded to IE Connections.

Association ethics matters are typically handled behind closed doors, so it comes as no surprise that neither Bishop, nor ICRC attorney Mark Hansen, would comment on the Cressy allegations. Costa released a brief statement to IE Connections saying, “This matter is within the ethics committee. I would hope that all would allow this process to run its course before reaching a conclusion.”

The IAQ organization that was publicly rebuked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last December continues to differ with the agency on the successful completion of the organization’s EPA contract last year.

Marketing statements from the Environmental Education Foundation, which is steered in Arizona by Executive Director Troy E. Johnson, were deemed “misleading” last year by Dr. David Mudarri of the EPA, who had awarded the nonprofit a contract in 2004 to gather comments from the building industry on draft EPA guidance, among other tasks. “EEF received an unsatisfactory rating because they failed to satisfactorily meet the performance requirements of the contract,” Mudarri told IE Connections last year, in an interview published in the January 2006 issue of this year.

Neither Johnson nor his attorney agreed to answer questions for IE Connections at the time Mudarri publicly disclosed his objections to EEF’s performance under the contract. Mudarri further disclosed that the “EPA has asked EEF to remove all references to the contract in their public solicitations, and not imply EPA endorsement of their program in any way.” The front page of EEF’s Web site, meanwhile, has since November 2005 hailed “the completion of this contract and the availability of the related training program.”

EEF has retained a relatively low profile this year, in contrast with the many press releases distributed via wire services frequently between 2004 and 2005. While the organization did not respond directly to any points brought up in IE Connections articles or discussed on the Yahoo! IE Quality discussion group, EEF attorney Terry Fong in January sent IE Connections a letter threatening legal action for reports on EEF he called “defamatory, misleading and untrue.”

By that time, IE Connections had published the January article based on the Mudarri interview and was already conducting interviews for another article, which appeared in February and quoted EEF industry partners who by and large expressed discontent over the way the organization guided an advisory group convened under the EPA contract.

Johnson’s new EEF promotion, distributed by e-mail last month to an unknown number of recipients, announced “New Training for Professionals As A Result Of EPA Contract” and said a $200 subsidy would be available for course registrants attending EEF’s online training on Sept. 20. “This New Training for Property Managers, Developers, Owners and other Professionals in industrial, commercial, office and mixed-use real estate - was developed under contract from the EPA and meets insurance underwriting criteria for a ‘Loss Control’ program,” Johnson said in a Sept. 13 e-mail forwarded to IE Connections by original recipients.

Mudarri last year contested EEF statements that implied its training class came about as part of the organization’s EPA contract, saying the circumstance “does not accurately reflect the contract requirements.” He also said Johnson and EEF had often mischaracterized its work under the contract and was admonished by the EPA “for going beyond the statement of work in their outreach activities.”

Asked to comment on EEF’s promotion last month of a training program resulting from the EPA contract, Mudarri declined to add any new comments but referred to his interview responses published in January’s IE Connections.

Q. How do I interpret moderate to low levels of airborne fungi considering variability in airborne populations?

A. This is a perennial problem, and one that is truly solved only by collecting either high-volume samples (producing a long-term average) or (better) a series of individual samples so that variability over space and time can be estimated. Of course, budgets generally do not allow for this kind of repetitive sampling. Instead, one must understand the magnitude of possible variability, the probability that any one sample represents the whole, and make decisions based on a combination of the air sample data and careful visual inspection.

Variability in fungal spore populations derives from the particulate nature of the spores, the kinds of fungi present (which determines the number of spores produced, and spore release parameters), the size of the space, air and other movement in the space, ventilation and filtration, and other parameters. The fact that spores are particles separates them from volatiles and gases that are sampled using grab techniques. Gases distribute throughout a space by diffusion as well as air mixing, and eventually become more or less uniformly distributed (although there will be a concentration gradient near a source). Spores are relatively large particles, and are removed from the air by settling (at rates dependent on the aerodynamic diameter of the spore), impaction on surfaces, and removal by ventilation. When there is lots of fungal growth, especially with fungi producing small spores as is often the case in indoor environments, spores are usually produced in abundance, released easily over reasonably long periods of time, and tend to stay airborne long enough so that reasonably good mixing can occur. In this case, a single grab sample is likely to be reasonably representative of the space. On the other hand, if only small amounts of growth are present, or if fungi such as Stachybotrys (which has relatively large sticky spores) are dominant, few spores are released over relatively short periods, the larger ones settle quickly, and mixing may be minimal. Here, the probability of capturing the peak aerosol concentration is very small. One could assume that the low counts that often result from these samples indicate minimal exposure, and that may be true. However, a single sample may miss an important peak that could, in fact, have caused symptoms in an occupant.

In spite of these problems, I do recommend air sampling if there is any possibility that you will have to document exposure. The visible presence of fungi is not proof of human exposure, although it is certainly sufficient to indicate that remediation is necessary. If you must document exposure, then sampling protocols will have to be developed that account for the parameters listed above. If there is a great deal of growth of, say, Penicillium and Aspergillus, a short series of samples without then with a fan for disturbance should be sufficient. If, however, the fungal growth is limited, for example, to areas above baseboards as is often the case for Stachybotrys, then documenting exposure (or lack thereof) will involve multiple samples (e.g., 10 for a moderately sized room). In this situation, it is important to remember that you are not trying to prove that exposure is occurring. You want to know the truth: whether or not exposure is occurring, with equal probability for both outcomes. Thus, you need a large number of samples that are essential for proving the negative case. It is rarely appropriate to sample under aggressive conditions that would never normally occur in the space just so you can document that exposure could occur under extreme circumstances. An exception to this is if you want to document exposure to remediators.

So, we are back to what I always say:

1. Sample only to test a carefully constructed hypothesis.

2. Be careful to test the hypothesis, rather than try to prove it.

3. If you can’t sample in a way that will actually test the hypothesis, then don’t sample at all.

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.
 

Public health officials are concerned that infectious diseases are a growing threat to our nation’s health. After the SARS outbreak of 2003, many lessons were learned about inadequate infection control and the recognition that the health care community had to improve preparation for any future large-scale epidemic.

Infection-control professionals and government agencies are now devising new strategies and evaluating equipment, including portable air purifiers, for controlling the spread of airborne infections in healthcare facilities and government and commercial buildings to protect workers in case of a pandemic.

There have been three pandemics in the past century, the most deadly being the Spanish Flu that killed millions. Since the last pandemic in 1968–1969, the risk of an influenza pandemic has never been considered greater than the present time. Officials fear that a virus in birds, the H5N1 virus, could mutate and spread from human to human. The World Health Organization reports at least 229 people are known to have contracted bird flu since 2003, of which 131 have died, which is a high mortality rate.

Due to concern over the potential for viral epidemics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention upgraded its infection control standards “Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health Care Facilities” in 2003. This document provides specifications for airborne infection isolation and protective environments used for high-risk immunocompromised patients.

Of major concern to the CDC is that some human viral and bacterial diseases are transmitted from person to person via droplet aerosols. Airborne transmission of measles has been documented in health care facilities. In addition, institutional outbreaks of influenza viral infections have occurred predominantly in nursing homes and less frequently in intensive care units, chronic care facilities and pediatric wards. Smallpox virus, a potential agent of bioterrorism, is spread via direct contact with infectious droplets but it can also be associated with airborne transmission.

It was proposed, by Dr. Ho in the Annals of Medicine, that in the era of bioterrorism, SARS and annual epidemics of influenza, the number of negative air pressure isolation rooms, or NPIRs, in hospitals is an essential part of managing the spread of airborne infection. It was recommended that large hospitals develop plans for clustering approximately 10 negative air pressure rooms that could be used in an urgent situation. Currently, isolation rooms in most U.S. hospitals are not clustered, and infected patients could expose healthcare workers on various floors to an infective viral or bacterial agent.

One of the drawbacks of constructing dedicated NPIRs is their high cost, which is a barrier to already financially strained hospitals and healthcare facilities. Also, there is concern that, in an epidemic, there could be a surge of patients entering hospitals that require isolation rooms and there would not be enough rooms to handle this number of patients.

According to an article published by the Working Group on Civilian Bio-Defense, there are many circumstances, including mass casualty situations, in which the use of NPIRs may not be possible. In an outbreak of a viral epidemic or pandemic, hospitals and medical facilities could be swamped with infected patients who would have to be placed in standard rooms or cohorted in wards. In such conditions, other infection control measures would have to be taken. In addition to standard infection control procedures such as exhausting air through separate duct systems to the outside atmosphere after passing though HEPA filtration, and dilution ventilation of six to 12 air changes per hour, supplemental air cleaning with UVGI and placing portable air purifiers in regular patient rooms, could reduce airborne infection distribution in group settings.

The use of portable HEPA filters is already included in the CDC guidelines under certain circumstances in hospitals, which, in addition to other infection-control precautions, reduces the risk of nosocomial transmission via small particle aerosols. However, if portable air filters are used to supplement infection controls, then the units must be capable of reducing pathogens in an air stream.

The CDC infection-control guidelines for portable air filters are specified as:

• “Use portable industrial-grade HEPA filter units capable of filtration rates in the range of 300–800 ft3 /min to augment removal of respirable particles as needed.

• “Select portable HEPA filters that can recirculate all or nearly all of the room air and provide the equivalent of [greater than 12 air changes per hour].

• The use of “portable HEPA filter units” whose filter performance has been verified by appropriate particle testing. The filtration efficiency is 99.97 percent at 0.3 microns DOP.

• “Situate portable HEPA units” toward the airborne disease patient.

• “Ensure that fresh-air requirements for the area are met.”

What is of critical importance in any effective use of portable air filters to control airborne infection is that in addition to aerosol droplets, there are droplet nuclei that have to be reduced in the airstream. Droplet nuclei are the residuals of droplets that when suspended in air, subsequently dry and produce particles ranging in size from one to five microns. These particles can contain potentially viable microorganisms, be protected by a coat of dry secretions, remain suspended indefinitely in air, or be transported over long distances.

The microorganisms in droplet nuclei persist in favorable conditions, i.e. a dry cool atmosphere with little or no direct exposure to sunlight or other sources of radiation. Pathogenic microorganisms that can be spread via droplet nuclei include mycobacterium, measles virus (Rubeola) and Smallpox virus (Variola major) and the spores of Aspergillus fumigatus.

Due to the fact that viral droplet nuclei and free viruses are low micron or submicron size, there is the probability that they will pass through HEPA filters or portable machines that are not sealed properly. Also, since a HEPA-only portable filter does not have any germicidal UVGI or other germicidal technology, the viruses that pass through the HEPA filter may still be viable and infective. The portable unit design should therefore include a tight seal around the filter so that 100 percent of the airstream goes through the filter and there is no bypass. Also, a combination HEPA or better than HEPA filter with UVGI or other germicidal technology should be used to inactivate the microorganisms as they pass through the filter.

Numerous HEPA-only filters available in the marketplace claim to reduce bacteria in the units’ HEPA filter. However, very few if any units have been tested with live non-pathogenic bacteria or viruses to see if they can reduce microorganism counts on the outflow side of the filter. Rather, most bacterial-reduction claims of HEPA units are based upon the rating of HEPA particle reduction, without any microorganism surrogate testing or testing of the seals of the portable unit.
This lack of efficiency testing leaves engineers and infection-control professionals with little information to base decisions on which unit or units would be effective for use in controlling airborne infections.

Several manufacturers have combined their HEPA units with one or more UVGI lamps either on the inflow side of the HEPA or after the HEPA. Killing pathogens in an airstream requires a relatively high dose of UVGI radiation with an adequate amount of contact time to deliver a sufficient germicidal dosage to kill (inactivate) pathogens. In some portable HEPA/UV combinations, the seals may not be tight enough to prevent bypass, or generate sufficient UVGI dosage to kill a high percentage of pathogens.

Dr. Wladyslaw Kowalski, in ASHRAE Transactions published in 2000, pointed out that “current available design information has not guaranteed predictable performance for UVGI air disinfection systems.” Guidelines were issued that sanctioned the use of UVGI only in combination with HEPA filters, by ASHRAE in 1991. However, no studies were undertaken to determine the root cause for any UVGI system failures. Kowalski also states that part of the problem is that they fail to define the intensity field, instead merely using the lamp rating. Another flaw in UVGI design is that lamps are specified without regard to lamp location or type. So it is critical that manufacturers test their UV-HEPA systems before making claims that they can be effective in killing bacteria or viruses.

Other air purification technologies should also be evaluated to see if they are effective in reducing pathogens in infected patient environments.

A newer technology called EMF or EGF (enhanced germicidal filtration) uses a HEPA-type filter that is bathed or permeated by a high-voltage electrical field of about 18 kilovolts. Fungi, molds and some bacteria are trapped in the filter; as viruses pass through the filter, they are exposed to the high-energy field with a germicidal effect that inactivates microorganisms in the germ-killing zone. Independent laboratory testing with a portable EMF/EGF unit in which the unit was challenged with large amounts of non-pathogenic microorganisms revealed more than 99 percent inactivation of viable phage viruses, and 94–98 percent of two bacteria and a penicillin strain. The germicidal equivalent dosage generated by the EGF field is approximately 12,000 microwatts/cm2/second based upon percentage of kill and the microorganism’s listed dosage on GE germicidal charts. Also, this germicidal technology has been listed by the Food and Drug Administration as a Class II medical device.

There are two advantages of an EMF/EGF portable unit over a HEPA or HEPA/UV portable units. One advantage is that the EMF/EGF energy does not degrade over time like UV. At 9,000 hours, most UV lamps degrade 25 percent or more depending on the type and quality of the UV lamps. Also, there can be a “shielding effect” with UV technology. Bacteria and viruses attached to small particles may not be completely exposed to the UV unless there is a well designed system incorporating reflective material in the germicidal chambers. This problem is avoided in the EGF system since the filter is completely bathed in energy so there is no “shielding effect” problem.

Ozonation is another method that could be considered for infection control. Ozone is a molecule composed of three atoms of oxygen. The third oxygen atom can detach from the ozone molecule and reattach to other molecules, thereby altering their chemical composition. It is this ability to react with other substances that forms the basis of manufacturer’s claims. However, when inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs. The FDA requires ozone output of indoor medical devices to be no more than 0.05 parts per million.

High concentrations of ozone in air, when people are not present, are sometimes used to help decontaminate an unoccupied space from certain chemical and biological contaminants.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Web publication on ozone, “Some data suggest that low levels of ozone may reduce airborne concentrations and inhibit the growth of some biological organisms while ozone is present, but ozone concentrations would have to be 5-10 times higher than public health standards allow before the ozone could decontaminate the air sufficiently to prevent survival and regeneration of the organisms once the ozone is removed. Even at high concentrations, ozone may have no effect on biological contaminants embedded in porous material such as duct lining or ceiling tiles. In other words, ozone produced by ozone generators may inhibit the growth of some biological agents while it is present, but it is unlikely to fully decontaminate the air unless concentrations are high enough to be a health concern if people are present.”

Therefore, in a healthcare facility, ozone cannot be used when patients with respiratory disease are in the room. After patients are removed and the room is being disinfected with standard hospital biocides, then ozone may be used as a supplemental disinfectant with an appropriate clearing time. However, it could not be used as a primary airborne infection-control method.

It has been recognized that, if there is an outbreak of an infectious disease such as SARS or avian flu or a terrorist attack using a biological agent, hospitals currently could not provide sufficient airborne infection isolation capacity to care for a surge of infected patients. Infection-control options can be engineered using portable air purifiers that can provide effective filtration and inactivation (killing) of viral pathogens in combination with other infection control methods. This would expand the number of hospital rooms that could be used to place and treat infected patients at a much lower cost than building NPIRs.

Portable air purifiers that have germicidal capability could also be used in government and commercial buildings during disease outbreaks and for reducing bioburdens in the workplace.

Finally, new testing criteria and standards for portable units should be established. The portable units should be tested for their ability to inactivate different non-pathogenic microorganisms and their effectiveness in reducing aerosolized particles in the size range of pathogenic bacteria and viruses. The new standard would certify these units as portable germicidal air purifiers for use in medical facilities or any application requiring airborne infection control.

Dr. Roy Speiser is president of CWR Environmental. His experience includes working for the New Jersey Dept. of Health as a microbiologist, a research biochemist for Ortho Research Foundation, and a healthcare practitioner for over 25 years with emphasis on environmental illness. He has written and published numerous scientific articles and co-developed several water and air purification systems that he supplies throughout North America. He can be reached by e-mail at drspeiser@cwrenviro.com or by phone at (516) 674-2441.

Is the building still wet, or is it dry? If it is wet, where is it wet?

Exactly how dry does masonry block have to be for you to reinstall gypsum board?

Sooner or later, all investigations of chronic or catastrophic water damage need quantitative moisture measurements to provide a firm foundation for conclusions and recommendations.

Any quantitative moisture measurement is useful to some extent. But it’s helpful to recognize that with state-of-the-art, modest-cost meters, there are practical aspects of the building environment that limit the utility of raw moisture content readings. To increase their value, one also wants know the precise location of the measurement, the operator’s skill, the type and brand of the meter, and the scale used to record the measurement.

Building owners, their insurance carriers and even many investigators are not always aware of these factors. But a full understanding of the context of the measurement is essential when assessing the current condition of water-related problems in buildings. Such an understanding is, therefore, very helpful in balancing risks with costs.

The Precise Location is Meaningful

Figure 1: Moisture content – and, therefore, mold growth –
can vary significantly over short distances.

Figure 1 shows an informal mold-growth test conducted in the unconditioned basement of this writer’s 230-year-old colonial home in Portsmouth, N.H. A short test wall section, consisting of fir two-by-four-inch studs covered by paper-faced gypsum board, was stored standing on its end. The upper end leaned against the dry basement wall, and the lower end rested on the hard-packed earthen floor. Over several months, moisture from the earth slowly wicked upwards through the gypsum board, eventually providing enough moisture for mold to grow on the untreated paper face of the gypsum board, at the lower end of the test wall section. Many months later, mold also succeeded in growing on the surface of a fir stud, which was in direct contact with the earth floor.

There are two useful points illustrated by Figure 1. First, note the significant difference between moisture measurements taken less than half an inch apart. On the left or “dry side” of the visible mold growth line, the moisture meter reads 11 percent. Then, just half an inch to the right and straddling the visible mold growth line, the meter reads 15 percent. Move another half inch to the right, and the meter reads 19 percent. Another movement of half inch to the right provides a moisture reading of 23 percent.

Because such large differences over very short distances illustrates why knowing the exact location of the measurement is important for understanding its true importance. For example, if a report stated that “the exterior wall moisture content was found to be 16 percent,” a prudent decision maker would want to know exactly where the measurement or measurements were taken. Was the moisture content consistently 16 percent both up and down and across that entire wall? How many readings were taken to reach the conclusion that the moisture content was 16 percent? Was the 16 percent number a maximum or an average? If an average, what was the maximum, and where was that maximum reading taken?

A second point illustrated by Figure 1 is that mold growth rates can also be highly variable over short distances. In this test, there is no visible growth at 11 percent but prolific growth at 19 percent less than two inches away. And this variation happened in gypsum board, which is a uniform material that transports any internal moisture rather quickly. With rapid moisture transport in the material, this sharp edge of mold growth might not be the usual expectation. One could expect that, over several months, the moisture content of the gypsum board (and therefore the potential for mold growth) would be more uniform along the length of the board. But that’s not always the case, as shown here. The sharp differences in mold growth come from those sharp differences in moisture content. So again, in reaching conclusions about the potential for mold growth, the exact location of the moisture measurement can be important when making decisions about mold-sensitive material.

Figure 2: It is helpful to document the exact location
and full context of moisture values.

Figure 2 shows one way to record the entire “moisture geography” comprehensively and at a reasonable cost of time and effort. The first photo shows the overall context of the measurements. We can see the area of concern along with its position with respect to the building as a whole. The second photo is taken closely enough to read the moisture content values written on the strips of masking tape but still far enough away to show the increase in moisture content as the readings approach the window frame.

Influence of the Operator’s Skill

Figure 3: A technician’s skill and consistency can
significantly influence a meter reading.

Figure 3 shows an example of the importance of the operator’s skill. The meter shown is a non-penetrating type, which does not use pins to penetrate the material but instead measures moisture by the change in an electrical field projected immediately behind the meter.

Inside that electrical field are both the moist material and the thin air gap between the back of the meter and the moist material. The electrical properties of that thin air layer are very different than the properties of the moist material.

So as shown in Figure 3, if the operator does not press the meter down evenly to ensure the air gap is of uniform thickness, then the reading shown on the meter will be higher or lower the next time the technician makes a measurement, even though the true moisture content of the material may not have changed.

A similar issue applies to resistance-based, or pin-type, meters. Two pins are pressed into the wet material and the resistance between those pins is converted to a moisture content reading. But the electrical resistance of air is much higher than the resistance of solid materials. So, when there is any tiny air gap between a pin and the material – if the operator does not seat the pins firmly, or if the pins wobble in the material while the reading is being taken – two meter readings taken in exactly the same location can be different, even when there is no actual change in moisture content.

Any error introduced by these particular meter characteristics will always understate the moisture content. With both pin-type and non-penetrating meters, any small air gap will produce readings below (drier than) the true moisture content of the material.

Given the limitations of current state-of-the-art, moderate-cost meters, these are problems that can be minimized only by the skill of the operator and the consistency of his or her work habits. There is no simple way to cross-check the operator’s technique from written reports after the fact. To reduce the uncertainty caused by these issues, it’s useful to know, and to document, exactly who took the readings.

Document the Meter Type, Its Manufacturer, and Measurement Scale

In the moderate-cost range ($100 to $500), there are two principal types of moisture meters in common use: resistance, or pin-type, meters, and capacitance/impedance, or non-penetrating, meters. (There are several other types of meters beyond that price range which are not in common use, but those will be discussed in some other article.)

When analyzing moisture measurements in a written report, it is useful to keep in mind that meters from different manufacturers usually show different values for the same moisture content, even if they use the same measurement principle and are taken in precisely the same location.

Figure 4: Meters from different manufacturers show
different values for “saturated” moisture content.

Figure 4 shows an example of this fact. The gypsum board being measured by these resistance meters is essentially saturated. So, the reading will be simply “maxed out” – i.e., the true moisture content is going to be out of scale for all of the meters. Meter 1 indicates that fact by showing an upwards-facing arrow at the 44 percent maximum value on its pre-printed scale. Meter 2 maxes out at 37 percent. Meter 3 pegs its scale at 40 percent, while Meter 4 suggests the moisture content is over 100 percent. In fact, most resistance-based meters are not very accurate when wood moisture content is more than about 35 percent. So in this situation the true moisture content is not reliably reported by any of these instruments. Correctly reported, the moisture content is simply “more than 35 percent on a softwood lumber scale.”

Figure 5: Different meters also show different values
in the range of mold-risky moisture contents.

Figure 5 shows a similar example. In this case the meters are used to read a much lower moisture content in gypsum board – a moisture content that is in the usual range of interest for making decisions about whether gypsum board is “dry enough” for further work. The meters show values from a low of 13 percent to a high of 19 percent, in exactly the same location (The pin positions do not vary by more than one eighth of an inch).

There are two obvious implications of these meter characteristics. First, the prudent investigator keeps in mind that any reading above 30 percent really indicates only that the material is “pretty darn wet.” Distinctions such as 34 percent vs. 46 percent moisture content read from meters made by different manufacturers do not reliably indicate a meaningful difference in moisture content. Secondly, if the type, manufacturer and model number are not recorded along with the moisture readings, it will be difficult to compare readings taken on different days to each other, even if the readings are taken in precisely the same location.

Next, it’s useful to keep in mind that none of the above readings could be even remotely close to correct percentages of gypsum board moisture content. These numbers in the 11 to 35 percent range are far too high.

As it leaves the factory, dry gypsum board has a moisture content of about 0.4 percent by weight. Later, if gypsum board becomes soaking wet and is crumbling apart, its moisture content is still not likely to be more than 1.8 percent. Most gypsum board simply cannot hold more than about 2 percent of its weight in water. So the percent moisture content readings on the meters in figures 1 through 4 cannot be correct for gypsum board, even though the readings can still be very useful for comparison purposes.

The experienced investigator recognizes that the scale shown on most pin-type meters is calibrated for softwood lumber, usually Douglas fir. So, in the case of the readings above, one should record the fact that the readings taken in the gypsum board are based on the wood moisture equivalent, or the WME, scale.

It’s also useful to keep in mind that the electrical characteristics of lumber are different than the electrical properties of the same wood when it’s chopped up, compressed and baked into engineered wood products. For example, the softwood lumber calibration does not apply directly to oriented strand board, or OSB, even though the OSB is made of softwood. A correction must be made to account for the increased electrical resistance of glue, and of the air spaces between the wood chips at low moisture contents. In addition, higher temperatures will reduce the electrical resistance of both lumber and OSB (the opposite of what happens in metals, in which warmer temperatures raise electrical resistance).

Table courtesy of Forintek Canada, 2001

Table 1: Corrections for moisture readings taken in Aspen
oriented strand board by softwood meters.

Combined correction factors for Aspen OSB were developed by the Canadian Wood Council and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 2001. Those correction factors are shown in Table 1. They show that in general terms, unadjusted softwood-scale measurements overestimate the true moisture content of Aspen OSB at ambient and higher temperatures, while they underestimate its true moisture content as the temperature goes below freezing.

There’s another complication when reporting the moisture content of gypsum board, masonry block, brick and concrete. Capacitance or impedance-based meters are often used for these materials, and many such meters have only “relative” scales, rather than percent moisture content by weight. In other words, the meters may display values from 0 to 100 or perhaps 0 to 200. But these do not refer to percent moisture content by weight. Instead, they are simply non-absolute indicators of “higher” or “lower” moisture content. Also, different manufacturers use different non-penetrating measurement technologies. And each manufacturer uses different “relative scale” values for the same moisture content. As a result, it’s simply impossible to know whether there is any truly higher or lower moisture content indicated by a relative reading of 73 from one manufacturer compared to a relative reading of 122 from a different manufacturer.

To summarize, when reporting moisture measurements in buildings, the most useful documentation will show the exact location of the measurement, in its fullest “geographic” context. It’s also important to record the manufacturer and model name of the instrument, along with which of its possible scales are being used, as well as the date, time and the name of the person who took the measurements.
This information – admittedly not always included in most reports today – will enhance the value of any investigator’s conclusions and recommendations, and will provide a firmer foundation for decisions made by owners and insurance companies with respect to moisture problems in buildings.

Lew Harriman is director of research and consulting for Mason-Grant in Portsmouth, N.H. He was the lead author for the ASHRAE Humidity Control Design Guide and the recent report to the California Energy Commission titled “A California Builder’s Guide to Reducing Mold Risk.” Harriman is a member of ASHRAE Technical Committee 1.12 (Moisture Management in Buildings). He can be reached by e-mail at LewHarriman@MasonGrant.com or by phone at (603) 431-0635.