Issue link: https://hi.iaq.net/i/691401
IAQA 18th Annual Meeting & Indoor Environment and Energy Expo (IE3) The views and opinions herein are those of the volunteer authors and may not reflect the views and opinions of IAQA. The information is offered in good faith and believed to be reliable but it is provided without warranty, expressed or implied, as to the merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or any other matter. apatient's system. According to multiple reports, for people who report potential exposure to water-damaged buildings, failing this test is a strong indicator of a biotoxin illness, with a diagnosis accuracy rate of about 92%. This is one of the major reasons there is an evolving trend for restoration professionals to be responsible not only for removing contamination, but also for conducting complete structure cleaning, and even completing the repair/rebuild to minimize future problems. While it is true that many hygienists and contractors limit their scope of work based on cost factors and deal only with visible fungal growth, this tactic does not resolve the problem for sensitized individuals. In those cases, the contamination situation in a building that has been water damaged must be viewed as having four distinct components to be managed: 1. Sources of fungal contamination (both visible and hidden) 2. Transport mechanisms that allow spores to migrate from one area to another (with HVAC systems being the most important) 3. Contents such as clothing, furniture, and personal belongingsthat have become sources of contamination because they are supporting fungal colonies or have been cross contaminated with spores and other fragments 4. Reservoirs of fungal spores and fragments in the structure (carpets, walls, ceilings, and many other surfaces) Unless all of these aspects of the fungal contamination issue are addressed, relief of symptoms by the occupants will often remain elusive. Proper Removal of Fungal Sources is Not Rocket Science—But Must be Science Based Currently there are very few federal or state regulations that actually control the mold remediation process (Texas being the notable exception, but even in that state there is a current push to deregulate those activities). Therefore, true industry professionals must be aware that their efforts are subject to an industry standard of care. Unlike a regulation, a standard of care must be pieced together from a number of different documents. While there is some debate about which references really form the core of the mold control industry, the following seven documents are cited frequently: 1. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control; 1999 2. American Industrial Hygiene Association; Report of Microbial Growth Task Force; 2001 3. Environmental Protection Agency; A Guide for Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings; 2001 4. Canadian Construction Association;Mould Guidelines for the Canadian Construction Industry; 2004