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. 5. New York City Department of Health; Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments; 2008 6. Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification; Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation S520; 2008 7. Occupational Safety and Health Administration; A Brief Guide to Mold in the Workplace; Safety and Health Information Bulletin, updated November 2013 Despite the fact that guidance for mold situations is coming from a variety of sources, there is a surprising consistency in the overall tone and approach. Since many mold remediation contractors come from a background of dealing with other hazardous contaminants such as asbestos or lead, all of the accepted reference documents emphasize understanding that mold is a biological agent. Since it has the ability to grow under the right conditions, isolation and deferred action to remove the source of the problem may not be possible, as it is with asbestos materials. With molda delay may allow contamination inside a building to grow to a point where it poses a hazard greater than when initially discovered. Another key point emphasized by all of the documents is that the presence of mold growth means that there is or has been moisture intrusion in the building. Removing surface mold contamination and not identifying and correcting the underlying moisture problem would be tantamount to a doctor treating symptoms rather than the disease that is causing them. This aspect of the mold remediation process has taken on even greater importance since we have recognized that other contaminants present in water-damaged buildings are also contributing to the problems experienced by occupants. A third element that makes up the standard of care for the removal of fungal sources is that the work be done in such a way as to avoid cross-contamination.As is stated in bold type at the beginning of the remediation section of the New York City guidelines:The goal of remediation is to remove or clean mold-damaged materials using work practices that protect occupants by controlling the dispersion of mold from the work area and protect remediation workers from exposures to mold. Even though it should not be necessary to add this warning, a word about chemical use is important. Too many advertisements related to mold remediation fall into the category of "spray and pray." Despite the fact that the advertisements and sales pitches talk about how the product is "all-natural," "developed by NASA for the space station," "used by the military to decontaminate anthrax," and a number of other impressive statements, such an approach does not fit the industry standard of care. More important, fogging, spraying, or atomizing chemicals into a structureoccupied by a sensitized individual can be downright dangerous. Spraying such materials into a building and praying that they take care of the problem the first time, divert