Mold test

[Andy T. Bishop]

I did a mold swab test the other day and the black spots charcoal like on the cement wall just like another job i did turned up NOTHING!!!! I am refunding some of the money due to it was nothing but asked to test again for FREE! I can't believe the test came back nothing when the last one EXACTLY like it was penn/asper.
Anyone else run into this? I am wondering if i did it wrong for some odd reason. It is prolabs swab and i opened the package, moistened the swab and swabbed two spots and put it back in the container?????????????????????? Sealed it in a ziplock and fedex'd!
Help!

[Jay Moge]

i don't see any signs of moisture, and those don't look like typical spores that i've seen. could it be furnace dust, or something. if the lab told you it wasn't mold, did they tell you what it was??? and why refund them the test cost?? the reason you took a sample was to find out if it was mold or not, right?? well it's not. you did exactly what you were paid to do. you earned the money, don't pay them because they don't have mold. unless it's a new HI gameshow i don't know of.

[Andy T. Bishop]

The lab did NOT say what it was and that is what throws me. I thought they would at least say what it was? I refunded some money just to be good about it and not trying to sell them a service they did not need. Just trying to be a good sport.
Shouldn't the lab have told me what it was?
I am calling them monday morning.
BHI

[Greg Bell]

Why do you feel that the lab should have told you what it was. Isn't it just a mold test? Or is it a test to identify what the substance is?

[dplummer]

The lab may not of been able to determine what the substance was. From my experience, if they can identify the substance mould or not, they will. Why did you swab it? Was it just because of the black colour? Did you use a moisture meter on the foundation wall? If so, what was the reading? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious. Doug

[Andy T. Bishop]

The reason i swabed it was a couple mold clients ago i had the exact looking substance and it came back penn/asp. So i said to the YOUNG Female client, lets swab it and if it comes back mold, we can do a air test. I didn't want to and don't think she was wanting to do a couple hundred $ test without knowing it was for sure mold. NOPE, no moisture meter testing tool. Maybe some day i will. I just thought i need to make sure this is mold and then i can do 2 - 3 more air test and make some more $ without ripping the young girl off. I told the Real Estate agent i want to swab it again for free just for my own benefit. I am going to call prolab and ask a few questions, just because. This was on an interior block wall but the exterior had some moisture stains and such. I thought this would be an easy couple hundred dollars but wanted to be positive first. Maybe that is my rookie mistake but if it came back nothing with swab and air test it would make me look bad but yet make them feel safe. ?????????????
Thanks

[William Warner]

You really should consider getting a moisture meter if you are performing mold screens. It's a good tool to have just for home inspecting period.

Do you at least have something that tells you RH?

[Andy T. Bishop]

Yes, i have the RH.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello Mr. Bishop:

Here are a few comments:

1) Swab tests are entirely meaningless. I just defeated a “certified mould inspector’s” report and impugned his data – he too used swab testing. Swabs cannot be used for quantification, or even qualification. Swabbing is ENTIRELY a waste of a client’s money.

2) Mould is a saprophyte and doesn’t grow on concrete per se.

3) The lab is not responsible for saying what the material was, it is only responsible for providing the results of exactly what you asked for.

4) You mention doing two or three air test; those test WILL be invalid, and will only be a disservice to the client. Additionally, we are now able to demonstrate that people who take such air samples exhibit “bad faith” (i.e. “snake-oil”) which can mean LOTS of liability ($$$) toward the person who collected the sample. One state Depratment of Health is now telling people to avoid mould consultants who perform air testing and/or swab testing.

Feel free to ask questions,
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

[William Warner]

Oh boy.

Another damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.


We can get sued for not recommending such tests, and we can get sued for recommending or performing such tests.

[William Warner]

How can one quantify healthy home counts to unhealthy home counts period?

As a general rule, the normal closed-mode indoor total fungal spore counts across the central portion of the U.S. (bounded by a latitude of, say, 35 degrees north to 45 degrees north), for healthy buildings (buildings not experiencing fungal problems) is usually less than 500 counts per cubic meter (counts/m3); with indoor concentrations exceeding 900 counts/m3 less than 15% of the time.8

8The last time I analyzed the data, my data shows the MVUE to be 394 counts/m3 with a 13% probability of a single random sample exceeding 900 counts/m3. n=245

Even your data has changed as noted. From 15% to 13% probability is a rather large difference mathematically.
How can the word "usually" be used in any scientific approach? "Usually" denotes uncertainty as is the root disagreement with any mold sampling and accepted "healthy" levels. Scientifically, it either is or it isn't, not usually is or is not. Is this a hypothesis you are currently testing, or accepted theory for indoor home health?

ESA's accepted and taught standards are being used as a "general rule" as well. They may not be correct according to your findings anymore than yours are to theirs. Most of the general public, attorneys, and judges have no basis in scientific theory or proceudres, and it would be easy to sway them to one side or another depending on how smooth of a talker you are. Most of your discussion at http://www.forensic-applications.com/moulds/mvue.html goes well above the typical lay persons head.

I agree that comparison of samples taken inside and outside may not be a quality comparison, but it is a starting point. Are your findings of 500 to 900 count/m3 accepted industry standard? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want more than an "I'm right and your wrong" discussion since from your website even you are unsure of healthy limits.

[Andy T. Bishop]

This is too funny!
You mean if i swab something and it comes back as mold and then i do and air test and find mold at levels that prolab says is too high, it is not WRONG?
How am i suppose to do mould/mold testing then? Are you saying i am not qualified? IF i say i am a generalist how is that wrong?
Thanks for your info.
BHI

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello Gents!

Great questions.

Mr. Warner asks:

How can one quantify healthy home counts to unhealthy home counts period?

Answer: One must develop a priori data quality objectives and then use those to distinguish between “healthy” and “unhealthy.” In the absence of data quality objectives, one has numbers, not results, and certainly not data.

Mr. Warner asks:

Even your data has changed as noted. From 15% to 13% probability is a rather large difference mathematically.


Good question, for a start, my data didn’t change. And the references to the 15% and the 13% are, in fact exactly the same statement. Lookit- the first part of the statement “…with indoor concentrations exceeding 900 counts/m3 less than 15% of the time…” is a generalization, and the second part (in the foot note) “…MVUE to be 394 counts/m3 with a 13% probability of a single random sample exceeding 900 counts/m3…” is the precise form of the first statement. They actually are saying the same thing. (By the way, "lookit" isn't a real word...)

In any event, regarding airborne mould counts, a difference of 15% vs. 13% would be statistically meaningless since mould counts are not just lognormally distributed, but classic industrial hygiene shows us that interday and intraday variations range from a GSD of 1.2 to 2.5; which for a mean value of say, 5,000 spores/m3 would span the range of a low of 315 spores/m3 and an high of 1.5 million. Which is normal.

How can the word "usually" be used in any scientific approach? "Usually" denotes uncertainty as is the root disagreement with any mold sampling and accepted "healthy" levels.

Good question. REAL science (as you call it) is EXACTLY a discussion of uncertainty, and indeed, the quantification of uncertainty. We call it “precision” and distinguish it from “accuracy” (one or two or three mould samples being neither).

The reason my data stand up in court is EXACTLY because I not only understand the uncertainty, (since I purposely find the uncertainty) but also because I articulate that uncertainty in my reports.

Scientifically, it either is or it isn't, not usually is or is not. Is this a hypothesis you are currently testing, or accepted theory for indoor home health?

Not true. When dealing with samples, there is no sample that is definitively "true" or "not true." There is no sample, whatever, that is devoid of uncertainty. The issues I’m discussing here are not “hypotheses” neither are they “hypothetical statements” rather they represent good science. And so, yes, it is accepted and has been accepted for centuries, it is known as “the scientific method” wherein we establish an hypothesis, then we test the hypothesis pursuant to properly laid out questions and limits. When you take an air sample for mould, using the more common techniques, there is virtually no ligitimate probability that the count you received as "data" is the actual mean count for that house.

ESA's accepted and taught standards are being used as a "general rule" as well.

I’m sorry, I don’t know who the ESA is. I certainly know that genuine national consensus standards support these findings.

I agree that comparison of samples taken inside and outside may not be a quality comparison, but it is a starting point.

Actually, its not a starting point at all, since it has been long known to be incorrect. It’s rather like saying you’re going to compare the indoor results with the mould results collected from the inside of your Grandmother’s ’57 Desoto since "it’s someplace to start." If the comparison has absolutely no foundation, it’s not a good place to start, especially where there are much better places to start (many of which have already been published).

Are your findings of 500 to 900 count/m3 accepted industry standard? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want more than an "I'm right and your wrong" discussion since from your website even you are unsure of healthy limits.

The findings described are not subject to "approval" or "non-approval," per se since they are objective finding, and the confidence intervals are reported. So, my statement is rather like saying “Most cars will get somewhere between 5 mpg and 75 mpg.” And then providing 10,000 measurements to support the contention. However, currently my airborne mould database has well over 10,000 observations. I will be presenting a paper on the subject at the upcoming ASTM International Symposium on Mould this summer, if you’re interested. You can judge for yourself by the reception the paper receives whether the data are "approved" or not (but in all honesty, most of the experts assembled for the symposium will be bored to tears, since they already know all this. I was merely asked to present the data since I'm a member of the committee writing the standard, and some clarification was requested). However, all of this has already been beaten to death in sampling theory books that are almost (almost) older than I am.

Mr. Bishop asks:

“You mean if i swab something and it comes back as mold and then i do and air test and find mold at levels that prolab says is too high, it is not WRONG?”

On the contrary, it’s not only wrong, its meaningless. Not because it is from Pro-Lab, but because of how it’s been collected, and upon which foundation has it been collected, and according to which DQOs it's been collected. Pro-lab doesn’t necessarily put out any more or less meaningful results than any other lab – The inherent meaning doesn’t come from the analysis or the lab, it comes from YOU, the collector. YOU are the sole interpreter of the data, and you will ultimately, if it goes to court, will be responsible for defending the data. In my case, my DQOs are such that I already know if the lab has made a mistake when I receive my results, and I have frequently returned lab results and asked the analyzing lab to rerun the samples until they get the "right" results.

(Hmmm... how could he do that?) Easy, that is exactly why one has a QA/QC programme. If you are relying on the lab to tell you what the results mean, then you will fail miserably if you get sued, and you are facing even a mediocre industrial hygeinist or microbiologist in court.

When I defeat home inspectors and “certified” mould inspectors in court, I usually do so based on the methods employed by the person who collected the sample, and very rarely don’t even have to bother addressing the validity of the analytical report (although I did just that last week in a IAQ case).

Indeed, the result you receive is wrong for perhaps no other reason than because it IS meaningless. After all, how can something without meaning be correct? For example, take the following statement: “The average American has 273.” Is the statement “right” or “wrong?” Taken in a vacuum, it’s neither, since we haven’t specified to what the number refers. Until the “thing” quantified is identified, we can’t know if the statement is true or false. Similarly, with a swab or an air sample, it too is only a value with no limits, quantification or inherent meaning.

How am i suppose to do mould/mold testing then?

Answer: Easy. Simply follow the procedures that have been established for many decades based on good science and sound sampling theory. 1) Establish an hypothesis to be tested. 2) Establish proper a priori data quality objectives. 3) Perform the sampling in such a manner that it will meet the DQOs. That's what I do (and thousands of other industrial hygienists across the planet), and that is why in almost 19 years of defending my data in court, I haven’t lost – and why whenever I’m hired to rebut the data of others who haven’t done the above always have lost.

Just some food for thoughts.

Cheers,
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

[William Warner]

Thanks for answering my questions CC

Your site is very informative btw.

ESA in this instance stands for the Environmental Solutions Association. http://www.envirosolution.com They are responsible for providing the educational material and testing procedures to inspectors. Their material and education clearly state that it is widely accepted to provide indoor and outdoor samples in order for the lab to make a comparison of the levels and indicate elevated interior counts or not.

I totaly agree with you about fluctuations of outdoor mold counts from hour to hour, day to day, and season to season, proximity to compost piles, etc, etc, etc. Indoor counts can fluctuate as well dependant on as many or more variables.

If what ESA is teaching is blatently wrong (which you claim), what recourse do we have to rectify our erroneous teachings. ESA is claiming that Certified IHs are part of their team. Again the word "certified".

Will you give this a "lookit" as well?

Thanks

[Richard L. Bennett]

Caoimhín P. Connell

Taken some one on in court is not what it is about.

Question --- Did your test show mold -- Yes or No
Question --- Can the test be done again and get the same results --Yes or No
Question --- Is the level high enough to be a health issue
Question --- Would you live there

-----------

Should all the people selling "mold home test kits" like Home Depot etc be take out of the business??
-----------

I have taken samples and cleaned up messes (sometimes properly and sometimes not) from nuclear, chemical, and yes mold for many years.

Yes, I have been trained - yes some times trained incorrectly -

NOW WHAT??

If the public is to receive a service to keep them safe it has to be affordable and available

One Inspector in Florida is ready to do a school -- He has been doing Mold for a few years -- we are talking a lot of $$ and we are talking a lot of kids going to that school ---

So help us out here

BTW a home owner should have the same AFFORIDABLE information

----- Radon testing - lead testing -- CO2 -- testing --- Smoke testing -- Sound testing -- Temperature testing etc. is all off the shelf --

Why NOT MOLD??

Lets hear it in terms that I can pass on to my clients

I really want to tell them that I can not test for mold and no one else can either. That it is a joke to take your $$ --- and not get taken to court for saying so.

You see I too understand that testing without very controlled conditions, which we do not have, can be very far in the green at one point and then in the red a short time later

Give us a real simple reason to get out of the business

Remember our test can be reproduced -- even if not exactly but probably within normal testing tolerance to say that a building is a hazard or not

PLEASE your LOW LEVEL thoughts -- remember we see you as the expert and at this time do not want to challenge you --- but I am thinking

rlb