Why 2 Outdoor Samples?

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by douglas

We are mold inspectors, after years following folks pretending to do mold inspections I guess I am a little hard on some.

People want a simple answer, one that fits all occasions. There are dozens of excellent books or chapters of reputable books written on sampling for mold. Anyone serious about mold sampling will read them. Every job is different and you design your sampling accordingly. It’s not hard but it is work.

We spend a lot of time and money on workshops, books, classes, etc to find the answers to our questions. The question about the 2 samples implys the person asking it needs more training /education about sampling.
Any answer given on a thread like this would not be enough. (my opinion)


I apologize if I offended anyone, but perhaps some need to do their homework before becoming mold inspectors.

I have read and studied a lot about mold. I have not found any reference to why two outside samples are required unless you are counting papers written by somebody working for a lab. Please refer us to an unbias reference.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by sgilligan1

...
I don't see anything in the standard about recording the relative humidity and temperature of each sampling location. There is nothing in there about diagraming a room and visible mold growth. There is nothing in there about taking moisture readings of pourous substrate surfaces where mold growth is visible..

4.8 Moisture, Humidity, and Temperature
I. The inspector shall measure:
A. Moisture of any room or area of the building that has moisture intrusion, water damage, moldy odors, apparent mold growth, or conditions conducive to mold growth.
B. Humidity of any room or area of the building (at the inspector’s discretion).
C. Temperature of any room or area of the building (at the inspector’s discretion).

The diagramming a room and visible mold growth is a great idea. I can add that as an option to the SOP. Most mold reports that I've seen include digital pictures and the inspectors take general measurements of things visible. The EPA draws a line, I believe, around at 100 sq ft. The SOP does not restrict you from taking measurements. Measure away. You are in control. You choose.

5.4.3.6 Each Substrate
- If mold is visible on different substrates or building materials such as wood, drywall, or wallpaper, then a sample from each different material is recommended.

Taking measurements are independent of the substrate. The inspector is required to take measurements of moisture of any room or area of the building that has moisture intrusion, water damage, moldy odors, apparent mold growth, or conditions conducive to mold growth. The inspector is not limited/restricted to particular substrates. You are in control. You choose.

Hope this helps.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by jbraun

Because IAC2 SOP is written by a lab. It is laughable when you think about it.

James (and others),

I do not work for Pro-Lab. That's insulting. Please stop. I left you two messages. Pick up your phone. Please stop bashing me. I'd rather you call me instead of "talking behind my back" on this board. I have no hidden agenda. It's none of your business, but... I support my family by doing inspections (I still do them), writing online courses, selling my home maintenance book, selling my training videos, and selling inspection warranties. That's it.

If I'm biased in any way - I am biased towards InterNACHI.
I'll do anything to see InterNACHI as the best association of inspectors.

Please stop.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

I left you a voice message. My direct line is 573-761-3581 or you can tell my virtual assistant to find me until telling it to leave me messages. If you do not ring my phone, I can not talk to you in person.

Sorry you took offense. Also the lab paper was not a reference to you. It was to some industrial hygienist, microbiologist, etc that work for a lab that writes technical studies based on their opinion.

[Larry F. Rollins]

Now we are getting to some meat. Mr. Walls last post explains that most of his work is "special case" work and he obviously has to take that into account.
Mr. Gromicko's post is a serious attempt to answer the original question and some others that came up along the way. I appreciate all of this, yet still would like some discussion and guidance.
I understand that while there is "wiggle room" in the SOP's we must also remember that they are "Standards of Procedure". They are the baseline to which all of our work will be compared to, whether in court or otherwise. If the only reason to take two outdoor samples is "Windy Day".... then we should consider changing the SOP to reflect that. Otherwise, on a calm day with constant weather conditions, when I decide to take only one sample, I will not be breaking the "Standards of Procedure" and taking the chance that it will someday come back to bite me.... possibly in court!
As I now read the SOP, it is perfectly clear on the point that an inspector "WILL" take two samples outdoors if possible. I know courts.... they will assume the "if possible" means" "if it is physically possible". Therefore, to me, if I can physically walk around the building.... the "windy day" answer is not a practical answer.... for it flys directly in the face of the SOP's as written.
Remember, following the SOP's only becomes exceptionally important to us when in court... and in court "wording" is everything!
Much of Ben's last post seemed to me to be directed towards defending the SOP's as a whole. I think we should assume that they [as a whole] are the best in the industry. This is all the more reason to continue to thrash out problems within them. Ben's answer concerning agreeing beforehand with the client and having it written out and signed... beforehand, makes good sense. That is, until you realize that to put the answer into real life practical use would mean we will have to bring a lawyer with us on every inspection to write the "contract" that allows us to break with the SOP so that we are protected in a lawsuit. If we are sued concerning a case in which we have broken with the SOP, it is my opinion that, we have basically screwed ourselves.
This is the best reason to continually talk about the SOP's and hopefully over time hone them to a point that they are followable and useful to the industry.
In the absence of federal or state laws[most of the country] concerning mold inspections the civil courts will go to the SOP's for quidance. The wording of the IAQ2 SOP's will become more important as time goes on. It is imperative to us all that they are "real world" and workable.

[Joe Farsetta]

I work with a bevy of CIHs and deal with protocols dealing with infection control pertaining to aspergilliosis and other molds. As to the two outdoor samples, there is no scientific justification for it, no matter the size of the structure or how many doors it has. The sampling needs to be targeted at a specific problem, and not as a non-conditional general assessment. This is why the EPA states that if mold is present, that testing is not required, and if testing is required, that it be performed by trained professionals who understand the development and logic behind designing protocols.

Leeward, wayward, upwind, downwind... all BS.

There should be justification behind testing; a purpose... a REASON. After the true need is established, the testing protocol for the investigation at hand needs to be developed. This is the public health we are speaking of. It is not to be toyed with.

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

As a side note: I did 200+ air samples using Z5 cassettes in a public building on Wed. with the help of a fellow NACHI member Mark B. I have been doing this building semi-annually for the last 2 years (with Mark's help). Clients are pro-active in determining the IAQ at their place of work. I give them a discounted price of $80.00/sample. We both walked away with $6K (approximately), not bad for one days work!!
Pro-Lab has given me a discounted price for these samples as they allways do with large quantities. I did not pre-pay for my cassettes (media) however, on smaller projects I do. I’m currently looking for a Lab that will provide me with at least 100+ cassettes/tape lifts/swabs without pre-paying for services and $25.00 or less for the analysis/report.
BTW I only did one (1) outdoor control sample.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mark for all his help. Without his help I would not have been able to finish this job!

Thanks Mark

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Originally Posted by mkyriacou

As a side note: I did 200+ air samples using Z5 cassettes in a public building on Wed. with the help of a fellow NACHI member Mark B. I have been doing this building semi-annually for the last 2 years (with Mark's help). Clients are pro-active in determining the IAQ at their place of work. I give them a discounted price of $80.00/sample. We both walked away with $6K (approximately), not bad for one days work!!
Pro-Lab has given me a discounted price for these samples as they allways do with large quantities. I did not pre-pay for my cassettes (media) however, on smaller projects I do. I’m currently looking for a Lab that will provide me with at least 100+ cassettes/tape lifts/swabs without pre-paying for services and $25.00 or less for the analysis/report.
BTW I only did one (1) outdoor control sample.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mark for all his help. Without his help I would not have been able to finish this job!

Thanks Mark

Call up EMSL and talk with them. I use them for all my IAQ stuff and they are great to work with. They just referred me a nice little office IAQ inspection and sampling job I have to work out the details with the client.

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

Scott,

EMSL has contacted Mark. We will both meet with a representative from the company to see what they can offer us. We both do up to 500 air samples annually so I'm sure a good deal can be had.

[Nick Gromicko]

The reason 2 outdoor samples is preferred over 1 is quite simple: They will often produce very different results.

Yes, it is is true that I and others are able to make a scientific argument that most mold inspections do not require sampling at all.

However, the argument for 2 outdoor samples need not resort to a scientific one, but rather a matter of simple logic.

Follow me:

If you believe that an outdoor sample is necessary then it MUST be because you believe the results of that outdoor sample mean something. Otherwise there is no need to take it at all.

Keep following me:

And if you believe that the results of that one outdoor sample mean something and so is necessary, then you MUST also believe that a different result on the outside of the other side of the building would also mean something. Basic logic forces you to assign the two different results equal weight in terms of meaning. They either both mean nothing or they both mean something.

The ONLY counter to this logic is if you believe that the two results will always be similar and so only 1 outdoor sample need ever be taken.

Simple logic has brought us to the key question. And the key question isn't "Do I take one outdoor sample or two?" The key question is "Am I scientifically positive outdoor samples will always produce similar results?"

If your answer to the key question is "yes", feel free to always take 1 outdoor sample only.

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The reason 2 outdoor samples is preferred over 1 is quite simple: They will often produce very different results.

Yes, it is is true that I and others are able to make a scientific argument that most mold inspections do not require sampling at all.

However, the argument for 2 outdoor samples need not resort to a scientific one, but rather a matter of simple logic.

Follow me:

If you believe that an outdoor sample is necessary then it MUST be because you believe the results of that outdoor sample mean something. Otherwise there is no need to take it at all.

Keep following me:

And if you believe that the results of that one outdoor sample mean something and so is necessary, then you MUST also believe that a different result on the outside of the other side of the building would also mean something. Basic logic forces you to assign the two different results equal weight in terms of meaning. They either both mean nothing or they both mean something.

The ONLY counter to this logic is if you believe that the two results will always be similar and so only 1 outdoor sample need ever be taken.

Simple logic has brought us to the key question. And the key question isn't "Do I take one outdoor sample or two?" The key question is "Am I scientifically positive outdoor samples will always produce similar results?"

If your answer to the key question is "yes", feel free to always take 1 outdoor sample only.

I am not a Mold Guy but I am impressed with that logic.
Excellent

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The reason 2 outdoor samples is preferred over 1 is quite simple: They will often produce very different results.

Yes, it is is true that I and others are able to make a scientific argument that most mold inspections do not require sampling at all.

However, the argument for 2 outdoor samples need not resort to a scientific one, but rather a matter of simple logic.

Follow me:

If you believe that an outdoor sample is necessary then it MUST be because you believe the results of that outdoor sample mean something. Otherwise there is no need to take it at all.

Keep following me:

And if you believe that the results of that one outdoor sample mean something and so is necessary, then you MUST also believe that a different result on the outside of the other side of the building would also mean something. Basic logic forces you to assign the two different results equal weight in terms of meaning. They either both mean nothing or they both mean something.

The ONLY counter to this logic is if you believe that the two results will always be similar and so only 1 outdoor sample need ever be taken.

Simple logic has brought us to the key question. And the key question isn't "Do I take one outdoor sample or two?" The key question is "Am I scientifically positive outdoor samples will always produce similar results?"

If your answer to the key question is "yes", feel free to always take 1 outdoor sample only.

Please change the SOP for only one air sample can be taken. Thanks!

[Nick Gromicko]

For reasons explained above, none or two are necessary.

[Michael Bazzo]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The reason 2 outdoor samples is preferred over 1 is quite simple: They will often produce very different results.

Yes, it is is true that I and others are able to make a scientific argument that most mold inspections do not require sampling at all.

However, the argument for 2 outdoor samples need not resort to a scientific one, but rather a matter of simple logic.

Follow me:

If you believe that an outdoor sample is necessary then it MUST be because you believe the results of that outdoor sample mean something. Otherwise there is no need to take it at all.

Keep following me:

And if you believe that the results of that one outdoor sample mean something and so is necessary, then you MUST also believe that a different result on the outside of the other side of the building would also mean something. Basic logic forces you to assign the two different results equal weight in terms of meaning. They either both mean nothing or they both mean something.

The ONLY counter to this logic is if you believe that the two results will always be similar and so only 1 outdoor sample need ever be taken.

Simple logic has brought us to the key question. And the key question isn't "Do I take one outdoor sample or two?" The key question is "Am I scientifically positive outdoor samples will always produce similar results?"

If your answer to the key question is "yes", feel free to always take 1 outdoor sample only.

Other than wind velocity, why would two samples taken within, say 80 feet of each other produce different results. every training class I've ever attended instructs the sample be taken at the calmest side of the building so wind does not artificially make the spore count higher than it normally would be. The two outdoor sample thought makes no sense. further more, selling one more sample to client already having the deer in the headlight look on there face would make the sale hardier then it already is.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

For reasons explained above, none or two are necessary.

But the SOP does not say that.