RE: Formaldehyde

[Guest guest]

,

I think the fungal proteinases from Stachybotrys are inactivated by a

relatively low

level of heat compared to the extremely high amounts of heat required to

deactivate the trichothecenes.

Thats significant in that they are very inflammatory. I would guess

that a similar

situation applies with other fungal metabolites, the higher the heat

gets, the more

are inactivated. All chemical and biological activity stops at absolute zero and

for all practical purposes, there is probably a temperature at which all matter

that we are familar with is vaporized. Those could represent two end points on

a graph and the relatively narrow range of temperatures in which life processes

occur would be a thin strip in the middle. An even narrower strip

would represent

the temperature range found in buildings and by raising that temperature higher

than is usually encountered, statsitically I think that yes, it could

be shown that

a statistically significant number of chemicals were vaporized or driven off.

I think that " perceptorally " (I know I'm misspelling that but I don't

have the energy right

now to go look it up) the impact on people might be higher and for environmental

consultants who get paid when the work is 'completed' that is very important as

the period immediately after the heat is removed would be the period

in which the

least amount of smell was present. Chances are that a significant

amount of smells

are from volatile compounds that have a good chance of being driven off by heat.

I do think that an (abnormally?) dry state of matter might make it

more likely to absorb new

smells during any re-hydrating period but if the owners of the

structure were careful

to avoid re-contamination there is a good chance that there would be a major

subjective impact.

Obviously, even if there had been mold growth in the past, heating the

structure to

such a high heat would dry it out and stop all current mold growth in

its tracks.

I would have to wonder though what the chances would be that spores would remain

viable. Have any studies been done on spores subjected to building drying?

Obviously, dry buildings will not have any MVOCs, which I realized is

part of my own

mold response, a semi-nausea part especially.

Dry and cool is not such a bad environment for spores. Dry and hot,

maybe less so?

I don't know. But I do know that dried out stachybotrys can be pretty nasty when

the wind blows it into your home, eyes, nose, etc. Very nasty.

I am sure that if it was baked, it wouldn't have its proteinases, though.

And probably other things too. Perhaps even a good chunk of them, but

not all. And if the cause (of moisture driven mold growth or fiberboard

decomposition > formaldehyde or ??? absorbed

odors, fungal MVOC or others) is not addressed, then the chances of it

all coming

back are significant.

I think that 160 degree heat would not be successful in extracting all

the formaldehyde

from fiberboard because isn't the fiberboard subjected to that level of heat

in the factory already to dry it out? Its all incremental but the time

factor is involved too.

Still, heat would definitely help, perhaps enough to make it

non-objectionable. Its a weapon

in the arsenal, a good one.

, thank you for saying this (below) about formaldehyde. Its an

important issue,

and I think a lot of folks here are right to keep hammering on the

point that these

days a lot of the irritation people get in IAQ is probably from it.

Perhaps powered, low airflow ventilalation is the only way to avoid a

financial nightmare

for this whole country because obviously, even if we ban formaldehyde

products like

Europe has, we cant exactly go around and remove it from everywhere it

has been used.

Time may lessen the outgassing but when it gets wet, it re-exposes

people to more of it.

Sometimes, they may think thats mold but its actually formaldehyde. Or

both, which I am sure

is a nasty combination especially because of the MVOCs.

>

> I believe that heating does more than just: surface removal. This said, we

> are discussing wood products that are manufactured with aldehyde-based

> adhesives, and as these adhesives age, and if there are periods of elevated

> moisture (be it humidity or liquid water), some of the solid aldehydes will

> hydrolyze and generate more volatile formaldehyde; even though the heating

> baked-out what may have been readily present and volatile at the time; on

> the surface and within. In this instance, you have a material that

> continues to produce a volatile chemical via chemical reactions, albeit, at

> a slower rate than when new. Heating does accelerate the aging process.

> And you are correct, heating can reduce but not eliminate volatile

> formaldehyde. The only way to truly eliminate any and all formaldehyde, is

> to eliminate/remove any and all potential sources of the chemical. This

> means removing all products that contain substances which could release

> formaldehyde – either demolish and remove, or go/live elsewhere.

> Unfortunately, so many household products made today contain chip-board,

> veneers, particle board, fiberboard, etc., it may be difficult to get away

> from all aldehyde-based adhesives. I know of alternative adhesives, but

> they also come with problems and/or limitations. Nothing is perfect. Why

> aldehyde-based adhesives?.....Many are water-proof, they are very durable

> and last a long time, they are compatible with many porous cellulose-based

> materials, they are toxic to bugs and microbes that like to eat

> cellulose-based materials. All of these are favorable attributes, albeit,

> formaldehyde VOCs are not.

>

> Regarding dried materials having an enhanced ability to absorb

> odors......Yes and No. I do not believe dry wood has much capacity to

> absorb odors, but dry gypsum wall board sure does......at least before it is

> painted.

>

> For what it is worth.....

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Quack:

I believe you are catching on! :-)

Yes, just like you stated: heating structures is a weapon in the arsenal of remediation. Heat is not a do-all, end-all; no single remediation method achieves this. As remediators, we need to assess individual circumstances of each situation, bring to bear methods that will achieve the best level of control given available resources (e.g., budget), and execute the effort with diligence, efficacy and prudent use of those resources. We cannot achieve nirvana, i.e., a sterile environment that is free of all biomass and the products thereof. All we can really do is get as close to nirvana as is practical.

Regarding your question about heat, heating structures and reducing the viability of fungal spores.....I understand several folks to be working on this very issue, and the one person I know of real well is Abbott of The Mold Lab. , in between working on projects and samples which generate income to keep the lights on, is conducting studies on the mortality of fungal spores in the indoor environment when subjected to heat. This is a huge task, because he is conducting real-life experiments in real-life structures; and this takes time. There are many permutations to evaluate for each species of mold, e.g., building type, substrate type, heating method, target temperature, target duration of temperature, etc. This is way bigger than any one person can do alone. But does have data, and has published data of merit. I also believe that Harvard’s School of Public Health may be conducting studies regarding heating structures to mitigate allergens; as it relates to improving the quality of life for asthmatics; but I do not know who is conducting this work. I think there are others that are also studying heat remediation and IAQ/mold. I keep looking for the studies too. I know I would like to conduct several studies regarding VOCs bake-out using heat.....I just need that pot of gold to fund it. I missed a great real-life opportunity not so long ago to do just this. Bummer. No pot of gold to fund the lab work, albeit, all the other pieces were paid for.

,

I think the fungal proteinases from Stachybotrys are inactivated by a

relatively low

level of heat compared to the extremely high amounts of heat required to

deactivate the trichothecenes.

Thats significant in that they are very inflammatory. I would guess

that a similar

situation applies with other fungal metabolites, the higher the heat

gets, the more

are inactivated. All chemical and biological activity stops at absolute zero and

for all practical purposes, there is probably a temperature at which all matter

that we are familar with is vaporized. Those could represent two end points on

a graph and the relatively narrow range of temperatures in which life processes

occur would be a thin strip in the middle. An even narrower strip

would represent

the temperature range found in buildings and by raising that temperature higher

than is usually encountered, statsitically I think that yes, it could

be shown that

a statistically significant number of chemicals were vaporized or driven off.

I think that " perceptorally " (I know I'm misspelling that but I don't

have the energy right

now to go look it up) the impact on people might be higher and for environmental

consultants who get paid when the work is 'completed' that is very important as

the period immediately after the heat is removed would be the period

in which the

least amount of smell was present. Chances are that a significant

amount of smells

are from volatile compounds that have a good chance of being driven off by heat.

I do think that an (abnormally?) dry state of matter might make it

more likely to absorb new

smells during any re-hydrating period but if the owners of the

structure were careful

to avoid re-contamination there is a good chance that there would be a major

subjective impact.

Obviously, even if there had been mold growth in the past, heating the

structure to

such a high heat would dry it out and stop all current mold growth in

its tracks.

I would have to wonder though what the chances would be that spores would remain

viable. Have any studies been done on spores subjected to building drying?

Obviously, dry buildings will not have any MVOCs, which I realized is

part of my own

mold response, a semi-nausea part especially.

Dry and cool is not such a bad environment for spores. Dry and hot,

maybe less so?

I don't know. But I do know that dried out stachybotrys can be pretty nasty when

the wind blows it into your home, eyes, nose, etc. Very nasty.

I am sure that if it was baked, it wouldn't have its proteinases, though.

And probably other things too. Perhaps even a good chunk of them, but

not all. And if the cause (of moisture driven mold growth or fiberboard

decomposition > formaldehyde or ??? absorbed

odors, fungal MVOC or others) is not addressed, then the chances of it

all coming

back are significant.

I think that 160 degree heat would not be successful in extracting all

the formaldehyde

from fiberboard because isn't the fiberboard subjected to that level of heat

in the factory already to dry it out? Its all incremental but the time

factor is involved too.

Still, heat would definitely help, perhaps enough to make it

non-objectionable. Its a weapon

in the arsenal, a good one.

, thank you for saying this (below) about formaldehyde. Its an

important issue,

and I think a lot of folks here are right to keep hammering on the

point that these

days a lot of the irritation people get in IAQ is probably from it.

Perhaps powered, low airflow ventilalation is the only way to avoid a

financial nightmare

for this whole country because obviously, even if we ban formaldehyde

products like

Europe has, we cant exactly go around and remove it from everywhere it

has been used.

Time may lessen the outgassing but when it gets wet, it re-exposes

people to more of it.

Sometimes, they may think thats mold but its actually formaldehyde. Or

both, which I am sure

is a nasty combination especially because of the MVOCs.

[Guest guest]

,

I think removal is very important. I think its the only way to make

buildings that have seen

major water damage safe. I do agree with you in that it helps to heat

them I'm sure.

If i was a rich person and that was my house, hell, I would probably

do something like that

as part of a total cleanup. Especially at the beginning of a water

incident it could make a huge

difference (IF the water was clean and I was not going to be blowing

brown stuff around!)

At some point you'll probably see photos of the place where I got sick

and I think you will then agree with me that some places need total

removal.. When mold coats the insides of walls

that is something you don't want to have just covered up and painted over.

So, I really think we should all be trying to think of ways to lower

the cost of physical removal and facilitate it.

I know that that solution is out there. We have only just begun to

fight this. I know that must sound funny,

because I know you have been doing this for a long time as have many

others here, but I am just

trying to get folks to see that we really still have a ways to go when

you have problems like that hospital

in Oxnard or Santa Barbara or wherever it was and people were grasping

at straws quite literally desperate for a real solution.

And they didn't find one..

Seriously. We need to get some Federal research money applied to the

problem and innovative and effective and FAST and safe methods of

physical removal should be the goal. There has got to be a way.

Think of the incredible dreams we have seen realized in the 20th

century and then I think we all have to scratch our heads and agree,

the solution IS out there.

They should have a prize, like the X-Prize (prize for people who

succeed in putting men ins space at low cost) or the DARPA Grand

Challenge (autonomous driving vehicles) for solving this problem.

> Quack:

>

> I believe you are catching on! :-)

>

> Yes, just like you stated: heating structures is a weapon in the arsenal of

> remediation. Heat is not a do-all, end-all; no single remediation method

> achieves this. As remediators, we need to assess individual circumstances

> of each situation, bring to bear methods that will achieve the best level of

> control given available resources (e.g., budget), and execute the effort

> with diligence, efficacy and prudent use of those resources. We cannot

> achieve nirvana, i.e., a sterile environment that is free of all biomass and

> the products thereof. All we can really do is get as close to nirvana as is

> practical.

>

> Regarding your question about heat, heating structures and reducing the

> viability of fungal spores.....I understand several folks to be working on

> this very issue, and the one person I know of real well is Abbott of

> The Mold Lab. , in between working on projects and samples which

> generate income to keep the lights on, is conducting studies on the

> mortality of fungal spores in the indoor environment when subjected to heat.

> This is a huge task, because he is conducting real-life experiments in

> real-life structures; and this takes time. There are many permutations to

> evaluate for each species of mold, e.g., building type, substrate type,

> heating method, target temperature, target duration of temperature, etc.

> This is way bigger than any one person can do alone. But does have

> data, and has published data of merit. I also believe that Harvard's School

> of Public Health may be conducting studies regarding heating structures to

> mitigate allergens; as it relates to improving the quality of life for

> asthmatics; but I do not know who is conducting this work. I think there

> are others that are also studying heat remediation and IAQ/mold. I keep

> looking for the studies too. I know I would like to conduct several studies

> regarding VOCs bake-out using heat.....I just need that pot of gold to fund

> it. I missed a great real-life opportunity not so long ago to do just this.

> Bummer. No pot of gold to fund the lab work, albeit, all the other pieces

> were paid for.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, Quack -

Ten to fifteen years ago, a " building bake-out " was recommended as a

method to reduce VOCs. Owners or contractors would heat the building to

90 degrees or more for a week or so, then try to flush out the VOCs so

released.

It isn't recommended anymore because it wasn't very effective. Bud

Offerman did one study where the bakeout lowered the VOC levels

immediately, but his first post-bakeout sample, VOC levels jumped back

up on the curve where they would have been, anyway. (so the reduction

was very short-term). Currently, many recommend a " flush-out " with

100% outside air. I think it is more successful, and less expensive,

since you're only paying for the fans, not heaters, but I have not seen

any studies on flush-outs. Check the literature from the 1990's for

more examples.

So I have no idea if heating to 160 degrees would be successful at

reducing formaldehyde or other VOCs, but heating to 90 degrees or so was

not.

Henry Slack

As always, don't take my personal opinion above and construe it as my

employer's (U.S. EPA) because it ain't necessarily so.

<snip from Quack>

I think that 160 degree heat would not be successful in extracting all

the formaldehyde from fiberboard

because isn't the fiberboard subjected to that level of heat in the

factory already to dry it out? Its all

incremental but the time factor is involved too. Still, heat would

definitely help, perhaps enough to

make it non-objectionable. Its a weapon in the arsenal, a good one.

[Guest guest]

,

I am wondering how affect it might be to

use heat and then manage the remaining mold in place by enclosing it within the

structure? Cost wise, how would this stack up to total removal?

Bob

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008

8:50 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

Formaldehyde

,

I think removal is very important. I think its the only way to make

buildings that have seen

major water damage safe. I do agree with you in that it helps to heat

them I'm sure.

If i was a rich person and that was my house, hell, I would probably

do something like that

as part of a total cleanup. Especially at the beginning of a water

incident it could make a huge

difference (IF the water was clean and I was not going to be blowing

brown stuff around!)

At some point you'll probably see photos of the place where I got sick

and I think you will then agree with me that some places need total

removal.. When mold coats the insides of walls

that is something you don't want to have just covered up and painted over.

So, I really think we should all be trying to think of ways to lower

the cost of physical removal and facilitate it.

I know that that solution is out there. We have only just begun to

fight this. I know that must sound funny,

because I know you have been doing this for a long time as have many

others here, but I am just

trying to get folks to see that we really still have a ways to go when

you have problems like that hospital

in Oxnard or

Santa Barbara or wherever it was and people were grasping

at straws quite literally desperate for a real solution.

And they didn't find one..

Seriously. We need to get some Federal research money applied to the

problem and innovative and effective and FAST and safe methods of

physical removal should be the goal. There has got to be a way.

Think of the incredible dreams we have seen realized in the 20th

century and then I think we all have to scratch our heads and agree,

the solution IS out there.

They should have a prize, like the X-Prize (prize for people who

succeed in putting men ins space at low cost) or the DARPA Grand

Challenge (autonomous driving vehicles) for solving this problem.

On Jan 14, 2008 12:47 PM, Geyer <mgeyeratg1>

wrote:

> Quack:

>

> I believe you are catching on! :-)

>

> Yes, just like you stated: heating structures is a weapon in the arsenal

of

> remediation. Heat is not a do-all, end-all; no single remediation method

> achieves this. As remediators, we need to assess individual circumstances

> of each situation, bring to bear methods that will achieve the best level

of

> control given available resources (e.g., budget), and execute the effort

> with diligence, efficacy and prudent use of those resources. We cannot

> achieve nirvana, i.e., a sterile environment that is free of all biomass

and

> the products thereof. All we can really do is get as close to nirvana as

is

> practical.

>

> Regarding your question about heat, heating structures and reducing the

> viability of fungal spores.....I understand several folks to be working on

> this very issue, and the one person I know of real well is Abbott of

> The Mold Lab. , in between working on projects and samples which

> generate income to keep the lights on, is conducting studies on the

> mortality of fungal spores in the indoor environment when subjected to

heat.

> This is a huge task, because he is conducting real-life experiments in

> real-life structures; and this takes time. There are many permutations to

> evaluate for each species of mold, e.g., building type, substrate type,

> heating method, target temperature, target duration of temperature, etc.

> This is way bigger than any one person can do alone. But does have

> data, and has published data of merit. I also believe that Harvard's

School

> of Public Health may be conducting studies regarding heating structures to

> mitigate allergens; as it relates to improving the quality of life for

> asthmatics; but I do not know who is conducting this work. I think there

> are others that are also studying heat remediation and IAQ/mold. I keep

> looking for the studies too. I know I would like to conduct several

studies

> regarding VOCs bake-out using heat.....I just need that pot of gold to

fund

> it. I missed a great real-life opportunity not so long ago to do just

this.

> Bummer. No pot of gold to fund the lab work, albeit, all the other pieces

> were paid for.

>

>

>

>

>

-------------------------Confidentiality Notice--------------------------This electronic message transmission contains information from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachment without reading or saving in any manner.