Re: I need a specific scientific study

[Guest guest]

Branislav,The best bet is the ASHRAE Online bookstore. It's isn't easy to use, and the results are not always logical. But eventually, because that paper is part of the ASHRAE transactions for that year, it should be possible to locate the paper in the ASHRAE Bookstore:http://www.ashrae.org/publications/page/1279LewOn Nov 25, 2008, at 5:51 AM, Branislav wrote: Could somebody find the complete text of this publication/study? H Schleibinger etal, "Occurrence of microbiologically produced aldehydes and ketones from filter materials of HVAC systems – field and laboratory experiments", Practical Engineering for IAQ, Oct 22-24, 1995, Denver, CO American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Proceedings jointly published with US EPA and DOE.--------------------------------------------Lew HarrimanMason-Grant ConsultingP.O. Box 6547Portsmouth, NH 03802LewHarriman@...

[Guest guest]

Not sure if this is the correct one I know I have that one you want some where in my desk top. But take a look at this one.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/01-336_a.pdf---

Subject: I need a specific scientific studyTo: iequality Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 4:51 AM

Could somebody find the complete text of this publication/ study?H Schleibinger etal, "Occurrence of microbiologically producedaldehydes and ketones from filter materials of HVAC systems – fieldand laboratory experiments" , Practical Engineering for IAQ, Oct 22-24,1995, Denver, CO American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc. Proceedings jointly published with US EPAand DOE.

[Guest guest]

Here is the one I have on that subject from Berkeley

AMBIENT OZONE, HVAC FILTERS, AND BUILDING RELATED

SYMPTOMS

Apte 1†, Ian Buchanan1, Mark Mendell1, and Mirer1

1Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd, Berkeley CA 94720, USA

http://www.inive.org/members_area/medias/pdf/Inive%5CIAQVEC2007%5CApte.pdf---

Subject: I need a specific scientific studyTo: iequality Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 4:51 AM

Could somebody find the complete text of this publication/ study?H Schleibinger etal, "Occurrence of microbiologically producedaldehydes and ketones from filter materials of HVAC systems – fieldand laboratory experiments" , Practical Engineering for IAQ, Oct 22-24,1995, Denver, CO American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc. Proceedings jointly published with US EPAand DOE.

[Guest guest]

,

Thanks but that's not the one I'm looking for. Take a look at the date

- it's December 1995.

The closest I could find are three studies on this list:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bfrlall/key/key2440.html

For instance:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/art018.html

Indoor Air Quality Commissioning of a New Office Building.

NISTIR 5586; 51 p. January 1995.American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE). IAQ'95:

Practical Engineering for IAQ. Proceedings. October 22-24, 1995,

Denver, CO, 29-41 pp, 1995 AND National Conference on Building

Commissioning, 3rd. Proceedings. May 1-5, 1995, Milwaukee, WI, 1-8 pp,

1995, 1995.

Dols, W. S.; Persily, A. K.; Nabinger, S. J.

But they don't contain the study by H Schleibinger et al named

" Occurence of microbiologically produced aldehydes and ketones from

filter materials of HVAC systems. "

I would be grateful if somebody could find it for me and post the

complete text. Google is useless, I tried. The ASHRAE website - I

can't find this study at all, and even if I could I doubt I could

download it since I am not a member.

-Branislav

>

>

> Subject: I need a specific scientific study

> To: iequality

> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 4:51 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Could somebody find the complete text of this publication/ study?

>

> H Schleibinger etal, " Occurrence of microbiologically produced

> aldehydes and ketones from filter materials of HVAC systems – field

> and laboratory experiments " , Practical Engineering for IAQ, Oct 22-24,

> 1995, Denver, CO American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

> Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Proceedings jointly published with US EPA

> and DOE.

>

[Guest guest]

Branislav,

1. I agree that people like Pall and Ziem understand these sensitivities far better than anybody else, but IMO they are also only guessing what volatile compounds of microbial orgin are the main culprits. When they mention which MVOCs affect people, they also refer to older studies whose main goal was not to discover what compounds affect mold sensitized people. Do you agree with me about that? I mean - their evidence is cirumstantial at best.

Response: People become sensitized to a wide variety of volatile organic compounds as a result of their exposure. Among other things (genetics, concurrent exposures, etc.) the specific environmental exposure dictates what someone might become sensitized to. The potential for sensitization is not inherent in the chemical compound. I think it is a mistake to look for "the short list of chemicals" people with microbial sensitivities react to. There may not be a short list. People can become sensitized to numerouse substances regardless of their toxicity or source or origin: http://www.nj.gov/health/eoh/survweb/wra/agents.shtml

I would even say that focusing on one or a few compounds just because one person or a few people know what they became sensitized to would be doing a disservice to all sensitized individuals. It is useful for an individual to learn what substance it is that they react to in order to avoid it better. It is not useful to assume that others might be reacting to the same substance, although they may be.

Apologies for the "cross threading", but if someone were reacting to plastic flex duct, I wouldn't test the air for VOCs. I would let the person who is having a problem tell me if they knew they were reacting when exposed to an actual sample of the suspect flex duct in a different location. That list of chemicals on a lab report would only tell you anything if you exposed the individual to a pure sample of each of the compounds identified on the list and they reacted to one of them.

2. On the other hand, when the AC units in a building near my building were broken last year, the volatile compounds coming from them made me VERY ill. Could it be that I react only to certain mold MVOCs, or perhaps only to certain bacterial MVOCs?

Response: There is definitely a subset of MVOCs distinctly associated with bacterial growth -- especially anaerobic and sulfur-reducing bacterial growth. For example, the odors that come from the bacterial slime in plumbing waste lines, like the odor of a plumber's drain "snake" when it is pulled from the pipe, are different from sewer gas or mold odors.

Steve Temes

>It's because researchers are not working with sensitized people and their

>environments. They have mostly been looking for mycotoxins with dose-response

>negative health effects and concluding that "mold toxins" (by their definitions)

>are not high enough to cause toxic end points based on toxicological studies.

>Toxicologists are the wrong people to be investigating health effects from

>environmental exposures to bioaerosols, despite what defense attorneys would

>have you believe. Neurobiologists (like Pall) and doctors who specialize in

>chemical sensitivities (like Ziem) understand that these effects are

>immunologically and neurologically mediated.

I had hoped I would find a study which clearly shows what exact volatile compound produced by mold or bacteria can cause and perpetuate the kind of sensitivity that is usually called "mold toxicity". So far I have not found any study that enumerates these compounds, one by one, by their chemical names, CAS numbers and gives complete stuctural formulas.

I agree that people like Pall and Ziem understand these sensitivities far better than anybody else, but IMO they are also only guessing what volatile compounds of microbial orgin are the main culprits. When they mention which MVOCs affect people, they also refer to older studies whose main goal was not to discover what compounds affect mold sensitized people. Do you agree with me about that? I mean - their evidence is cirumstantial at best.

Millions of people experience on a daily basis the horrendous effects of these volatile compounds, and yet nobody has ever tried to identify them. It is not enough to say "hydrocarbons, aldehydes, ketones, alcohols and phenols" (It would be like trying to tell someone about formaldehyde by saying "one of the aldehydes". That is simply too vague.)

I have handled various representatives of all of these compouns without any adverse effects.

In my opinion, until someone performs a well-prepared study whose main aim would be to determine which exact volatile chemicals produced by molds and bacteria are toxic to sensitized people, we will unfortunately stay in the dark.

Btw. just a few weeks ago I let some food spoil and get moldy. I did it on purpose. Of course, there was a musty, characteristic odor of mold and the mold was visible, but it didn't give me any hits. It didn't affect my health adversely at all.

On the other hand, when the AC units in a building near my building were broken last year, the volatile compounds coming from them made me VERY ill. Could it be that I react only to certain mold MVOCs, or perhaps only to certain bacterial MVOCs?

>There is something very non-scientific about how the terms "mycotoxin" and

>"allergic effect" are described or defined by different groups of people who use

>these terms. Just ask a toxicologist about pharmaceutical side effects and

>then about allergies or sensitivities to environmental chemicals or

>biochemicals.

I agree. According to my recent observations the chemical I am sesitized to is at least partially volatile. If mycotoxins are not volatile at all, that would mean I am not reacting to mycotoxins at all. That probably holds true for most mold sensitized people because all of them agree that the offending substance behaves like "radiation" (meaning it offgasses and can hit them from far away objects).

People who perpetuate the notion that solely myocotoxins are the main culprit and cause of the mold toxicity illness are doing a disfavour to themselves and to mold sensitized people.

-Branislav

[Guest guest]

" Branislav " wrote:

>

> I agree that people like Pall and Ziem understand these

sensitivities far better than anybody else, but IMO they are also

only guessing what volatile compounds of microbial orgin are the main

culprits.

>

I have compelling evidence that Pall and Grace Ziem retain a

huge gap in their understanding of this problem.

Both of them treated my story of " Mold at Ground Zero for CFS " with

utter disdain and disinterest.

Disinterest in the direct-mold-experience of a person who was

present at the inception of " Chronic Fatigue Syndrome " would be

highly inconsistent with cognition and comprehension of the relevance

of this association.

-MW

[Guest guest]

> I have compelling evidence that Pall and Grace Ziem retain a

> huge gap in their understanding of this problem.

> Both of them treated my story of " Mold at Ground Zero for CFS " with

> utter disdain and disinterest.

> Disinterest in the direct-mold-experience of a person who was

> present at the inception of " Chronic Fatigue Syndrome " would be

> highly inconsistent with cognition and comprehension of the relevance

> of this association.

Can you provide us with this compelling evidence?

You seem to hold only Dr Shoemaker in high regard. It is somewhat

understandable because he does seem to have understanding for mold

sensitized people. And after all, you appear in his book. But, ask

yourself these questions:

1) Apart from prescribing cholestyramine, which can alleviate chronic

fatigue in some patients, did Dr Shoemaker actually help any person who

has become sensitive to mold toxins? By help I mean cured him/her

completely so that that person isn't sensitive to mold toxins anymore?

Are you cured by the ideas of Dr Shoemaker?

2) If the treatment in most cases comes down to prescribing the

inexpensive CSM, why does the treatment cost about $6000? All those

diagnostic tests are absolutely worthless as far as the treatment of the

illness is concerned.

-Branislav

[Guest guest]

Steve,> People become sensitized to a wide variety of volatile organic > compounds as a result of their exposure. Among other things (genetics, > concurrent exposures, etc.) the specific environmental exposure dictates what someone > might become sensitized to. The potential for sensitization is not inherent in > the chemical compound. I think it is a mistake to look for "the short list > of chemicals" people with microbial sensitivities react to. There may not be a > short list. People can become sensitized to numerouse substances regardless > of their toxicity or source or origin: > http://www.nj.gov/health/eoh/survweb/wra/agents.shtmlI wanted to focus only on microbial volatile compounds, not ALL volatile compounds. Also my main area of interest is not asthma but the characteristic set of symptoms that people usually label "toxicity to mold", i.e. skin burning, chronic fatigue, headaches, nausea, GI problems, overall malaise etc.As for the claim that the potential for sensitization is not inherent in the chemical compound, I would not agree with you 100%. In the pristine forest environment there are probably thousands volatile compounds but I can't remember hearing anyone ever having become sensitized to the smell of forest. Therefore, I do think that some chemical compounds have a greater potential to cause sensitization. After all Pall and Ziem claim that organophosphate pesticides and certain pethrochemicals are the most common cause of MCS.Furthermore, according to my observations mold sensitized people react to the same volatile compounds. For instance, if you take two or more mold sensitive people, they will react in a mold contaminated environment or to the mold contaminated objects in the same way. I also do not think there is a *definite* short list of compounds that can be assembled. I have never wanted to say that the list would be all-encompassing, and of course there is always a possibility that someone else who is sensitized to mold may react to compounds to which I do not react, and vice versa. However, I do think that identifying the compounds that are the most "aggressive" in causing mold sensitivity would be very helpful.Right now we can't pinpoint to any one in particular. If you read studies about MVOCs you will find that in most of them they are mentioned only as indicators of mold growth, but their health effects are minimized and even ignored. There is one study entitled "MVOC are unlikely to cause health symptoms ("MVOCs are not that important for indoor air problems")I am really very grateful to you for steering me in this direction - to pay more attention to MVOCs as opposed to nonvolatile mycotoxins. Their physical property of being volatile can be expoited in several ways. > There is definitely a subset of MVOCs distinctly associated with > bacterial growth -- especially anaerobic and sulfur-reducing bacterial growth. > For example, the odors that come from the bacterial slime in plumbing waste > lines, like the odor of a plumber's drain "snake" when it is pulled from the > pipe, are different from sewer gas or mold odors.The reason I suspect bacterial MVOCs is because of one episode in a run-down hotel in my country that happened in 1993. Namely, the water in their watermains was bad, and when people drank it they would get a bad diarrhea in about 6 hours. However I got diarrhea and skin burning as soon as I washed my hands with it (diarrhea after about 30 minutes) without even drinking one sip of it. The effects were very similar to what I now associate with mold toxins or MVOCs, the only difference is that it did not have a significant potential for cross-contamination beyond that hotel - our car and things could be washed.Later my father told me he had read in the papers that the water in that hotel was "bacteriologically contaminated".-Branislav

[Guest guest]

As for the claim that the potential for sensitization is not inherent in the chemical compound, I would not agree with you 100%. In the pristine forest environment there are probably thousands volatile compounds but I can't remember hearing anyone ever having become sensitized to the smell of forest. Therefore, I do think that some chemical compounds have a greater potential to cause sensitization. After all Pall and Ziem claim that organophosphate pesticides and certain pethrochemicals are the most common cause of MCS.

All asthmagens and allergens are sensitizers but not all sensitizers cause similar respiratory or allergic effects. Yes, some compounds are more commonly the cause of sensitization. Common allergens include milk, nuts, and shellfish, for example. Are they inherently sensitizing? If so, how? (rhetorical question). I am not allergic to any of those foods, but I am allergic to tomatoes. I know different people who are allergic to watermelon, celery, and carrots, respectively. Are these inherently sensitizing foods? I am saying that one should not only look for common sensitizers when one is investigating an unknown causative agent.

Furthermore, according to my observations mold sensitized people react to the same volatile compounds. For instance, if you take two or more mold sensitive people, they will react in a mold contaminated environment or to the mold contaminated objects in the same way.

I have seen multiple people react severely to mold odors (MVOCs) but I don't know that they were reacting to the same thing. One client who could no longer live in her house due to her son's asthma condition caused by a roof leak and mold growth in the carpet under his bed (wet under the kid's bed for an unknown period of time due to undiscovered water leaking inside an interior wall cavity) temporarily had to move into her mother's house. She called me to ask why her son could play in his grandmother's obviously moldy basement without having breathing problems.

I also do not think there is a *definite* short list of compounds that can be assembled. I have never wanted to say that the list would be all-encompassing, and of course there is always a possibility that someone else who is sensitized to mold may react to compounds to which I do not react, and vice versa. However, I do think that identifying the compounds that are the most "aggressive" in causing mold sensitivity would be very helpful.

So do I. I advocate using mold-sensitized volunteers to identify samples they are reactive to and letting scientists figure out what specific substances in those samples are actually causing the reactions in those people.

Right now we can't pinpoint to any one in particular. If you read studies about MVOCs you will find that in most of them they are mentioned only as indicators of mold growth, but their health effects are minimized and even ignored. There is one study entitled "MVOC are unlikely to cause health symptoms ("MVOCs are not that important for indoor air problems")

I have a big problem with those who want to downplay the potential health effects of MVOCs. As I have opined many times, I think that sensitization to MVOCs is the real cause of many of the "toxic mold" health claims. For mold remediation contractors who have done a good job of removing spores but people are still reacting post-remediation, it would be in their best interest to take the remediation to the next level and address residual MVOCs after they have completed their particle removal procedure.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

>

When you fail to find A through X, you can start making assumptions

about Z unless you have a very resourceful patient who can tell you

more about mitigating evironmental factors.

>

If that " resourceful patient " exists, there should be an " opening " in

a researchers mindset for such a possibility of EXTENUATING

environmental factors which may have been overlooked.

If that patient happened to be at " Ground Zero for Chronic Fatigue

Syndrome " , one would assume that any researcher who wanted to

investigate CFS or mold that possessed an " open mind " for that rare

possibility would automatically be interested in the information from

a prototype for the syndrome who wished to speak to them

about " ZtachybotryZ " .

Dr Shoemaker was demonstrably the only one.

-MW

> Disinterest in the direct-mold-experience of a person who was

> present at the inception of " Chronic Fatigue Syndrome "

> would be highly inconsistent with cognition and comprehension of the

> relevance of this association.---Branislove asked, Are you cured by

the ideas of Dr Shoemaker?

>

[Guest guest]

> Obviously the practice of avoidance of exposure is the hallmark of ANY

treatment protocol.

> I fail to see Branislov's point that the endpoint of treatment is to

eradicate sensitivities. That is not a 'cure'

>as much as it is creation of some new human, impervious to substances

which are incompatible with >biochemistry in terms of their nature or

the amounts we are forced to 'tolerate' in our surroundings. I would

>welcome further explanation of management for an environmentally

induced illness versus a cure for it. It >would appear that treatment

of the environment would be required to effect a cure for the injured,

once >physiological factors had been controlled.

>

> But that is what draws many of us to IAQ lists to study :-)

The " cure " for sensitivities (whether MCS to perfumes or to mold toxins)

would be two-fold:

1) Increase one's tolerance to the offending substance and

2) Find much more efficient ways to eliminate offending substances if

they occur.

As far as I can see, both Pall and Ziem have similar protocols whose

main aim is to decrease a person's sensitivity to MCS-inducing

substances. So I don't understand why you fail to see my endpoint in

eradicating sensitivities, while at the same time you seem to support

these doctors' work.

A complete cure for 1) may never be found - although I keep my fingers

crossed all the time.

However, I am hopeful that more efficient ways to identify, detect,

prevent and eradicate the most offending sensitizers will be found in

the future.

[Guest guest]

> When you fail to find A through X, you can start making assumptions

> about Z unless you have a very resourceful patient who can tell you

> more about mitigating evironmental factors.

>

And wrote back:

> If that " resourceful patient " exists, there should be an " opening " in

> a researchers mindset for such a possibility of EXTENUATING

> environmental factors which may have been overlooked.

==============================================

,

Having an open mind is not the same as putting one's medical license on

the line as well as a patient's life, to bet on one cause or another.

In the absence of proof of causation, there is just so much

experimentation that a physician can do. These people are interested

in everything under the sun but will not expend time upon possibilities

which infer they are making promises to patients that they cannot act

upon. You were not treated by Shoemaker, but found his interest

reassuring. I have spoken with Zeim, Rae, and any number of experts in

this area without becoming their patients.

All we can do is take the best of what any professional knows and apply

it to ourselves if it seems reasonable. There are various treatments

that these doctors advocate which I would NEVER dream of trying because

the theory is not acceptable to me; or because the practice might be

harmful to me based upon my condition etc.

The doctors don't owe it to me to accept my statements of causality

regardless of their interest in my case. I take it upon myself to

present to them proofs of exposure. If I have none, all they can do is

address indirect proofs via testing or address symptoms alone.

There have been many doctors who expressed strong interest in my

condition yet would be incompetent to treat it. That does not make

them superior doctors, just curious.

[Guest guest]

>

> Branislav, actually - as I said in Mold Warriors, I am not a patient

> of Dr Shoemakers and have not done his treatments.

> What distinguished Dr Shoemaker from all other doctors is that he

> was the only one in the world to take an interest in the story of a

> prototype for a syndrome who simply wanted to talk about a specific

> clue that was present at the inception of " Chronic Fatigue Syndrome " .

>

> That is enough to make Dr Shoemaker " one of a kind " .

I know you are not a patient of Dr Shoemaker's.

But I bet if he had a definite cure for our illness, you would be, eh?

Of course that a doctor has to have an open mind and be willing to

listen. However, the most important quality that every doctor should

have is that he/she can actually cure or at least alleviate one's

illness.

It appears that you hold Dr Shoemaker in high esteem mostly because his

work has given you a kind of scientific proof and satisfaction that your

own previous hypotheses about mold were true. But again, his treatment

wouldn't make much (if any) difference for your health.

CSM offers only transient and partial relief. It may be helpful for

relatively mild cases, but for more sensitive people I think it is not

good. What's worse, in my experience, it can even increase one's

sensitivity to mold toxins over time. It is possible that CSM removes

the inflammatory products that the body produces in response to the

offending substance (that is how it works), and if one takes CSM for too

long, his/her immune system might start " forgeting " how to do that job

on its own.

On the other hand, I heard Dr Shoemaker works on new, different

approaches regarding the treatment of mold sensitive people, and I am

looking forward to it.

-Branislav

[Guest guest]

Branislav

Exposure source reduction is the preferred route, not changing the tolerance of those who should not have been exposed in the first place.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting

Re: I need a specific scientific study

> Obviously the practice of avoidance of exposure is the hallmark of ANYtreatment protocol.> I fail to see Branislov's point that the endpoint of treatment is toeradicate sensitivities. That is not a 'cure'>as much as it is creation of some new human, impervious to substanceswhich are incompatible with >biochemistry in terms of their nature orthe amounts we are forced to 'tolerate' in our surroundings. I would>welcome further explanation of management for an environmentallyinduced illness versus a cure for it. It >would appear that treatmentof the environment would be required to effect a cure for the injured,once >physiological factors had been controlled.>> But that is what draws many of us to IAQ lists to study :-)The "cure" for sensitivities (whether MCS to perfumes or to mold toxins)would be two-fold:1) Increase one's tolerance to the offending substance and2) Find much more efficient ways to eliminate offending substances ifthey occur.As far as I can see, both Pall and Ziem have similar protocols whosemain aim is to decrease a person's sensitivity to MCS-inducingsubstances. So I don't understand why you fail to see my endpoint ineradicating sensitivities, while at the same time you seem to supportthese doctors' work.A complete cure for 1) may never be found - although I keep my fingerscrossed all the time.However, I am hopeful that more efficient ways to identify, detect,prevent and eradicate the most offending sensitizers will be found inthe future.