Guest guest Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 If ATP alone is used to define Condition 1 and pass PRV, someone can just pour bleach solution (or any strong biocide) on the surface. It kills everything and inhibit bioassy reactions. You can mistakenly clear a job with significant amount of dead microbial biomass on the surface, which is NOT what IICRC S520 says (REMOVAL). Cautions need to be taken for bioassay reactions. Dead spores are NOT ok to be left behind. You can do a on-site test for quick results, but you still need some confirmation from microscopic examination. Actually, you can hire a microbiologist on staff and and bring a microscope to job site. I know some companies do that, and they still send samples to an independent lab. And, .... we do have different findings sometimes. In those cases, they go by the indepentent lab's results. Disclosure: In case you didn't know, I am in lab business. Wei Tang QLabEnviroBob wrote: Steve, I have not read the link info although I do not believe Condition 1 can be defined. What the metrics may be able to test is that the area has been cleaned to a particular standard. That said, Condition 1 may not be that clean unless you consider a sterile environment Condition 1. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnvcsSent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:18 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: BIO-REVEAL In a message dated 10/9/2008 10:25:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patmoffettatt (DOT) net writes: Once you understand what Mycometer says I invite you to go to Bio-reveal and then read their information: http://www.bio-reveal.com Yes, pay attention to what Bio-reveal is saying about their system as related to mold ,Pay attention to what Bio-Reveal is saying about mold, indeed.http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdfIt is the only way to scientifically document S-520 Condition 1. Would you agree? For any IEP doing PRV work, who must document Condition 1 per S-520's definition of IEP and acceptable remediation, what else is there? We finally have an answer to how to define Condition 1. If you are doing PRV per S-520 you almost have to use it. Right? Disclosures:1. I have no financial interest in the Bio-Reveal product.2. I have never used the product and presently have no intention of doing so.In case I'm being too subtle, I'm just busting chops here. My hat is off to the marketing team at Bio-Reveal. They have filled a niche created by the authors of S-520. I hope everyone is happy that we now have a scientific means of identifying Condition 1.Steve Temes Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: 888-QLab-Wei ()Local: www.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 , Pay attention to what Bio-Reveal is saying about S-520 Condition 1. Are you agreeing with me that the only scientifically defensible way to determine Condition 1 is by using Bio-Reveal? http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdf If not, what other way is there to determine Conditon 1? Steve Temes Steve, I didn’t fully understand your comments. I believe you are agreeing with me that ATP (no matter the manufacturer) are good quality control methods for determining pass/fail of microbial indices? Except for my own research and using various equipment manufacturers, I too have no financial interest in recommending Bio-reveal, Mycometer or similar products to complete quality control studies. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@... Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:18 AM To: iequality Subject: Re: BIO-REVEAL Once you understand what Mycometer says I invite you to go to Bio-reveal and then read their information: http://www.bio-reveal.com Yes, pay attention to what Bio-reveal is saying about their system as related to mold , Pay attention to what Bio-Reveal is saying about mold, indeed. http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdf It is the only way to scientifically document S-520 Condition 1. Would you agree? For any IEP doing PRV work, who must document Condition 1 per S-520's definition of IEP and acceptable remediation, what else is there? We finally have an answer to how to define Condition 1. If you are doing PRV per S-520 you almost have to use it. Right? Disclosures: 1. I have no financial interest in the Bio-Reveal product. 2. I have never used the product and presently have no intention of doing so. In case I'm being too subtle, I'm just busting chops here. My hat is off to the marketing team at Bio-Reveal. They have filled a niche created by the authors of S-520. I hope everyone is happy that we now have a scientific means of identifying Condition 1. Steve Temes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 Steve, I asked Slade , President of Bio-reveal to reply. Here is his comments. Pat. Thanks for the question. The main differences between the biochemistry of the Mycometer and Bio-reveal are as follows (based on what I know of the Mycometer system): 1) Mycometer chemistry uses fluorescence based on microbial enzyme presence. Bio-reveal uses bioluminescence based on measurement of the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecule presence. 2) Bio-reveal and Mycometer systems are both rapid; however, Bio-reveal ATP testing is extremely rapid compared to Mycometer. ATP testing is done in seconds (15-30 seconds tops vs. minutes to an hour for Mycometer). 3) Bio-reveal ATP measures only viable or LIVING cells or material. Mycometer will measure both viable and non-viable cells. 4) Bio-reveal ATP technology and Mycometer technology have both been peer reviewed. 5) Bio-reveal measures total biomass and total biomass of microbial contamination and converts this to a numerical value for interpretation. Bio-reveal does not differentiate biological contaminant types. Mycometer also measures total biomass (not sure how it converts to some value) but can differentiate between bacteria and fungal samples. I am assuming you would have to run two different tests to measure both if you wanted to. Neither system can identify organisms at all (genius or species level). 6) Bio-reveal ATP testing allows for linear evaluation of biomass present. ATP reaction is a 1:1 with respect to bioluminescent light production. So for example 100 femtamoles of ATP will yield 100 relative light units (RLUs) as a result. I honestly don’t know how the Mycometer relates enzyme presence to some value or if the reaction is linear or log based. 7) Detection limit of ATP technology is 1 femtamole. Mycometer detection limit is unknown to me. 8) Bio-reveal collects data for surface and liquid samples…no air sampling capability…yet. Mycometer can analyze surface, air and I not sure about liquid samples. 9) The physical process of collecting samples is simple for Bio-reveal. Chemistry and delivery system are built into one device with simple implementation. The Bio-reveal luminometer is also simple to use with basic keystrokes and one button operation. The Mycometer system appears to have more complex chemistry involved with respect to collection and analysis of the sample. The instrument (fluorometer I think) likely works in a similar fashion…but I really don’t know. Could be simple or more complex?? 10) Bio-reveal can be used to evaluate a wider array of biocontamination situations including fungal, bacteria, food and beverage industry hygiene, medical hygiene, GMP analysis for pharma industry, trauma hygiene evaluations, janitorial hygiene evaluations, etc. Mycometer only detects fungal and bacteria. I don’t believe the Mycometer can measure or detect non-culturable matter such as biofilms, body fluids, food residues and general biomatter with respect to janitorial hygiene. 11) Bio-reveal ATP system and test costs are significantly less than Mycometer technology. ATP instrument retails for about $1000, Mycometer is about $4500. Bio-reveal tests are $2-$3 each, Mycometer tests are $20-$30 each. There may be others but I think those are the biggies. Thanks, Slade President BEM Corporation 4506 109th Avenue Clear Lake, MN 55319 Tel: Cell: Fax: www.bem-corp.com www.bio-reveal.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 If I remember high school biology correctly, mold does not produce ATP in a dormant state. Therefore, if you are attempting to clear a mold remediated structure with an ATP test, your results are meaningless. Now, if your test measures fungal proteins, that's a realistic analysis. Aren't fungal proteins the primary concern associated with mold contamination? No fungal proteins - no mold - no indoor exposure risk. Right???? Will > Steve, > > I have not read the link info although I do not believe Condition 1 can be defined. What the metrics may be able to test is that the area has been cleaned to a particular standard. That said, Condition 1 may not be that clean unless you consider a sterile environment Condition 1. > > EnviroBob > > > --------------------------------- > > From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@... > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:18 AM > To: iequality > Subject: Re: BIO-REVEAL > > > In a message dated 10/9/2008 10:25:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patmoffett@... writes: > Once you understand what Mycometer says I invite you to go to Bio-reveal and then read their information: http://www.bio-reveal.com Yes, pay attention to what Bio-reveal is saying about their system as related to mold > > , > > Pay attention to what Bio-Reveal is saying about mold, indeed. > http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdf > It is the only way to scientifically document S-520 Condition 1. Would you agree? For any IEP doing PRV work, who must document Condition 1 per S-520's definition of IEP and acceptable remediation, what else is there? We finally have an answer to how to define Condition 1. If you are doing PRV per S-520 you almost have to use it. Right? > > Disclosures: > > 1. I have no financial interest in the Bio-Reveal product. > > 2. I have never used the product and presently have no intention of doing so. > > In case I'm being too subtle, I'm just busting chops here. My hat is off to the marketing team at Bio-Reveal. They have filled a niche created by the authors of S-520. I hope everyone is happy that we now have a scientific means of identifying Condition 1. > > Steve Temes > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wei Tang, Ph.D. > Lab Director > QLab > 5 Drive > Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 > Tel/Fax: 888-QLab-Wei () > Local: > www.QLabUSA.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 From: Slade K. Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 10:31 AM To: 'Pat Moffett' Subject: RE: Re: BIO-REVEAL Pat. Interesting responses. First, ATP is found mostly in hyphae during actual growth of fungal matter. Will’s recollection of biology is partly correct. Dormant mold or fungal matter not actively growing will have less ATP than growing mold. The ATP does not completely disappear in dormant mold since it is still alive. Also, Will’s assumption is ONLY spores are left behind after remediation. As we all know this is a physical impossibility since spores and hyphae are often or always found together in the environment. So clean is still clean with respect to ATP. Now we have another bioassay test that does detect or measure both viable and nonviable fungal matter using protein detection analysis. See: www.quickmoldtest.com for this product, which closes the loop on that issue. Secondly, Wei Tang is partly right. The IICRC actually allows for visual assessment of PRV depending on the job parameters and scope of work for completion. Testing is left up to the IEP if this is defined for the project. The IICRC does not say you “need confirmation” from my recollection. Also, Mr. Tang seems to have a slight disconnect to actual field work performed by a restorer or remediator. Many jobs (I dare say most jobs) performed do not even have a hygienist, IEP, whoever as part of the project to do PRV testing. Hiring a mycologist on staff, etc. is hardly a realistic expectation for the average restorer. If it were that easy and profitable…they all would do it. Not to mention the conflict of interest. Bio-reveal is again a tool in the tool box of instruments and measuring devices that provides some level of hygiene expectation for the contractor. Not complete but better than visual assessment and better than not having an IEP on the job. Although some IEP’s use the Bio-reveal system as outlined with good results. Third, Envirobob’s interpretation of Condition 1 is not what the IICRC is intending. He should read the actual standard for the definition. Also, the parameters or guidelines, which is all Bio-reveal is proposing, allows for some level of “background” present. Condition 1 is not sterile…its acceptable indoor environmental conditions as defined by the S520 standard. Contractors seem to understand this better than IEPs…..probably because they do it everyday. Education is the key with all products and application…as you well know. Thanks Pat. Slade President BEM Corporation 4506 109th Avenue Clear Lake, MN 55319 Tel: Cell: Fax: www.bem-corp.com www.bio-reveal.com Re: BIO-REVEAL > > > In a message dated 10/9/2008 10:25:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patmoffett@... writes: > Once you understand what Mycometer says I invite you to go to Bio-reveal and then read their information: http://www.bio-reveal.com Yes, pay attention to what Bio-reveal is saying about their system as related to mold > > , > > Pay attention to what Bio-Reveal is saying about mold, indeed. > http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdf > It is the only way to scientifically document S-520 Condition 1. Would you agree? For any IEP doing PRV work, who must document Condition 1 per S-520's definition of IEP and acceptable remediation, what else is there? We finally have an answer to how to define Condition 1. If you are doing PRV per S-520 you almost have to use it. Right? > > Disclosures: > > 1. I have no financial interest in the Bio-Reveal product. > > 2. I have never used the product and presently have no intention of doing so. > > In case I'm being too subtle, I'm just busting chops here. My hat is off to the marketing team at Bio-Reveal. They have filled a niche created by the authors of S-520. I hope everyone is happy that we now have a scientific means of identifying Condition 1. > > Steve Temes > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wei Tang, Ph.D. > Lab Director > QLab > 5 Drive > Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 > Tel/Fax: 888-QLab-Wei () > Local: > www.QLabUSA.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Steve, I am not the total membership of this group; nor should my comments overshadow the valuable comments of others who may be more qualified to jump into this discussion. Yes, I too have thoughts on how to determine a Condition 1 Normal Fungal Ecology. First, the new ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard (August 2008) refers to normal fungal ecology as an “indoor environment that has settled spores, fungal fragments or traces of actual growth whose identity and quantity are reflective of a normal fungal ecology for a similar indoor environment.† To me this means each building’s environment we walk into has its own unique biological signature. That is why we collect baseline samples of non-affected environments as compared to affected environments. Depending on my budget and customer goals (which are coupled with mine), I will collect samples of historical settled dust including indoor air to analyze total fungal spores and fungal fragments. When I find the surfaces are damp and the environmental conditions may have changed to a Condition 2, I am comfortable in using Bio-reveal and a Mycometer to identify potential shifts in microbial ecology.        ____________ Now to answer your question: 1. I do not use Bio-reveal or a Mycometer to determine a Condition 1 without having a Condition 2 or 3 to measure against. 2. Both the Bio-reveal and the Mycometer are tools that when properly used can provide valuable information about shifts in microbial ecology. 3. I do rely on ATP alone to identify a shift that is not obvious or apparent to me. 4. Based on my hypothesis, I rely on traditional sampling tools for quantifying the analysis of a microbial shift. 5. When the abatement, remediation or sanitizing procedure is complete I will go back and confirm the environment or material met the desired challenge test goals. This includes using the same test method I used throughout the initial identification process, remediation and sanitizing process and clearance challenge process.          From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@... Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 5:21 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: BIO-REVEAL , My compliments to Slade on his marketing accumen. Your reply was entirely and conspicuously nonresponsive to my comments regarding S-520 Condition 1. Must all IEPs working in accordance with S-520 guidelines use Bio-Reveal because it is the only way they can scientifically determine Condition 1? http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdf Or is there another way to scientifically determine Condition 1 status? Steve Temes In a message dated 10/11/2008 11:08:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, patmoffett@... writes: Steve, I asked Slade , President of Bio-reveal to reply. Here is his comments. Pat. Thanks for the question. The main differences between the biochemistry of the Mycometer and Bio-reveal are as follows (based on what I know of the Mycometer system): 1) Mycometer chemistry uses fluorescence based on microbial enzyme presence. Bio-reveal uses bioluminescence based on measurement of the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecule presence. 2) Bio-reveal and Mycometer systems are both rapid; however, Bio-reveal ATP testing is extremely rapid compared to Mycometer. ATP testing is done in seconds (15-30 seconds tops vs. minutes to an hour for Mycometer). 3) Bio-reveal ATP measures only viable or LIVING cells or material. Mycometer will measure both viable and non-viable cells. 4) Bio-reveal ATP technology and Mycometer technology have both been peer reviewed. 5) Bio-reveal measures total biomass and total biomass of microbial contamination and converts this to a numerical value for interpretation. Bio-reveal does not differentiate biological contaminant types. Mycometer also measures total biomass (not sure how it converts to some value) but can differentiate between bacteria and fungal samples. I am assuming you would have to run two different tests to measure both if you wanted to. Neither system can identify organisms at all (genius or species level). 6) Bio-reveal ATP testing allows for linear evaluation of biomass present. ATP reaction is a 1:1 with respect to bioluminescent light production. So for example 100 femtamoles of ATP will yield 100 relative light units (RLUs) as a result. I honestly don’t know how the Mycometer relates enzyme presence to some value or if the reaction is linear or log based. 7) Detection limit of ATP technology is 1 femtamole. Mycometer detection limit is unknown to me. 8) Bio-reveal collects data for surface and liquid samples…no air sampling capability…yet. Mycometer can analyze surface, air and I not sure about liquid samples. 9) The physical process of collecting samples is simple for Bio-reveal. Chemistry and delivery system are built into one device with simple implementation. The Bio-reveal luminometer is also simple to use with basic keystrokes and one button operation. The Mycometer system appears to have more complex chemistry involved with respect to collection and analysis of the sample. The instrument (fluorometer I think) likely works in a similar fashion…but I really don’t know. Could be simple or more complex?? 10) Bio-reveal can be used to evaluate a wider array of biocontamination situations including fungal, bacteria, food and beverage industry hygiene, medical hygiene, GMP analysis for pharma industry, trauma hygiene evaluations, janitorial hygiene evaluations, etc. Mycometer only detects fungal and bacteria. I don’t believe the Mycometer can measure or detect non-culturable matter such as biofilms, body fluids, food residues and general biomatter with respect to janitorial hygiene. 11) Bio-reveal ATP system and test costs are significantly less than Mycometer technology. ATP instrument retails for about $1000, Mycometer is about $4500. Bio-reveal tests are $2-$3 each, Mycometer tests are $20-$30 each. There may be others but I think those are the biggies. Thanks, Slade President BEM Corporation 4506 109th Avenue Clear Lake, MN 55319 Tel: Cell: Fax: www.bem-corp.com www.bio-reveal.com ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Carl, I understand that mold creates a number of issues beyond allergens. Where I was going with my post is in regards to ATP testing verses testing for fungal proteins in a remediated structure. Using an ATP test for determining post remediation clearance is not an accurate test. However, testing for the presence of fungal proteins would be a more meaningful clearance test. No proteins - no mold - no mold exposure risk. Make sense? Will > > > Steve, > > > > > > I have not read the link info although I do not believe Condition > > 1 can be defined. What the metrics may be able to test is that the > > area has been cleaned to a particular standard. That said, Condition > > 1 may not be that clean unless you consider a sterile environment > > Condition 1. > > > > > > EnviroBob > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > From: iequality > > [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@ > > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:18 AM > > > To: iequality > > > Subject: Re: BIO-REVEAL > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/9/2008 10:25:15 AM Eastern Daylight > > Time, patmoffett@ writes: > > > Once you understand what Mycometer says I invite you to go to > > Bio-reveal and then read their information: http://www.bio- reveal.com > > Yes, pay attention to what Bio-reveal is saying about their system as > > related to mold > > > > > > , > > > > > > Pay attention to what Bio-Reveal is saying about mold, indeed. > > > http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdf > > > It is the only way to scientifically document S-520 Condition 1. > > Would you agree? For any IEP doing PRV work, who must document > > Condition 1 per S-520's definition of IEP and acceptable remediation, > > what else is there? We finally have an answer to how to define > > Condition 1. If you are doing PRV per S-520 you almost have to use > > it. Right? > > > > > > Disclosures: > > > > > > 1. I have no financial interest in the Bio-Reveal product. > > > > > > 2. I have never used the product and presently have no intention > > of doing so. > > > > > > In case I'm being too subtle, I'm just busting chops here. My hat > > is off to the marketing team at Bio-Reveal. They have filled a niche > > created by the authors of S-520. I hope everyone is happy that we > > now have a scientific means of identifying Condition 1. > > > > > > Steve Temes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wei Tang, Ph.D. > > > Lab Director > > > QLab > > > 5 Drive > > > Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 > > > Tel/Fax: 888-QLab-Wei () > > > Local: > > > www.QLabUSA.com > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Exactly, Steve. Well stated. Chuck Reaney Re: FW: Re: BIO-REVEAL In a message dated 10/12/2008 12:05:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, patmoffett@... writes: > Condition 1 is not sterile…its acceptable indoor environmental conditions > as defined by the S520 standard. Contractors seem to understand this > better > than IEPs…..probably because they do it everyday. Condition 1 is NOT acceptable indoor environmental conditions as defined by S-520. It is acceptable indoor environmental conditions as defined by the IEP. What IEPs understand that contractors don't is that their judgment with regard to acceptable cleanliness will often be challenged and that the IEP will have to defend that challenge scientifically. Not only is Condition 1 not sterile, it is impossible to remove only Condition 2 and Condition 3 (abnormal) contaminants while leaving Condition 1 (normal) contaminants in a cleaning procedure. You cannot clean down to Condition 1, normal fungal ecology. You can only clean. Normal is what exists only after abnormal has been removed. Think about it. Steve Temes ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & amp; more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Sorry ! The previous E-mail was written on my mobile phone andsomehow my fingers seems to have touched the send button a bit premature :-) Well, here is the rest :-) I honestly can't see why people are using/ prefering methodsthat are based on the 'by-products' of the mold growth.... Proteins or ATP orwhatever new comes around.... Why not use direct microscopy of a materialsample or of a tapelift takendirectly from the surface ? The method of analysing fungi/dust etc under the microscope has been around forsome hundred years now and is quite well documented.....(and no... I can notdocument this statement) Tapelifts followed by direct microscopy can give you information on: 1) Numbers of spores and what type of mold ? 2) Numbers/percentage of hypha present (or maybe just sporesand NO hypha (which is " proof " that the material has not been wet enoughto support growth).3) What kind of mold is growing on the material ? I guess90% can be classifieed to genera and most of the common species are quite easyto recognize.  Is it Trichoderma sp., typical for water damages withvery wet conditions or is it Ulocladium sp. typical for condensationproblems in a colder outerwall… ? Maybe this information can tell me a lot ofthe actual cause of the problem ?  4) Any mite present ? or mite droppings maybe ? 5) Have the hypha / conidiophores been eaten by mite ? …hmmm looks like the mold growth is at least more than 3 months then … 6) Are the hypha fragmented ? …. hmmmmm …. looks like a notto good effort in the cleaning process….  7) Are there only sterile hypha on the surface (noproduction of spores (yet…) hmmm maybe the risk of getting a lot of spores intothe air is not that bad (yet)8) Are there only moderate amounts of spores from Cladosporiumsp on the surface…. And mixed together with pollen from birch that stoppedspredding its pollen some 6 months ago … hmmm when was this surface cleaned yousaid ? 9) Oooops … There is a lot of mineral fibers on this surface… ? Where do they come from ? 10) Did you need the results fast you said…. OK I guess Ican bring my microscope up to the site and do the analysing " on thespot " . Look … we can test different methods of cleaning and see what worksbest in removing the mold growth on your particular material… etcetcWell I guess I made my point. There is a LOT of informationto be collected from a good sampling/analysing method and there is a lof ofinformation to be lost from others …. And I know of course that really good microscopists are hardto come by these days, and they are quite expencive too…. (By the way… this rambling is not directed towards neitherBioReveal nor Mycometer in particular) Med Vennlig Hilsen Ole Carlson MYCOTEAM AS Forskningsveien 3B Postboks 5, Blindern 0313 Oslo +47 952 38 931 mobil / dir+47 22 96 56 77 adm./kontor +47 22 46 55 52 faks oec@... Fra:iequality [mailto:iequality ] På vegne avOle CarlsonSendt: 13. oktober 2008 17:15Til: iequality Emne: SV: RE: BIO-REVEAL I honestly can't see why people are using/prefering methods that are based on the 'by-products' of the mold growth....Proteins or ATP or whatever new comes around.... Why not use direct microscopy of a materialsample or of a tapelift takendirectly from the surface ? The method of analysing fungi under the microscope has been around for somehundred years now and is quite well documented.....(and no... I can notdocument this statement) Tapelifts can give you information on numbers of spores, numbers of hyphapresent, about 90 MVH Ole Carlson / 952 38 931oec@...www.mycoteam.no -----Opprinnelig melding-----Fra: " Pat Moffett " Til: " iequality " <iequality >Sendt: 13.10.08 16:52Emne: RE: BIO-REVEALSteve,I am not the total membership of this group; nor should my comments overshadowthe valuable comments of others who may be more qualified to jump into thisdiscussion. Yes, I too have thoughts on how to determine a Condition 1 NormalFungal Ecology. First, the new ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard (August 2008) refers tonormal fungal ecology as an “indoor environment that has settled spores, fungalfragments or traces of actual growth whose identity and quantity are reflectiveof a normal fungal ecology for a similar indoor environment.†To me this means each building’s environment we walk into has its own uniquebiological signature. That is why we collect baseline samples of non-affectedenvironments as compared to affected environments. Depending on my budget andcustomer goals (which are coupled with mine), I will collect samples ofhistorical settled dust including indoor air to analyze total fungal spores andfungal fragments. When I find the surfaces are damp and the environmental conditions may havechanged to a Condition 2, I am comfortable in using Bio-reveal and a Mycometerto identify potential shifts in microbial ecology. ____________Now to answer your question: 1. I do not use Bio-reveal or a Mycometer to determine a Condition 1 withouthaving a Condition 2 or 3 to measure against.2. Both the Bio-reveal and the Mycometer are tools that when properly used canprovide valuable information about shifts in microbial ecology.3. I do rely on ATP alone to identify a shift that is not obvious or apparentto me.4. Based on my hypothesis, I rely on traditional sampling tools for quantifyingthe analysis of a microbial shift.5. When the abatement, remediation or sanitizing procedure is complete I willgo back and confirm the environment or material met the desired challenge testgoals. This includes using the same test method I used throughout the initialidentification process, remediation and sanitizing process and clearancechallenge process. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@...Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 5:21 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: BIO-REVEAL,My compliments to Slade on his marketing accumen.Your reply was entirely and conspicuously nonresponsive to my commentsregarding S-520 Condition 1. Must all IEPs working in accordance with S-520guidelines use Bio-Reveal because it is the only way they can scientificallydetermine Condition 1?http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdfOr is there another way to scientifically determine Condition 1 status?Steve Temes Steve,I asked Slade , President of Bio-reveal to reply. Here is his comments.Pat.Thanks for the question.The main differences between the biochemistry of the Mycometer and Bio-revealare as follows (based on what I know of the Mycometer system):1) Mycometer chemistry uses fluorescence based on microbial enzyme presence.Bio-reveal uses bioluminescence based on measurement of the adenosinetriphosphate (ATP) molecule presence.2) Bio-reveal and Mycometer systems are both rapid; however, Bio-reveal ATPtesting is extremely rapid compared to Mycometer. ATP testing is done inseconds (15-30 seconds tops vs. minutes to an hour for Mycometer).3) Bio-reveal ATP measures only viable or LIVING cells or material. Mycometerwill measure both viable and non-viable cells.4) Bio-reveal ATP technology and Mycometer technology have both been peerreviewed.5) Bio-reveal measures total biomass and total biomass of microbialcontamination and converts this to a numerical value for interpretation.Bio-reveal does not differentiate biological contaminant types. Mycometer alsomeasures total biomass (not sure how it converts to some value) but candifferentiate between bacteria and fungal samples. I am assuming you would haveto run two different tests to measure both if you wanted to. Neither system canidentify organisms at all (genius or species level).6) Bio-reveal ATP testing allows for linear evaluation of biomass present. ATPreaction is a 1:1 with respect to bioluminescent light production. So forexample 100 femtamoles of ATP will yield 100 relative light units (RLUs) as aresult. I honestly don’t know how the Mycometer relates enzyme presence to somevalue or if the reaction is linear or log based.7) Detection limit of ATP technology is 1 femtamole. Mycometer detection limitis unknown to me.8) Bio-reveal collects data for surface and liquid samples…no air samplingcapability…yet. Mycometer can analyze surface, air and I not sure about liquidsamples.9) The physical process of collecting samples is simple for Bio-reveal.Chemistry and delivery system are built into one device with simpleimplementation. The Bio-reveal luminometer is also simple to use with basickeystrokes and one button operation. The Mycometer system appears to have morecomplex chemistry involved with respect to collection and analysis of thesample. The instrument (fluorometer I think) likely works in a similarfashion…but I really don’t know. Could be simple or more complex??10) Bio-reveal can be used to evaluate a wider array of biocontaminationsituations including fungal, bacteria, food and beverage industry hygiene,medical hygiene, GMP analysis for pharma industry, trauma hygiene evaluations,janitorial hygiene evaluations, etc. Mycometer only detects fungal andbacteria. I don’t believe the Mycometer can measure or detect non-culturablematter such as biofilms, body fluids, food residues and general biomatter withrespect to janitorial hygiene.11) Bio-reveal ATP system and test costs are significantly less than Mycometertechnology. ATP instrument retails for about $1000, Mycometer is about $4500.Bio-reveal tests are $2-$3 each, Mycometer tests are $20-$30 each.There may be others but I think those are the biggies.Thanks,Slade PresidentBEM Corporation4506 109th AvenueClear Lake, MN 55319Tel: Cell: Fax: www.bem-corp.comwww.bio-reveal.com**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies,Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Ole, Good question. ATP and enzyme testing provides low cost real-time analysis. In food processing, laboratory safety and in hospitals, ATP has become one of the main detection measuring devices that alerts food safety specialists to infection control practitioners that microbial growth of interest may be occurring. Once ATP quality control numbers advise you that you reached an action level, tape-lift, swabs and Rodac plates are the next set of tools we rely upon. · Bio-reveal and Mycometer for example requires a minimal amount of training to use the equipment and collect swabs properly; followed by experience to interpret the results. With real-time analysis and the costs of collecting and analyzing samples is minimal, more samples can be collected as quantification and verification. · Tape-lift, swabs and Rodac plates require an individual who has a higher level of training and experience. Often, they have a science or similar degree and it may be necessary for them to microscopically analyze the results unless samples are sent to a laboratory where culturing is required. Even staining and direct microscopy analysis of tape-lifts is not commonly done in the field. The lag time of getting samples cultured, analyzed and back from the lab can be a day to 72 hours.  Costs of sampling, laboratory and analysis just jumped up dramatically. Based on the budget, only a few samples may be allowed to be collected which can dramatically eschew and bias the results one way or another.  From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Ole Carlson Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 8:15 AM To: iequality Subject: SV: RE: BIO-REVEAL I honestly can't see why people are using/ prefering methods that are based on the 'by-products' of the mold growth.... Proteins or ATP or whatever new comes around.... Why not use direct microscopy of a materialsample or of a tapelift taken directly from the surface ? The method of analysing fungi under the microscope has been around for some hundred years now and is quite well documented.....(and no... I can not document this statement) Tapelifts can give you information on numbers of spores, numbers of hypha present, about 90 MVH Ole Carlson / 952 38 931 oec@... www.mycoteam.no -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: " Pat Moffett " Til: " iequality " <iequality > Sendt: 13.10.08 16:52 Emne: RE: BIO-REVEAL Steve, I am not the total membership of this group; nor should my comments overshadow the valuable comments of others who may be more qualified to jump into this discussion. Yes, I too have thoughts on how to determine a Condition 1 Normal Fungal Ecology. First, the new ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard (August 2008) refers to normal fungal ecology as an “indoor environment that has settled spores, fungal fragments or traces of actual growth whose identity and quantity are reflective of a normal fungal ecology for a similar indoor environment.†To me this means each building’s environment we walk into has its own unique biological signature. That is why we collect baseline samples of non-affected environments as compared to affected environments. Depending on my budget and customer goals (which are coupled with mine), I will collect samples of historical settled dust including indoor air to analyze total fungal spores and fungal fragments. When I find the surfaces are damp and the environmental conditions may have changed to a Condition 2, I am comfortable in using Bio-reveal and a Mycometer to identify potential shifts in microbial ecology. ____________ Now to answer your question: 1. I do not use Bio-reveal or a Mycometer to determine a Condition 1 without having a Condition 2 or 3 to measure against. 2. Both the Bio-reveal and the Mycometer are tools that when properly used can provide valuable information about shifts in microbial ecology. 3. I do rely on ATP alone to identify a shift that is not obvious or apparent to me. 4. Based on my hypothesis, I rely on traditional sampling tools for quantifying the analysis of a microbial shift. 5. When the abatement, remediation or sanitizing procedure is complete I will go back and confirm the environment or material met the desired challenge test goals. This includes using the same test method I used throughout the initial identification process, remediation and sanitizing process and clearance challenge process. From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@... Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 5:21 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: BIO-REVEAL , My compliments to Slade on his marketing accumen. Your reply was entirely and conspicuously nonresponsive to my comments regarding S-520 Condition 1. Must all IEPs working in accordance with S-520 guidelines use Bio-Reveal because it is the only way they can scientifically determine Condition 1? http://www.bio-reveal.com/articles/moldIICRCS520.pdf Or is there another way to scientifically determine Condition 1 status? Steve Temes Steve, I asked Slade , President of Bio-reveal to reply. Here is his comments. Pat. Thanks for the question. The main differences between the biochemistry of the Mycometer and Bio-reveal are as follows (based on what I know of the Mycometer system): 1) Mycometer chemistry uses fluorescence based on microbial enzyme presence. Bio-reveal uses bioluminescence based on measurement of the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecule presence. 2) Bio-reveal and Mycometer systems are both rapid; however, Bio-reveal ATP testing is extremely rapid compared to Mycometer. ATP testing is done in seconds (15-30 seconds tops vs. minutes to an hour for Mycometer). 3) Bio-reveal ATP measures only viable or LIVING cells or material. Mycometer will measure both viable and non-viable cells. 4) Bio-reveal ATP technology and Mycometer technology have both been peer reviewed. 5) Bio-reveal measures total biomass and total biomass of microbial contamination and converts this to a numerical value for interpretation. Bio-reveal does not differentiate biological contaminant types. Mycometer also measures total biomass (not sure how it converts to some value) but can differentiate between bacteria and fungal samples. I am assuming you would have to run two different tests to measure both if you wanted to. Neither system can identify organisms at all (genius or species level). 6) Bio-reveal ATP testing allows for linear evaluation of biomass present. ATP reaction is a 1:1 with respect to bioluminescent light production. So for example 100 femtamoles of ATP will yield 100 relative light units (RLUs) as a result. I honestly don’t know how the Mycometer relates enzyme presence to some value or if the reaction is linear or log based. 7) Detection limit of ATP technology is 1 femtamole. Mycometer detection limit is unknown to me. 8) Bio-reveal collects data for surface and liquid samples…no air sampling capability…yet. Mycometer can analyze surface, air and I not sure about liquid samples. 9) The physical process of collecting samples is simple for Bio-reveal. Chemistry and delivery system are built into one device with simple implementation. The Bio-reveal luminometer is also simple to use with basic keystrokes and one button operation. The Mycometer system appears to have more complex chemistry involved with respect to collection and analysis of the sample. The instrument (fluorometer I think) likely works in a similar fashion…but I really don’t know. Could be simple or more complex?? 10) Bio-reveal can be used to evaluate a wider array of biocontamination situations including fungal, bacteria, food and beverage industry hygiene, medical hygiene, GMP analysis for pharma industry, trauma hygiene evaluations, janitorial hygiene evaluations, etc. Mycometer only detects fungal and bacteria. I don’t believe the Mycometer can measure or detect non-culturable matter such as biofilms, body fluids, food residues and general biomatter with respect to janitorial hygiene. 11) Bio-reveal ATP system and test costs are significantly less than Mycometer technology. ATP instrument retails for about $1000, Mycometer is about $4500. Bio-reveal tests are $2-$3 each, Mycometer tests are $20-$30 each. There may be others but I think those are the biggies. Thanks, Slade President BEM Corporation 4506 109th Avenue Clear Lake, MN 55319 Tel: Cell: Fax: www.bem-corp.com www.bio-reveal.com ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.