Guest guest Posted November 28, 2010 Report Share Posted November 28, 2010 Sorry forgot to put the Aspergillus/Penicillium 6534 spores/cubic meter. thanks Lee > > Good morning, > May I please infringe on your knowledge once again. I am looking at the report from my daughters son school and don't quite understand it. > It was a Spore Trap, non cultured, Spore Trap Type: Digital DIS-1 > Test Method: Mold: Quantitative Direct Examination (with stain) Standard Profile. > As can be seen on the laboratory report, elevated mold spore counts include the following: > Epicoccum +19 > Nigrospora +19 > Pithomyces +19 > Stachybotrys +29 > Trichoderma/Gilocladium +1,458 > Note: There were no significant mold spore elevation detected. Trichoderma/Gliocladium elevations detected in sample 10 were probably due to the presence of cleaning crew who were transferring trash from waste baskets lnto large garbage bags. > There were no mold elevations in the sampling in hall. However, as you can see in photos, there appears to be visible mold on the HVAC grilles on the ceiling. Since there were no mold spores elevations in the air samples, cleaning is optional. > On the outside control and indoor samples it says what percentage the samples are Occluded, do not understand this. > there are fifteen samples won't list them all this one has me concerned: > Sample 12 Hallway: 65% Occluded. Due tto a high presence of Aspergillus/Penicillum, the minimum Detection limit is 39 spores/cubic meter for this fungal group. When comparing results to other samples, we calculated results, not raw numbers. > Any feedback you could provide would be great. > Lee > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2010 Report Share Posted November 28, 2010 Lee: You must become educated regarding indoor contamination in order to overcome the erroneous information put out by certain testing personnel. I suggest that you read the information that Carl and I put together on indoor contaminants published in the POA paper with Shoemaker: http://www.policyholdersofamerica.org/doc/CIRS_PEER_REVIEWED_PAPER.pdf You can also go to my web site and read up on indoor contaminants: www.drthrasher.org There are no known and/.or peer reviewed research papers that can identify so called safe levels of mold and bacteria in water damaged buildings. The comparison to outdoor mold counts is erroneous. The reason for this is that certain species of fungi (Stachybotrys, Aspergillus flavus, versicolor, fumigatus, etc.) and Penicillium chrysogenum, purpurgenum, etc) grow indoors vs outdoors. Therefore, as Carl and I have said on this forum, PCR determination of species is very important. Also, Stachybotrys should not be present in indoor environments. This fungus only grows where there is high water content of building materials. Another example of why PCR should be performed is to in the situation of Trichoderma/Gilocladium. Trichoderma viride is common to damp indoor spaces and it produces macrocyclic trichothenes. The Aspergillus/Penicillium at 6534/cubic meter is probably elevated. Again, PCR DNA should be done to determine the species Can you determine why the spore count was occluded. This indicates to me (how about your Carl) that elevated debris (hyphae, dust, spores, bacteria, etc.) caused the occlusion and therefore prevented identification. The cleaning crew could have caused the increased elevation of debris, particularly if they did not wall off the contaminated areas. Here again, is another example where only mold spores were tested. No bacterial cultures were done. They should have also tested for endotoxins, 1,3,-beta-D-glucans, particulates (large -spores and hyphae) and fine - particulates less than one micron). As an example, I recently tested a school (two offices) in which the counselors became very ill. PM10 and PM2.5 particles were in so called acceptable ranges. Mold spore counts were not revealing. However, the fine particles (<0.3 microns were greater than 48,000 per cubic meter. while outdoor counts were less than 28,000. Also the offices did not have proper ventilation: initial carbon dioxide was 780 ppm with the office doors open. However with the doors closed as done by the counselors when working with students and parents, the concentration rose to over 2000. Although the VOCs were in acceptable ranges, the presence of high carbon dioxide and fine particles would place the VOCs in unacceptable ranges. VOCs absorb to the fine particles and are carried deep into the alveoli, exchanging with the blood. The most dangerous VOC was acetylnitrile. I suggest that you read, become knowledgeable and ask critical questions. I am working with another school situation in Santa Barbara. The parents of become educated with respect to the complexity of the indoor environment and the school board has become very chagrin regarding the above issues. You must remember that most school districts are self insured. Therefore they do not want the problem to be fully tested and will hire outfits that support their positions. [] Dr. Thrasher/Carl Good morning, May I please infringe on your knowledge once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2010 Report Share Posted November 28, 2010 Lee, In addition to Dr Thrasher's excellent comments, he asked me about the occlusion issue. As he put it, " Can you determine why the spore count was occluded. This indicates to me (how about your Carl) that elevated debris (hyphae, dust, spores, bacteria, etc.) caused the occlusion and therefore prevented identification. " The occlusion factor (debris rating) is determined by the lab when the sample is examined by microscopy. Airborne dust can be composed of any of over 230 different substances, mold spores being but one of them with skin flakes being the most common. Even in heavily contaminated buildings, the percentage of mold spores compared to all the others is rarely over 3% and spores are smaller than many of the other particles. What this means is that the more particles (debris) in the sample the more difficult it is to see all the mold spores. Looking for them is like looking for grains of sand under a pile of rocks. Therefore, the actual number of spores might be higher than the number reported. If the occulusion is 65% then they are saying that as many as 65% of the spores may not have been counted. Or, maybe they were. They just don't know and there is no way of figuring it out. Picking one sample out of the 15 can be misleading in a different way. Because the numbers themselves have little to no meaning, and because there are no acceptable or threshold levels to compare them to, they must be compared to each others. At least as a start. The real comparision, however, must be to the conditions of the location where they were collected. For that you need a comprehensive inspection to identify and document variables involving building and material science, moisture behavior, air pathways, event history, occupant complaints, and several others. Also, as Dr Thrasher said, only mold spores were sampled. Leaving out all the other substances equally associated with dampness and water damaged buildings (WDB) and health. What this also means is that the rest of the mold growth (colony) biomass was not sampled. Mold growth is like a plant, only too small too see. (Which is why it is a micro-organism rather than a macro-organism like a mushroom). The mold growth doesn't always create seeds (spores) and the spores can't always become airborne while other smaller parts of the growth can. And certainly the molecular (rather than particle) components can. But they will never be detected by this type of sampling. As for the 6534 spores/cubic meter reading, I agree this may be of concern. As for whether or not it is " elevated " depends on what it is being compared to. Which brings us back to the beginning. Finally, obviously high counts provide information (incomplete) while low counts or zero counts provide no useful information. This is because ALL sampling methods are notorious for missing most of the spores. The 65% occlusion in your case is but one of many reasons why. Mold sampling CAN provide useful information, but not by using just one of the half dozen methods of collection and analysis and certainly not without the context of the situation. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Lee: You must become educated regarding indoor contamination in order to overcome the erroneous information put out by certain testing personnel. I suggest that you read the information that Carl and I put together on indoor contaminants published in the POA paper with Shoemaker: http://www.policyholdersofamerica.org/doc/CIRS_PEER_REVIEWED _PAPER.pdf You can also go to my web site and read up on indoor contaminants: www.drthrasher.org There are no known and/.or peer reviewed research papers that can identify so called safe levels of mold and bacteria in water damaged buildings. The comparison to outdoor mold counts is erroneous. The reason for this is that certain species of fungi (Stachybotrys, Aspergillus flavus, versicolor, fumigatus, etc.) and Penicillium chrysogenum, purpurgenum, etc) grow indoors vs outdoors. Therefore, as Carl and I have said on this forum, PCR determination of species is very important. Also, Stachybotrys should not be present in indoor environments. This fungus only grows where there is high water content of building materials. Another example of why PCR should be performed is to in the situation of Trichoderma/Gilocladium. Trichoderma viride is common to damp indoor spaces and it produces macrocyclic trichothenes. The Aspergillus/Penicillium at 6534/cubic meter is probably elevated. Again, PCR DNA should be done to determine the species Can you determine why the spore count was occluded. This indicates to me (how about your Carl) that elevated debris (hyphae, dust, spores, bacteria, etc.) caused the occlusion and therefore prevented identification. The cleaning crew could have caused the increased elevation of debris, particularly if they did not wall off the contaminated areas. Here again, is another example where only mold spores were tested. No bacterial cultures were done. They should have also tested for endotoxins, 1,3,-beta-D-glucans, particulates (large -spores and hyphae) and fine - particulates less than one micron). As an example, I recently tested a school (two offices) in which the counselors became very ill. PM10 and PM2.5 particles were in so called acceptable ranges. Mold spore counts were not revealing. However, the fine particles (<0.3 microns were greater than 48,000 per cubic meter. while outdoor counts were less than 28,000. Also the offices did not have proper ventilation: initial carbon dioxide was 780 ppm with the office doors open. However with the doors closed as done by the counselors when working with students and parents, the concentration rose to over 2000. Although the VOCs were in acceptable ranges, the presence of high carbon dioxide and fine particles would place the VOCs in unacceptable ranges. VOCs absorb to the fine particles and are carried deep into the alveoli, exchanging with the blood. The most dangerous VOC was acetylnitrile. I suggest that you read, become knowledgeable and ask critical questions. I am working with another school situation in Santa Barbara. The parents of become educated with respect to the complexity of the indoor environment and the school board has become very chagrin regarding the above issues. You must remember that most school districts are self insured. Therefore they do not want the problem to be fully tested and will hire outfits that support their positions. [] Dr. Thrasher/Carl Good morning, May I please infringe on your knowledge once again. ---------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: DEFAULT.BMP Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10 Size: 358 bytes. Type: Unknown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2010 Report Share Posted November 28, 2010 Dr. Thrasher/Carl, Your answers were exactly what was needed, I do not have the understandings of the full complexity of the situation; my daugther emailed them to request further testing. She and some of the other mothers have developed symptoms in the one area. I can't thank you both enough for the insight. Lee --- In , " Jack Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@...> wrote: > > Lee: You must become educated regarding indoor contamination in order to overcome the erroneous information put out by certain testing personnel. I suggest that you read the information that Carl and I put together on indoor contaminants published in the POA paper with Shoemaker: > > http://www.policyholdersofamerica.org/doc/CIRS_PEER_REVIEWED_PAPER.pdf > > You can also go to my web site and read up on indoor contaminants: www.drthrasher.org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2010 Report Share Posted November 29, 2010 You're welcome. The " further testing " needs to be specified according to informed conditions or else they will test they way they want (believe) rather than what is needed to answer the questions which can't be answered by other means. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Dr. Thrasher/Carl, Your answers were exactly what was needed, I do not have the understandings of the full complexity of the situation; my daugther emailed them to request further testing. She and some of the other mothers have developed symptoms in the one area. I can't thank you both enough for the insight. Lee --- In , " Jack Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@...> wrote: > > Lee: You must become educated regarding indoor contamination in order to overcome the erroneous information put out by certain testing personnel. I suggest that you read the information that Carl and I put together on indoor contaminants published in the POA paper with Shoemaker: > > http://www.policyholdersofamerica.org/doc/CIRS_PEER_REVIEWED_PAPER.pdf > > You can also go to my web site and read up on indoor contaminants: www.drthrasher.org > > ---------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: DEFAULT.BMP Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10 Size: 358 bytes. Type: Unknown 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.