Indoor Air Quality Solutions, IAQS

A newly published book by Vince Elliott, BS, MHS, describes how facilities can now be cleaned thoroughly, hygienically, at less cost, and with greater work productivity without the use of chemical cleaning agents.
New Book Advocates Chemical-Free Cleaning

The book, Extreme Green Cleaning, was introduced in November at the 2010 ISSA/INTERCLEAN North America trade show in Orlando.

In it, Elliott writes that the professional cleaning industry is moving beyond conventional or green cleaning chemicals to emerging technologies that use plain tap water instead of chemicals.

“This is what I call renewable, ‘chemical-free cleaning,'” says Elliott. “It means no cleaning residues are left on surfaces or in the air after cleaning.”

Elliott argues that even though green cleaning chemicals are safer for users and the environment, “they still are chemicals. The typical [American] office building is using approximately 1,600 pounds of these chemicals each year, dumping about six billion pounds of chemicals into our environment annually.”

Instead, Elliott suggests employing these effective alternatives:
Activated water systems, which use electrical currents to turn tap water into a powerful disinfectant

Electrolyzed water systems, which are used for scrubbing and cleaning floors

The no-touch cleaning system, which is considered a “sanitizing device” based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria*
“Chemical-free cleaning may have caught some people by surprise because it has been evolving so slowly,” adds Elliott. “But it is here and growing and will prove to be one of the most significant trends in our industry in years to come.”

Elliott’s book may be purchased through Amazon.com .

*Applies only to certain models of the no-touch cleaning system developed by Kaivac, Inc. Cleaning must be performed as directed, with water only, and no chemicals or cleaning agents. The EPA classifies a “sanitizing device” as any system that reduces the number of microbes on a test surface by 99.9 percent.

For more information, visit http://www.ealtd.com or http://www.cfcn.info .

•John P. Lapotaire, CIEC
•Certified Indoor Environmental Consultant
•Microshield Environmental Services, LLC
•www.Microshield-ES.com

In 1984, the World Health Organization Committee said up to 30 percent of new and remodeled buildings worldwide have complaints related to indoor air quality. Florida is no exception.

In the subtropics of the state’s coastal areas, cooling and removing the humidity from the air inside buildings and preventing mold buildup is a year-round battle that has come with a big price tag.

For instance, Sebastian officials spent more than $250,000 to remove carpets, replace walls and rework air-circulating equipment at their Police Department headquarters. The city of Rockledge paid $88,000 last year to replenish the air quality in its fire station.

Between 1997 and 2001, the Brevard County School District spent more than $19 million to revamp, clean and replace air-conditioning systems in its offices and area schools. That doesn’t include projects involving roofs, doors or windows that impact indoor quality, nor the ongoing maintenance of air conditioning equipment.

“There are a large number of buildings that date back to the mid-1960s. It’s a challenge to take 1960s technology with air conditioning and yet continue to provide good air quality,” said Richard Smith, indoor air quality control coordinator for the district.

He said air-conditioning systems represent the largest unfunded need in ongoing school maintenance programs. “It’s always the largest chunk of our 5- or 10-year plans,” he said.

Greg Smith, assistant superintendent of operations for Indian River County schools, said the district is spending about $1 million to revamp the air-conditioning system at Thompson Elementary School in Vero Beach.
Last year, the district did similar work at Highlands Elementary and Sebastian River Middle School.

Also, the Indian River County Commission recently decided to build a new municipal building, in part because of the poor air conditioning and circulation system.

“We want to address air quality concerns in the development of plans for a new building. That’s also why the Space Needs Committee has recommended an open-office design to prevent stagnant areas,” said Tom Frame, county general services supervisor.
Written by: Linda Jump

•John P. Lapotaire, CIEC
•Certified Indoor Environmental Consultant
•Microshield Environmental Services, LLC
•www.Microshield-ES.com

Posted by Susan Lillard

FORT MYERS, Fla.–(BUSINESS WIRE FEATURES)–July 23, 2002–Mold damage claims are on the rise. And judging from recent court activity, so are mold-related lawsuits. Some parties professing to be injured by the invasive spores have received jaw-dropping settlements, spurring a flurry of legislative activity in several states, including Texas, California and Maryland. Industry experts say Florida may not be far behind.

Floridians’ growing concern about mold is particularly evident in the upsurge of mold-related insurance claims in the Sunshine state. Filings have reportedly increased as much as 25 percent in the past year, according to Allstate Corporation. State Farm Insurance also reports a substantial climb in Florida’s mold-related claims–citing 700 in 2001, compared to 83 in 2000.
Concerned about the volume and amount of the claims, 50 Florida insurance companies joined insurance firms elsewhere in the United States in asking state regulators late last year to limit their mold liability. To date, no legislative action has been taken on the petitions.

“We haven’t approved any mold exclusion endorsements,” said Steve Roddenberry, Deputy Director of the Florida Department of Insurance. Roddenberry added that the treasurer intends to hold hearings throughout Florida so that interested parties can present their positions on whether or not mold should receive insurance coverage, and under which circumstances.

Currently, most Florida insurance policies will cover mold damage only when it relates to what the Florida Department of Insurance deems a “covered peril,” such as a hurricane or a windstorm.

“If mold results from a sudden, accidental charge of water, then its remediation is covered within policy limits,” Roddenberry explained. “But if mold develops from construction defects or a homeowner’s negligent maintenance, it’s not the insurer’s responsibility.”

In other states, where mold cases are more rampant, state regulators are expanding the scope of mold coverage. In Texas, where the average mold claim runs around $17,000, insurance companies will be required to offer additional coverage for testing and treatment beyond normal water damage repair. This new coverage must be adopted by all Texas insurance companies by Jan. 1, 2003.
With mold coverage, consumers can expect higher insurance premiums. Projected increases may reach as high as 25 percent in some parts of the country. However, in states where mold exclusions are in effect, homeowner rates have actually dropped. But if California is any trend indicator, decreases are likely to be less than 10 percent.

“It’s hard to know what to expect, because different states have chosen to handle the mold issue differently,” L’Hommedieu said. “Despite hundreds of document cases where chronic respiratory ailments and other more serious symptoms have been linked to mold, not everyone agrees mold is a serious health threat. Even the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) has publicly recognized uncontrolled mold growth as a health problem, but Congress still hasn’t granted the EPA authority to regulate it.”

Nevertheless, states like California–overwhelmed with the second highest number of U.S. mold claims–have been compelled to address the issue legally.
Late last year, California state legislators passed the Toxic Mold Protection Act, which outlines a mold disclosure obligation for property owners and sellers. This law requires disclosure when there is knowledge of, or reasonable cause to believe in, the presence of mold at health-endangering levels. This disclosure law will not be enforceable, however, until the California Department of Health Services develops permissible exposure limits for molds, which must be finalized by July 1, 2003. Other states, such as Michigan, are proposing similar mold disclosure legislation.

On the federal level, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, Jr., has proposed The United States Toxic Mold Safety and Protection Act, a bill requiring the divulgence of mold upon the sale of a home or other property transfer.

Will Florida–a state known for its tourism and real estate–follow suit with its own mold disclosure law? According to Jeff Miloff, CSP, sales director/realtor of Miloff Aubuchon Realty of Cape Coral, Fla., the answer is “yes.”

“It’s only a matter of time,” Miloff said. “Mold is a new problem facing builders, insurance companies and real estate professionals. As we learn more about its health hazards, we will see mold as a standard disclosure, just as we have with radon gas and lead-based paint.”

Conyer’s bill also contains provisions for creating a toxic mold research initiative, a mold case clearinghouse and standards for mold removal.

“Federal requirements for mold remediation may make people more cautious about who they hire to help them, and that’s a good thing, because few people are actually qualified to test for mold or to provide cleaning protocols,” said L’Hommedieu, one of the first in the United States to become a Certified Mold Remediator (CMR).

Miloff agrees. “Most local home inspectors are not qualified to test for mold, so we encourage buyers and sellers to look into an environmental service specializing in that area.”

Mold may not currently be stimulating much activity in Florida’s legislative arena, but that doesn’t relieve area professionals of their public responsibility, according to Miloff.

“Black mold affects human health and is a problem the public should be aware of,” Miloff said. “With or without legislation, it’s our responsibility to disclose black mold as another inspection buyers and sellers may perform to protect their investment.”

•John P. Lapotaire, CIEC
•Certified Indoor Environmental Consultant
•Microshield Environmental Services, LLC
•www.Microshield-ES.com

By Martha Neil

Concerning that a 52-year-old Florida jurist’s death from lung cancer last month may have been linked to courthouse mold, three of Judge Cheryl Aleman’s colleagues on the ninth floor have moved their chambers out of the Broward County Courthouse and are seeking environmental testing.

“There were issues with a serious illness with one or more judges in the area,” Judge Patti Englander Henning tells the Miami Herald. “Prudence suggested that we request to be moved until they can test and determine what the problem is and how it can be remedied. And obviously, it was a valid enough claim that they were good enough to move us.”

An article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel says judges are also concerned about a possible asbestos issue in the courthouse.

Court employees have previously filed a series of lawsuits over alleged courthouse mold, and the issue has also arisen concerning other courthouses in Florida.

•John P. Lapotaire, CIEC
•Certified Indoor Environmental Consultant
•Microshield Environmental Services, LLC
•www.Microshield-ES.com

Post on Wall Sampling from Forensic Applications, Inc. via Facebook

Nowhere except in the “toxic mould industry” have so many Industrial Hygiene tools and techniques been perverted and abused. And amongst the most abused are the “size selective samplers” which have been commandeered by “certified mould inspectors” for their nefarious activities – which usually involve bamboozling home owners into believing they have a mould problem which can only be corrected by costly “remediation.”

As legitimate Industrial Hygienists, mycologist, microbiologist, the US EPA, US Centers for Disease Control, World Health Organization, and a large number of State Health Departments have been cautioning consumers against using air sampling and other methods for moulds, the “toxic mould industry” has now settled on a new scheme – wall cavity spore sampling.

Also known as “interstitial wall sampling,” this technique is a derivation of the common Air-O-Cell spore trap. In the method, the “toxic mould inspector” inserts a small tube into a wall cavity and sucks air out of the wall cavity through a spore trap. Then, based on the (invalid and uninterpretable) sample result, the practitioner informs the homeowner they have toxic mould in their wall cavity. Not surprisingly, the certified mould inspector then announces that they, or their cousin, just so happen to also own a certified toxic mould remediation company who will take care of the problem!

In fact, the technique has no validation, and sample interpretation by these practitioners cannot withstand scientific scrutiny. The use of wall cavity sampling during a normal mould assessment in a structure would never be performed by a legitimate knowledgeable investigator such as a mycologist, microbiologist or Industrial Hygienist and currently remains primarily a gimmick in the purview of the “toxic mould” scam artist who otherwise lacks any legitimate knowledge in the assessment of indoor moulds.

Regardless of the sample result, the results cannot be translated into a meaningful human exposure statement, and neither can the result be translated into a statement that is germane to structural issues, water loss or even mould growth in the wall or the structure.

In short, the method is primarily used to impress the client, and does not produce any valid data that can be used in a legitimate mould assessment or human exposure assessment.

Furthermore, the method can be easily manipulated by the practitioner to either produce a “high value” or a “low value” depending on what the “toxic mould inspector” wants the sample to show.

ALL wall cavities contain mould. Virtually all drywall paper contains Stachybotrys atra, the boogey-man (and the golden cash-cow) of the certified mould inspector. If one bangs on the wall hard enough and long enough, one will get a desirably higher count for “black mould.”

Several scientific studies have clearly demonstrated that mould found in wall cavities does not impact human exposures, degrade indoor air quality, or otherwise pose a threat to the structure or occupants of a structure. No studies have shown that the hollow wall cavity spore trap sampling has any legitimate utility in a routine mould assessment, post remediation clearance sampling, or other “mould remediation” project.

Visibly water damaged surfaces should be properly addressed such that the visual aspects and the structural integrity of the material be returned to a satisfactory visual condition. Appropriate remediation activities may be as simple as wiping the mould from the surface of the material and, if necessary, just repainting the surface (presuming the moisture problem has been corrected).

Although willy-nilly fishing expeditions hunting down hidden mould are certainly standard industry practice of the “toxic mould” scam-artists, such assessment techniques have never been considered an acceptable practice by legitimate experts in the field of human exposure assessments.

Usually, an homeowner’s first clue that they have not selected a legitimate knowledgeable consultant in a mould related issue is when the consultant wants to collect “samples;” any kind of samples, air, tape, surface or interstitial wall cavity samples. A legitimate mould inspector virtually will never be identified as a “certified mould inspector” and will virtually never elect to collect any kind of samples.

•John P. Lapotaire, CIEC
•Certified Indoor Environmental Consultant
•Microshield Environmental Services, LLC
•www.Microshield-ES.com