Indoor Air Quality Solutions, IAQS

Recently a very well respected PhD Wei Tang Lab Director at QLab, posted the following in the IAQA LinkedIn Group about microbial DNA testing.  It was in response to a question regarding the presentation he gave at the IAQA Annual Conference in Las Vegas.

Someone asked me about DNA testing in one of my presentations yesterday. Here are my thoughts on this subject.
 
The detection of DNA in indoor environmental samples demonstrates the history of the presence of biological organisms (e.g. a serial killer, mold, bacteria, etc.). It may not represent the current biological hazard/risk. Pathogens need to be viable to be infectious. The molecular structures of allergens (mold and others) and toxins that cause allergic and toxic reactions, respectively, need to be well preserved in order to cause health effects. Assessment based on DNA testing alone overestimates the risk of biological agents on human health in indoor environment.
 
Surrogate components testing (DNA, ATP, enzymes) does not test for the “real thing”. The detection of those components of an organism does not equal to the detection of components of the same organism that can cause health effects. Direct microscopic examination of fungal biomass (spores and hyphae) detects and demonstrates the presence of intact fungal cell structure and it has a better correlation to the presence of fungal cell components that can possibly cause health effects. Of course, there are many tests can detect each components individually, but the cost will be very high. Culture analysis can tell you whether VIABLE (culturable) fungi and bacteria are present or not. Those methods will still be the most common and cost efficient methods for IEQ assessment for many years to come.
 
DNA testing doesn’t tell you when the organism has become non-viable or if the cell structure has been destroyed or not. If the remediation company need to remove, clean, kill, and destroy every pieces of DNA left behind, the cost will be way too high. DNA-free environment is unnecessary for residential, commercial and most industrial buildings.
 
DNA testing is a power tool and has its time and place, especially for academic research. For field applications, I believe we are still in early stage of research and development.

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

Toxic mold lawsuits have historically been met with speculation. Much of this was the result of the science — differing opinions on causation and whether visible mold automatically implies the presence of toxins. Some even went so far as to claim mold litigation was based on “junk science and hysteria.”

However, a recent ruling from a New York appeals court suggests that prevailing opinions about mold science may have changed. At least when it comes to the courts.

Brenda Cornell had sued her ex-landlord for respiratory illnesses developed as the result of 6 long years of mold exposure. The trial court had dismissed her suit, relying on the appellate court’s 2008 ruling in Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp.

In Fraser, the court declined to accept scientific evidence connecting the plaintiff’s illness with mold. The plaintiff failed to prove that the scientific theory connecting mold and dampness to illness is generally accepted by the scientific community.

Cornell’s toxic mold lawsuit did not meet this roadblock. Fraser, the court wrote, does not preclude all such suits. The plaintiffs were able to prove that Cornell’s former apartment was above a mold-infested basement and that mold was growing under her floorboards. Medical experts testified and relied on a number of studies.

Those studies, wrote the court, were “statistically significant” and demonstrated “that exposure to mold caused the identified ill-health effects.” The court further concluded that “it is undisputed that exposure to toxic molds is capable of causing the types of ailments from which plaintiff suffers.”

This conclusion is an important one for plaintiffs bringing toxic mold lawsuits. It implies mold science may have finally reached a point where it helps, as opposed to hinders, litigation.

Related Resources:

• Toxic Mold / Black Mold (FindLaw)
• Get Legal Help with a Toxic Mold Case (FindLaw)
• Can Toxic Mold Kill You? (FindLaw’s Common Law)

If your home was built before 1978, a new regulation could affect your remodeling or renovation project.  A new federal law requires remodeling contractors who could possibly disturb lead paint during a renovation to be certified and use certain procedures to minimize your exposure.

Q: Why is lead poisoning considered so dangerous?

A: Lead can affect a child’s brain and developing nervous system, lowering their IQ and causing learning disabilities, hearing problems, behavioral problems and slowed growth.

In adults, low levels of lead can lead to high blood pressure and hypertension and can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, stomach and kidneys.

There may be no noticeable symptoms of lead poisoning before the blood level becomes very high and has caused irreversible damage.

Q: How big of a problem is lead poisoning here in Iowa?

A: In Iowa, one out of every 16 children entering school have an elevated blood level for lead poisoning. This is four times the national average. This may be due, in large part, to the large number of houses in our state that were built before 1950.

Q: How do I know if there is lead-based paint in my home?

A: It is estimated that 24 percent of homes built between 1960 and 1978 have some lead, that 69 percent of homes built between 1940 and 1960 do, and that as many as 87 percent of homes built before 1940 do.  ” Some homes, even built as recently as 1985, have turned up with large amounts of lead paint.” Although lead paint was outlawed for residential use in 1978, it is still used extensively in commercial paints.

You can hire a certified inspector to find out if there is lead in your home and where it is located.

Q: How is someone exposed to lead in their home?

A: Lead gets into the body when it is either swallowed or inhaled. Low levels can build up in your body over a long period of time.

The most common way to get lead poisoning is from dust. You can see how a home remodeling project could easily disturb some lead-based paint, even if it’s under layers of latex paint. The dust from sanding and other demolition work can be filled with dangerous lead dust.

Q: What types of home renovations are covered by the new lead paint law?

A: Any time more than one square foot of a lead-painted surface is disturbed, the contractor must be certified and follow the new procedures. The new law applies to even small jobs, like window replacements. “Even an electrician that would cut in as few as three electrical boxes would need to be certified,” “It doesn’t take much to meet the requirement.”

Q: What kind of training do remodelers need?

A: An eight-hour class is required with a written test at the end. Then the contractor must apply to the state of Iowa for certification. Every three years they must take a refresher course. For most home renovation projects, the contractor and at least one worker must be certified.

Q: What extra work is required?

A: Contain the work area, sealing off the door to that room and the heating/cooling vents. Avoid renovation activities that create a lot of dust. Clean up well afterward.

Sources:  National Association of Home Builders, WebMD

For more information online:

Renovate Right brochure:

www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/renovaterightbrochure.pdf

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