What Is The Best Approach To Dealing With Mold Contaminated Contents?

Not All Mold Remediation Is The Same (Part 3 of 3)

By Michael A. Pinto, CSP, CMP

This is part three of three, please read part two if you have not already so.

The Contents Conundrum

Despite many statements to the contrary, most contents from water-damaged buildings can be salvaged and cleaned to the point where they are safe for even the most sensitized individual. Therefore, the more relevant question is not whether the contents can be cleaned, but, can the contents be cleaned thoroughly at a price that makes it financially feasible?

Two key pieces of information need to be reviewed when dealing with contents: the type of material to be cleaned, and whether the contamination is actual biological growth or rather deposition of spores and fragments. This means that sorting and inventory are the main tasks at this step in the remediation operation. The following table, summarized from a more detailed article (Wonder Makers Environmental; “Recommended Cleaning Practices for Materials Potentially Contaminated by Mold”; July 2001), describes many of the techniques currently available for addressing contaminated contents for sensitized individuals, and provides a great starting point for the sorting.

[table id=2 /]

Cleaning of non-porous items is fairly straightforward. Soft goods pose a greater challenge because contaminants can become infused throughout the entire item. The more layers that make up the porous item or the bulkier the material, the more difficult cleaning and verification of the cleaning become. The ever-increasing variety of fabrics and materials that are used for soft goods compounds the problems because certain cleaning techniques are only appropriate or effective for specific materials.

Fortunately, there are some proven technologies for dealing with contaminated contents. One technique that has been demonstrated to be effective is known as the HEPA sandwich. This process involves three steps, with vacuuming being the first and last activity. In between, some form of wet cleaning is utilized, such as damp-wiping, washing, or hot water extraction. While this HEPA sandwich approach has been used extensively for cleaning non-porous or semi-porous building surfaces, it has also been employed successfully for a number of porous materials. For example, carpet that is impacted by deposition of mold spores but is not supporting visible colonies of fungal growth has been efficiently cleaned by HEPA vacuuming before and after a professional hot water extraction of the floor covering. Thousands of pieces of upholstered furniture have also been successfully saved using this method.

The concept of specialized laundry systems to remove contaminants is only about a decade old. It is a rethinking of the standard agitator or tumble washing processes that characterize most top- or front-load washing machines. The primary innovation that led to the term specialized laundry was a machine intended to clean sports equipment, known as the Esporta Wash System. This piece of equipment was designed to use hydraulic water pressure rather than agitation as the primary means of forcing cleaning solution through materials.

Once the inventors were able to get complete penetration of multilayered soft goods, they needed to match the physical cleaning action of the water with neutral pH cleaners to preserve washed materials. Since much of the malodor associated with dirty sports equipment comes from bacterial contamination, the Esporta system was engineered to force antimicrobial compounds through dense products like foam-padded hockey gear. As it turns out, this process produces an incredible kill rate for microbial contamination in many items, including those that are constructed of both hard and soft materials. This claim is not simply sales hype from the manufacturer. The Esporta Wash System has been subjected to a number of independent tests to determine the cleaning effectiveness of the process, and multiple studies have demonstrated impressive efficacy dealing with contaminated soft goods.

An often overlooked aspect of content cleaning is the sequencing and transportation of goods. If the same truck that was used to take the contents from the contaminated building is used to return the cleaned goods, without the interior of the truck being thoroughly decontaminated, all the cleaning efforts may be for naught. Whether the contents are cleaned on site or at a dedicated facility, how they will be moved and where they will be stored are critical questions that need to be answered before the work begins

Removing the Reservoirs

Perhaps the most common error affecting sensitized individuals who go through a mold control process is the determination of whether or not cleaning is necessary in areas of the structure outside the isolated remediation work area. While detailed cleaning of an entire structure may not be necessary for individuals who are reacting to the water-damaged building with a typical allergic response, additional cleaning is almost always necessary for those who are suffering from biotoxin illness.

The fact that mold and other contaminants were growing in the structure to the point that it triggered or exacerbated a health problem, means that contaminants and reservoirs exist in other areas of the structure. This was graphically demonstrated by the EPA through the development of their Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI) sampling process. Their studies showed that a good indication of whether any structure had suffered water damage could be obtained from a single dust sample of the flooring.

Building on that government work, there is a growing body of evidence from carefully controlled medical studies that dust samples can be used to predict health concerns for sensitized occupants. One well-known physician, Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker, has even identified core components of an ERMI sample that specifically correlate with health. He compares ERMI-style dust sample results to a score sheet to provide his patients with information about whether a particular space is suitable for their occupation. This process is now migrating to an evaluation of the structure following remediation.

Despite not being high-tech, the primary method of removing reservoirs of contaminants from building surfaces is detailed cleaning. Every square inch of the surfaces in the structure are cleaned using HEPA vacuums (sealed and tested with a particle counter to ensure that they are not spreading dust around rather than collecting it), microfiber cloths, and carefully selected cleaning agents. This work is supplemented by air washing (directing compressed air across the surfaces toward an exhaust fan) and air scrubbing (recirculating air through a HEPA-filtered device). Sometimes fogging with water or non-toxic solutions is also utilized to help lift particles from surfaces and give them greater mass so that they are more easily captured.

A Word About Ozone

A number of contractors are now pitching the process of “treating mold in place” with high levels of ozone instead of removing contaminated materials in a controlled and careful way. They have expanded their promotion to include ozone flooding of structures after remediation as “insurance” against problems from hidden sources. This is bad for normal occupants and could be devastating for the sensitized individual. This approach is so far out of bounds that the New York City guidelines use this pretty clear language:

The use of gaseous, vapor-phase, or aerosolized (e.g., fogging) biocides for remedial purposes is not recommended. Using biocides in this manner can pose health concerns for people in occupied spaces of the building and for people returning to the treated space. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these treatments is unproven and does not address the possible health concerns from the presence of the remaining non-viable mold.

Other documents from the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), the Restoration Industry Association (RIA), and the Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC) say the same thing. Several of them specifically call out ozone as being inappropriate for mold remediation, particularly when it is used as a stand-alone technique.

Putting It All Together to Protect the Sensitized Person Who is Trying to Heal

There is no doubt that the relationship between water-damaged buildings and health effects is complicated. But this has been the case with every material that was eventually determined to be a hazardous contaminant. There will always be more to learn. Nevertheless, it is important to work intelligently with the existing information even as we strive for better data. This is especially true when many of the corrective action steps that can be employed have a proven track record with real-world success in helping sensitized individuals recover their health and lives.

At times, the process of trying to deal with a water-damaged environment that needs to be occupied by a sensitized person can seem overwhelming. In those moments both the occupants and the contractor chosen to assist them should drop back to the core concepts related to remediation for people with special sensitivities:

• There is a connection between many significant health symptoms and contaminated environments that is not explained by the dose/response relationship.
• Proper remediation must go beyond source removal and deal with residual contamination in the HVAC system, on contents, and on surfaces outside the isolated work area.
• At a minimum, remediation practices must follow the standard of care and then plus-up from there to address the special needs of the occupants.
• Attention to detail in all aspects of the work is crucial. A small gap in a barrier or an item missed in the cleaning process could trigger a significant reaction.
• Everyone should be clear on a specifically-defined endpoint for each phase of the work before it begins.

 
Having a detailed project plan and an individual that acts as a central coordinator for the effort is one way to help such projects proceed smoothly. By the very definition of a sensitized individual, such projects that assist them are not routine. Even so, a thoughtful approach and a strict focus on completing each step properly can restore buildings to the point where medical intervention can be more effective in resolving health issues and giving these suffering people their lives back.

Wonder Makers receives calls every day from mold sensitized individuals that are seeking help and has 100s of case evaluations. If you are mold sensitized and would like someone from Wonder Makers to contact you, please click here.

There is a critical need for environmental contractors who are specifically trained to help sensitized people find a safe haven in their homes. For this reason, we are offering a one-day technical seminar designed for mold remediation contractors, cleaning companies, inspectors, and others who are serious about assisting sensitized people. It offers a comprehensive approach to these challenging situations by addressing every aspect of a mold remediation project, including source removal, content cleaning, decontamination of HVAC systems, and elimination of microbial reservoirs from the entire structure. If you are a contractor and would like to learn how you can help the many mold sensitized individuals that e-mail and phone us, please use the form below so that we can keep you informed of course dates, special offerings, and contact you directly.

Not All #Mold Remediation Is The Same (Part 3 of 3) @moldsensitized http://t.co/OWisl7FQ2H PLEASE RETWEET

— Mold Sensitized (@moldsensitized) March 13, 2015