Caoimhín P. Connell

I had similar problems viewing videos, until my Daughter pointed out that my Etch-A-Sketch was seriously outdated and I needed to enter the real world. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Scott- you're scaring me, Friend. I've been to Amsterdam with a credit card on a dirty weekend ... I thought I'd seen it all. Apparently not... Dang - I wish I hadn't seen that before I was going to bed. CPC

Dangerous? What is “danger?â€

Good morning! Could be chocolate tube slime, but I don’t think so. I’ve seen Periconia growing sorta kinda like that on insects. I don’t know if I have Periconia on my page of mould photos, but you can check: http://www.forensic-applications.com/moulds/habits.html If it’s not there, and you’re interested, let me know and I’ll post here. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Good morning, Gents: In the past, human exposure and environmental assessment samples were collected and interpreted by professionals with proficiency in those fields following standardized sampling protocols and interpretation protocols. With the advent of the indoor mould craze, a plethora of instant mould experts started collecting samples using non-standard and meaningless protocols and mostly relied on insupportable interpretations. Within the Home Inspection industry, we have mostly seen Home Inspectors relying on the laboratory to interpret their results – in spite of warnings from the EPA and the CDC that this is inappropriate. NACHI certified inspectors, especially, have announced with pride that they let ProLabs interpret their data (which has resulted in many grossly misinterpreted data and unsupported conclusions). For approximately 10 years FACTs personnel have stated very clearly that the Laboratory is the LEAST capable entity for data interpretation. Yesterday, we received with interest the following circular from EMSL Analytical Inc., a laboratory involved in spore trap analysis and other type of indoor mould analysis: Should You Trust a Laboratory to Interpret Your Mold Results? Indoor air quality as a scientific discipline is evolving as our knowledge of the subject increases. We know that sample results for fungi and fungal spores are highly variable even under the most controlled sampling conditions. Given the complexity of interpreting your results, can you really rely on a lab doing this for you? Here are some reasons not to: 1. Laboratory results by themselves should not be used alone to form the basis of your data interpretation. Visual inspection of the site, site location and nearby land use, understanding the site history, identifying indoor micro-climates, and interviews with affected occupants should play a major role in your result interpretation. 2. Fungal counts have spatial, geographic, local land use, seasonal and diurnal variability just to name a few. This variability can be orders of magnitude different in samples that are taken a few minutes apart! An interpretation of your samples that is based on subjective, un-validated internal criteria developed by a laboratory is a great way to make incorrect conclusions! 3. We know that different sampling devices result in different collection efficiencies that depend on the spore size. This variation is significant when comparing sampling devices. These collection efficiency differences are not taken into account by labs offering this type of data interpretation! What are you really getting? The sole purpose of a laboratory is to provide you with independent, objective, and scientifically defensible data. Labs that offer you “statistical data interpretationâ€

Hello Gents – No, I wasn’t joking. I’m not an home inspector or an “applicatorâ€

Yeah, well ... in spite of my apparent on line persona, I’m actually pretty quite and congenial (especially after a few pints). Caoimhín

Hello Steven! We don’t have the final schedule out. However, it will be held at the U. of Vermont July 13-15. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Jim – First let me say you have some excellent and penetrating questions. I started my response and then left to have my dinner, and so if there is a response in between I apologize for not addressing it. Comment: As I read it, it sounds like he's saying that the aspergilli aren't able to break down cellulose without some help. Response: As far as the Aspergilli needing “helpâ€

Hi Gents – I am a Session Arranger at the Johnson Conference at the University of Vermont, my area is “Health Effects of Molds.â€

Each of the above comments work for me! But then, after a weekend of standing in a river and testing new flies, I'm just as soft as pudding.... Caoimhín

Hello Jim – Although Buller is speaking of other fungi, moulds are capable of degrading cellulose and the other complex entities in plant material and wood. I think the confusion may arise from a distinction between what a mould can do, and what are the practical implications of what the mould has done. Several moulds have the distinct capability of breaking down cellulose and other complex entities in wood and other plants. However, the practical implications is that since the process is slow, and the degradation is mostly superficial, the practical upshot is that it is of little importance from a structural integrity point of view. An excellent discussion of the subject is found in a paper titled Aspergillus Enzymes Involved in Degradation of Plant Cell Wall Polysaccharides (Devries RP, Visser, JA), Microbiology And Molecular Biology Reviews, Dec.2001, p.497–522. Regarding this genus of mould, the authors state: Four classes of enzymes are involved in the biodegradation of cellulose. Endoglucanases hydrolyze cellulose to glucooligosaccharides. Cellobiohydrolases release cellobiose from crystalline cellulose. Glucosidases degrade the oligosaccharides to glucose. Exoglucanases release glucose from cellulose and glucooligosaccharides. The distinction between exoglucanases and cellobiohydrolases is not always clear due to differences in the methods used to study these enzymes. All four classes of enzymes have been identified in the aspergilli, although the number of isozymes produced by different species or even strains of the same species can differ. An analysis of the production of endoglucanases by 45 A. terreus isolates not only revealed different electrophoretic mobilities for the enzymes of the different isolates but also indicated the absence of endoglucanase I in a number of the isolates Endoglucanases and glucosidases are also able to degrade the backbone of xyloglucan. From A. aculeatus an endoglucanase has been purified that is specific for the substituted xyloglucan backbone. Finally, it is also important to note that just because a specific genotype is capable of producing cellulolytic enzymes, does not mean that it necessarily must. We can say the same thing about various mycotoxins - just because a particular mould is capable of producing a specific mycotoxin, does not mean the presence of the organism is synonymous with the presence of the mycotoxin. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Good morning, Gents! First Chris – It may be that a single action (such as ventilation) may not solve the problem. Remembering that the problem is moisture, not mould. The mould is merely the visual manifestation of the moisture problem. By applying the fungicide, one is not addressing the problem, and in fact, one is not even addressing the mould. Fungicides merely kill mould- they don’t remove mould and, in generally aren’t particularly good at preventing mould growth in the presence of a pervasive moisture problem, and generally don't address the epitope (the structure that makes a mould allergenic). So, instead of focusing on a quick fix, or a single parameter, a broad spectrum approach may be beneficial for your client, including a discussion on construction defects, or architectural flaws that lead to the moisture problem in the first place. Randy – It’s not that the products don’t kill mould. Killing mould is easy, and a whole variety of household products can easily fit that bill. Rather, what is at stake are the circumstances surrounding the appropriateness of the application of the fungicide. At the heart of mould remediation is finding and correcting the REAL problem – moisture. 99% of the success on a mould remediation project is identifying and correcting the moisture intrusion problem; the remaining 1% is addressing the remaining cosmetic issues. If one does that correctly, then there will not be any returning moisture, and therefore there will not be any mould growth. In the case of mould remediation, – there is a very simple fact: If the remediation is done correctly (and no fungicides are used), the mould will NOT come back; if the job is not done correctly, the mould WILL come back, even if fungicides are used. In some cases, no remediation is even necessary, and in some cases, “remediationâ€

Gents: Forgive my ignorance - What does "WDI" and "WDO" stand for? Caoimhín

Hello Chris – I was going to just leave this thread and see the answers, since nobody responded, here is my perspective: Question: ...are there then any instances where the application of mold control agents is justified? Answer: Yes. Antifungals in general and “mould control agentsâ€

Hello Chris - Many “certified mould inspectorsâ€

Hello Chris – Only the paper needs to be wet. The moisture content of the drywall at depth or as a bulk is unimportant. Also, there is a time-to growth scale that incumbent on: 1) Genus 2) Species 3) Temperature 4) Available water 5) Substrate, and 6) Whether the moisture is rising, falling or static. I actually have a mathematical model, developed by museum curators, that predicts time-to-growth for various parameters. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Hi John! I'm an idiot! Now that I've confused everyone… we were discussing Jerry Simon's attic photo and your crawler photos, but in my response to Chris, I accidently referred to your name when I mentioned Jerry's attic photos. Sorry for the confusion. I did address your crawler photos in post #13 of this thread. As to what it is … I dunno. But, as I said in the post, it isn’t mould. Now having said that, if the block walls are painted and the paint contains a starch, then it could be mould (but it could also be the leach field backing up…) Also, when I was a chisler in Ireland, we could by cinderblocks that were made with straw mixed in; mould could grow on those. Might be just about anything from a lichen to a water stain. In this case, without actually being there, it’s easier to say what it isn’t rather than what it is. Hard to tell from a photo. Dunno. And since you’re in KY, it’s not likely anyone will pay may out there to look at it! Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Good morning, Kurt- You point is well taken and was also noted about 100 years ago: Decomposition of wood is an important part of the carbon cycle of nature. Decomposition is caused by fungi, insects, and marine borers that use the wood as food or shelter, or both. Lignin in wood provides a physical barrier to enzymatic decomposition of cellulose and hemicelluloses. This barrier is breached mechanically by insects and marine borers, biochemically by white- and soft-rot fungi, and possibly by small nonenzyme catalysts in the case of brown-rot fungi. Cellulose is degraded by endo- and exo-glucanases and b-glucosidases, hemicelluloses by endo-glycanases and glycosidases, lignin by nonspecific enzymes, and perhaps by nonenzymatic, oxidative agents. Rapid strength loss occurs with all decay fungi; but especially with brown-rot fungi. Strength loss due to insect attack is roughly proportional to the amount of wood removed. Fungal decomposition of wood can be prevented by keeping it below its fiber-saturation moisture content (approximately 27% of its dry weight) and by using the heartwood of naturally durable woods (species) or preservative- treated wood. Useful application of wood-decomposing fungi is limited currently to production of edible mushrooms. Potential applications include biological pulping, pretreatment for enzymatic conversion of wood to sugars, and waste treatment. Many aspects of wood biodecomposition have not been researched adequately. Millions of tons of wood are produced every year in the forests of the world. Observation, however, tells us that the sum-total of wood upon the surface of the earth remains fairly constant from year to year and from century to century. We must, therefore, conclude that there are destructive agencies at work by which millions of tons of wood are destroyed annually. Regarded in this light the problem of what these destructive agencies are, and how they act, becomes of general scientific and economic interest. A. H. R. Buller, (Econ Biol. 906 (1) 101) Cheers - CPC

Hi Chris! Remember, we can’t take this too serious and don’t forget how I prefaced my answer: Now – for fun, here’s what I would say about the staining (based on nothing more than the photo): And that I did. No one except John B knows the conditions in the attic. But even if John said the attic contained four inches free standing water, my comments would still have been the same, since there is no evidence of a water problem in the photo. Whether the attic in question has, or has not, a moisture problem is not what I am discussing. I am merely discussing what does the photo say. I stated there is nothing in the photo that suggests a moisture problem, and then I gave the rationale to support the argument. You say: I would bet my lunch that the mold in Jerry's case developed post construction. Maybe so … but there is nothing in the photo that supports the argument. Or is there? And if so, please explain. It is possible that the photo contains support for many differing hypotheses – but explain what evidence in the photo supports your argument. Cellulose: I’m not sure where you heard that mould cannot degrade wood except due to the mechanical action of a saw or plane. The issue of wood degradation is not exclusively a question of cellulose degradation. Cellulose degradation is not exclusively at stake, since the matrix of wood involves lignin, xylans, hemicelluloses, pectins, and other kinds of long chained molecules that confer structural integrity and other properties (including aesthetic) to the wood. I certainly agree with the concept that a saw or any other mechanical device disturbing the wood matrix would increase the surface area or create breaks in the structure (thus increasing potentially habitable environments) and would also disrupt the natural intertwining of lignin and cellulose. But it would not be incorrect to state that left undisturbed by machining or mechanical action, mould would be incapable of degrading wood in general and cellulose in particular. Wood and plants are essentially made of sugar, and to a lesser extent, phenolic polymers. Cellulose is essentially a long series of cyclic glucose sugar molecules strung along like beads on a chain; the beads are the individual glucose molecules and the chain is where the individual glucoses have attached to each other, not unlike the coupling of cars in a train. Many moulds have the ability to degrade the glucose bonds, at specific locations and begin to break off glucose chunks. By mechanically disturbing the wood, one merely provides more opportunity for hospitable sites of degradation. But the degradation is not incumbent exclusively on the mechanical actions of the lumber mill, carpenter, or woodworker. For a start, the matrix of wood, while ordered, is also chaotic, and within the microfibril bundles of cellulosic chains there are random “loose-endsâ€

Good morning, Gents: I’ve read some good comments and criticisms. So I’ll address those (The last post at the time of this post was from J Bain 4/29 2009 at 05:00 AM. Remediators: Like anything else, remediators may or may not be a good thing. I have frequently recommended mould remediators (with all their moon suits and HEPA units) and I have frequently recommended against their services instead, recommending that the homeowner get “Joe the Handymanâ€

Photos #2 and #5 are tricky. The dark discoloration may contain mould, but it is not consistent with a fulminant bloom. Based on the photos, I’m going to guess the discoloration is not primarily due to mould and is not predominantly mould. By the way, I learned a valuable lesson. When you post a reply don't click on the "Check here to subscribe to this topic." Otherwise you'll get a email respnse for EACH check mark - Help! CPC (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

1911’s are excellent. You can tie a rope through the trigger guard and the other end to your boat. Throw said piece of equipment overboard to keep your boat from drifting. (I always put the 1911’s in front of me as a distraction [:-wiltel] buys me an extra second or two; that's why I'm 51 years old and devoid of unatural holes). Cheers! CPC

Hello Randy and Bain and Robert! Randy first… Question: Caomhin, why would you conclude there isn't a moisture problem in the attic? Answer: Remember that my comments are based exclusively on the photo. If I were in the house, I would actually be able to make the determination. However, there is no information in the photo that would indicate a mould problem. Here’s why. Even a quick glance at the photo reveals that we are looking at two distinct 4X8 sheets of plywood decking. The reason we can visually distinguish the two pieces so readily is that not only is the fungal growth patterns on the two pieces completely different, but the growth patterns actually stop at the edge of each piece. In a situation where the mould growth was active after the installation of the material, the growth pattern would speak to the issue of the occurrence of moisture (which in this case would either have to be condensation or wicking through the material). If it was wicking, the growth pattern would probably be the same on both pieces, and the fungal mycelia would breach the edges and continue growing onto the abutting piece. If it was condensation, then not only would the above be true, but the timber framing would also be colonized (which it isn’t). Not only is there no colonization on the timber framing, but if you look, you will see that the growth of the mould actually passes under the framing. Therefore, the mould was on the decking when the decking was installed, and it was laid atop of the framing. If there was a moisture problem in the frame of the photograph, fungal mycelia would have breached the surface of the decking onto the framing (which it has not done) – ergo: The framing is dry and always has been since installation. Now if the framing is dry, how could the decking be wet? It isn’t. The spotty colonies are probably Cladosporia but the larger patches are also consistent with Memnoniella. This tells me the sheets were left uncovered to the elements for quite a while and got REALLY wet. In either case, it’s unimportant, since the workmen, handling the decking would have rubbed off a lot of the actual growth, leaving behind the enzyme staining. Were the plywood sheets that dark upon installation? Probably. Bain: Photo #1: No visible mould in the photo. Photo #2: Possible small colony of the dreaded fungus Surpula lacrymans in the corner (the white stuff – possibly VERY problematic since if it is active, and left untreated, it can lead to structural damage in just a few years). S. lacrymans is not a mould, but it is a significant fungal concern. Otherwise, no visible mould in photo #2. Edit: As soon as I posted this, I changed my mind - it's probably not S. lacrymans (although it could be, but it is a lignin attacker, known as a "white rot." Photo #3: No visible mould in the photo. None of the dark discoloration is mould and none of it is fungal (however, tests for mould would be POSITIVE). Photo #4: No visible mould in the photo. An air sample from this area would be possibly tens to thousands of spores per cubic meter of air, which would be about normal for a normal dry crawlspace with no mould. Robert! "Cladosporium" is the singular for the genus. Thus “That species of mould belongs to Cladosporium.â€

Hi Jerry- That’s funny that you ran into it right after your post. Now – for fun, here’s what I would say about the staining (based on nothing more than the photo): The roof decking visible from the attic contained moderate to heavy colonization of a common indoor mould visually similar to one of the Cladosporia. The Cladosporia are one of the most common moulds on the planet. The growth patterns indicate that the organism had colonized the roofing material prior to installation, and the roofing materials were installed with the staining already present. The visual evidence suggests that the dark blotches are not actual vegetative masses, but rather enzyme stains left behind by the, now dormant, mould. The visual evidence indicates that the attic does not have a moisture problem. Since the staining is in the attic, the mould does not constitute an aesthetic problem. Since the staining in the attic is probably due to Cladosporia, and since there is no significant route of migration from the attic to the occupied space, the there is no significant risk of exposure. Of course the discussion would give a little more detail about the rationale underpinning the observations, but that would be the crux of the argument… Followed by an invoice that I consider too small, and the client considers too big… of course. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG