Why 2 Outdoor Samples?

I also work with (Federal) certified industrial hygenists, one of whom wrote the standards for NY City’s standards. He states that only a single outdoor sample is needed.

Upwind and downwind has no bearing, as you are not measuring a contaminent level emanating from something.

Nothing! Nada! Nehil! Zero! Zip! Oh well… it’s just an SOP!

If you have to ask maybe you shouldn’t be doing mold. No offense but just follow the sop you choose. If you can’t design your own testing protocol, work for someone else but don’t sell yourself as a mold inspector.
That’s why our company has trainees.

Probably why the new Arkansas law did not reconize so many pepole who believe they are “certified mold inspectors” when they just have a certificate of completion of training.

[size=1][FONT=Arial]Arkansas Law Names IAQ Council
The state of Arkansas has required that applicants for licenses under its new mold law be certified by the American IAQ Council (now known as ACAC).

Arkansas Act 1467, which passed in May 2009 and goes into effect January 1, 2010, states that licensees must be possess one of the following:

  • Certification as a CMC or CIEC by the American IAQ Council (now ACAC)

  • Certification as a CIH by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene

  • 20 hours of college level training in microbiology
    The Arkansas law follows the example of Maryland, where a 2008 licensing law requires mold professionals to maintain certification by the American IAQ Council or similar independent certifying body.

“Accredited, independent certification is a reliable way for state governments to verify the qualifications of license applicants,” said Charlie Wiles, ACAC executive director. “We anticipate that more states will follow the pattern of Arkansas and Maryland.”

Click here](http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=47591155&msgid=349300&act=276X&c=476005&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arkleg.state.ar.us%2Fassembly%2F2009%2FR%2FActs%2FAct1467.pdf) to read Arkansas Act 1467.

[/FONT][/size]

Okay than give us the answer. Why two samples when most of the industry is just one?

Why is it that a simple question stirs up so much defensiveness. I assume the reason to be that none of you have a intelligent answer and instead of admitting it, decide to hide behind a defensive posture so that you can save face.
My original question was honest and straightforward. It had no hidden agenda or politics behind it. I was studying the sop’s and questioned the scientific reasoning behind that particular sop. I believe it is always in the best interest of science to continually question our procedures.
If there is solid reasoning behind this sop… I think we all deserve to know what it is.
Sure wish someone with some “umph” would chime in here.
Just put forward honest thinking on the subject and forget the @#$%ing around.

[quote=“douglas, post:23, topic:42603”]

If you have to ask maybe you shouldn’t be doing mold. No offense but just follow the sop you choose. If you can’t design your own testing protocol, work for someone else but don’t sell yourself as a mold inspector.
That’s why our company has trainees.

I’m sorry… maybe you can blindly accept everything that is put in front of you… but I am not a sheep and never have been. Your love it or leave it attitude can’t possibly train anyone… simply gather a group of non questioning yes men!

Probably why the new Arkansas law did not reconize so many pepole who believe they are “certified mold inspectors” when they just have a certificate of completion of training.

[size=1][FONT=Arial]Arkansas Law Names IAQ Council[/FONT][/size]
[FONT=Arial][size=1]The state of Arkansas has required that applicants for licenses under its new mold law be certified by the American IAQ Council (now known as ACAC).

Arkansas Act 1467, which passed in May 2009 and goes into effect January 1, 2010, states that licensees must be possess one of the following:

  • Certification as a CMC or CIEC by the American IAQ Council (now ACAC)

  • Certification as a CIH by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene

  • 20 hours of college level training in microbiology
    The Arkansas law follows the example of Maryland, where a 2008 licensing law requires mold professionals to maintain certification by the American IAQ Council or similar independent certifying body.

“Accredited, independent certification is a reliable way for state governments to verify the qualifications of license applicants,” said Charlie Wiles, ACAC executive director. “We anticipate that more states will follow the pattern of Arkansas and Maryland.”

Click here](http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=47591155&msgid=349300&act=276X&c=476005&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arkleg.state.ar.us%2Fassembly%2F2009%2FR%2FActs%2FAct1467.pdf) to read Arkansas Act 1467.

I’m sure your correct???.. Arkansas went to all that trouble of putting together their Act 1467 just to bust my chops…??? Yah your right! :roll:

[/FONT][/size]

[/FONT]

**You decide how many samples needed outdoors. **

  • Is the structure a long building with many entry doors?
  • Did your inspection take several hours to complete? we have homes in this area with 11 or 12 HVAC systems, big. Commercial building can require several outdoor samples (in OUR opinion).

Many of our national clients request samples before the inspection and at the end of the inspection.
My point is that you are the “inspector” and you should decide how many samples are taken.
Mold inspections are not home inspections, many have the mind set that are they can hide behind a mold sop not approved by anyone for some sort of protection. ESA, IAC2, IESO are good places to start but they are not the end. You the inspector and are responsible for the mold inspection and any sampling conducted. Why did you sample here or there — because someone told me to?

I highlighted the wrong part of EPA quote in the post above.

If you have to ask, you perhaps need to work for someone and not sell yourself to the unsuspecting public as a mold inspector.

Don’t intend to be blunt but that’s the way I see it. Arkansas has cleaned up the mold business and hopefully many other states will.

Your last posts, Doug, has shown a very ugly side of you. Been hanging around Mr.Connelly lately? (For those you who do not know who Mr. Conelly is or was his name Conell, who he is does not matter: he use to post on this board about mold and downgraded home inspectors and mold inspectors.)
We just want an answer to our question about the two samples required outside. It is okay if you do not know the answer. I do not know either. And it appears even the one who has wrote the IAC2 SOP does not know either (which is making everybody wander who actually wrote the SOP). As Ben has said in other threads, the SOP needs to be read and questioned.

[/FONT]

We are mold inspectors, after years following folks pretending to do mold inspections I guess I am a little hard on some.

People want a simple answer, one that fits all occasions. There are dozens of excellent books or chapters of reputable books written on sampling for mold. Anyone serious about mold sampling will read them. Every job is different and you design your sampling accordingly. It’s not hard but it is work.

We spend a lot of time and money on workshops, books, classes, etc to find the answers to our questions. The question about the 2 samples implys the person asking it needs more training /education about sampling.
Any answer given on a thread like this would not be enough. (my opinion)

I apologize if I offended anyone, but perhaps some need to do their homework before becoming mold inspectors.

I believe it is one of the best SOPs about mold inspections that exist. It’s biased towards InterNACHI inspectors (obviously - you have to be a member of InterNACHI - that’s an IAC2 requirement). We believe that the best mold inspectors are members of InterNACHI, and as you can see by the IAC2 SOP, the SOP is designed perfectly for residential and light commerical property inspectors.

Please refer to Section 4.0 of the IAC2 SOP. There is an incredible amount of inspection work to do for your client. What other mold inspection SOP requires an inspection of the roof and skylights, exterior siding and flashing? The idea is to raise the bar and set a higher standard than the rest.

When looking at the SOP, one will see that sampling is only a small part of an IAC2 Complete Mold Inspection.

We compared IAC2 SOP to other standards, and a mold inspection performed to the IAC2 SOP provides information that seems is more relevant, valuable and practical.

In relation to the “2 outdoor samples”: High winds may affect the quality of an outdoor sampling that is used in the comparison between indoor and outdoor sampling. Two samples (one at leeward and windward) is preferred over one. The SOP states “If possible” two samples should be taken leeward and windward.

The idea is to have both outdoor samples located in areas where the devices will collect a representative sampling of the air that may enter the building through the entry door or nearby open windows. If that opening is at a door off a cantilevered deck for a 3rd floor, 1-level apartment, then that may be the place you choose. You and your client guide the inspection process and agree to your services prior to performing the inspection. What is absent in the SOP should be agreed to prior to performing your mold inspection service.

The SOP allows “wiggle room.” Quote: “Financial or time constraints may limit the number and location of samples that can be taken.” And also there is a choice you have between performing a “Limited” or “Complete” mold inspection according to the SOP.

Hope this helps.

I have read and studied a lot about mold. I have not found any reference to why two outside samples are required unless you are counting papers written by somebody working for a lab. Please refer us to an unbias reference.

4.8 Moisture, Humidity, and Temperature
I. The inspector shall measure:
A. Moisture of any room or area of the building that has moisture intrusion, water damage, moldy odors, apparent mold growth, or conditions conducive to mold growth.
B. Humidity of any room or area of the building (at the inspector’s discretion).
C. Temperature of any room or area of the building (at the inspector’s discretion).

The diagramming a room and visible mold growth is a great idea. I can add that as an option to the SOP. Most mold reports that I’ve seen include digital pictures and the inspectors take general measurements of things visible. The EPA draws a line, I believe, around at 100 sq ft. The SOP does not restrict you from taking measurements. Measure away. You are in control. You choose.

5.4.3.6 Each Substrate

  • If mold is visible on different substrates or building materials such as wood, drywall, or wallpaper, then a sample from each different material is recommended.

Taking measurements are independent of the substrate. The inspector is required to take measurements of moisture of any room or area of the building that has moisture intrusion, water damage, moldy odors, apparent mold growth, or conditions conducive to mold growth. The inspector is not limited/restricted to particular substrates. You are in control. You choose.

Hope this helps.

James (and others),

I do not work for Pro-Lab. That’s insulting. Please stop. I left you two messages. Pick up your phone. Please stop bashing me. I’d rather you call me instead of “talking behind my back” on this board. I have no hidden agenda. It’s none of your business, but… I support my family by doing inspections (I still do them), writing online courses, selling my home maintenance book, selling my training videos, and selling inspection warranties. That’s it.

If I’m biased in any way - I am biased towards InterNACHI.
I’ll do anything to see InterNACHI as the best association of inspectors.

Please stop.

I left you a voice message. My direct line is 573-761-3581 or you can tell my virtual assistant to find me until telling it to leave me messages. If you do not ring my phone, I can not talk to you in person.

Sorry you took offense. Also the lab paper was not a reference to you. It was to some industrial hygienist, microbiologist, etc that work for a lab that writes technical studies based on their opinion.

Now we are getting to some meat. Mr. Walls last post explains that most of his work is “special case” work and he obviously has to take that into account.
Mr. Gromicko’s post is a serious attempt to answer the original question and some others that came up along the way. I appreciate all of this, yet still would like some discussion and guidance.
I understand that while there is “wiggle room” in the SOP’s we must also remember that they are “Standards of Procedure”. They are the baseline to which all of our work will be compared to, whether in court or otherwise. If the only reason to take two outdoor samples is “Windy Day”… then we should consider changing the SOP to reflect that. Otherwise, on a calm day with constant weather conditions, when I decide to take only one sample, I will not be breaking the “Standards of Procedure” and taking the chance that it will someday come back to bite me… possibly in court!
As I now read the SOP, it is perfectly clear on the point that an inspector “WILL” take two samples outdoors if possible. I know courts… they will assume the “if possible” means" “if it is physically possible”. Therefore, to me, if I can physically walk around the building… the “windy day” answer is not a practical answer… for it flys directly in the face of the SOP’s as written.
Remember, following the SOP’s only becomes exceptionally important to us when in court… and in court “wording” is everything!
Much of Ben’s last post seemed to me to be directed towards defending the SOP’s as a whole. I think we should assume that they [as a whole] are the best in the industry. This is all the more reason to continue to thrash out problems within them. Ben’s answer concerning agreeing beforehand with the client and having it written out and signed… beforehand, makes good sense. That is, until you realize that to put the answer into real life practical use would mean we will have to bring a lawyer with us on every inspection to write the “contract” that allows us to break with the SOP so that we are protected in a lawsuit. If we are sued concerning a case in which we have broken with the SOP, it is my opinion that, we have basically screwed ourselves.
This is the best reason to continually talk about the SOP’s and hopefully over time hone them to a point that they are followable and useful to the industry.
In the absence of federal or state laws[most of the country] concerning mold inspections the civil courts will go to the SOP’s for quidance. The wording of the IAQ2 SOP’s will become more important as time goes on. It is imperative to us all that they are “real world” and workable.

I work with a bevy of CIHs and deal with protocols dealing with infection control pertaining to aspergilliosis and other molds. As to the two outdoor samples, there is no scientific justification for it, no matter the size of the structure or how many doors it has. The sampling needs to be targeted at a specific problem, and not as a non-conditional general assessment. This is why the EPA states that if mold is present, that testing is not required, and if testing is required, that it be performed by trained professionals who understand the development and logic behind designing protocols.

Leeward, wayward, upwind, downwind… all BS.

There should be justification behind testing; a purpose… a REASON. After the true need is established, the testing protocol for the investigation at hand needs to be developed. This is the public health we are speaking of. It is not to be toyed with.

[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]As a side note: I did 200+ air samples using Z5 cassettes in a public building on Wed. with the help of a fellow NACHI member Mark B. I have been doing this building semi-annually for the last 2 years (with Mark’s help). Clients are pro-active in determining the IAQ at their place of work. I give them a discounted price of $80.00/sample. We both walked away with $6K (approximately), not bad for one days work!!
Pro-Lab has given me a discounted price for these samples as they allways do with large quantities. I did not pre-pay for my cassettes (media) however, on smaller projects I do. I’m currently looking for a Lab that will provide me with at least 100+ cassettes/tape lifts/swabs without pre-paying for services and $25.00 or less for the analysis/report.
BTW I only did one (1) outdoor control sample.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mark for all his help. Without his help I would not have been able to finish this job!

Thanks Mark
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Call up EMSL and talk with them. I use them for all my IAQ stuff and they are great to work with. They just referred me a nice little office IAQ inspection and sampling job I have to work out the details with the client.

Scott,

EMSL has contacted Mark. We will both meet with a representative from the company to see what they can offer us. We both do up to 500 air samples annually so I’m sure a good deal can be had.

The reason 2 outdoor samples is preferred over 1 is quite simple: They will often produce very different results.

Yes, it is is true that I and others are able to make a scientific argument that most mold inspections do not require sampling at all.

However, the argument for 2 outdoor samples need not resort to a scientific one, but rather a matter of simple logic.

Follow me:

If you believe that an outdoor sample is necessary then it MUST be because you believe the results of that outdoor sample mean something. Otherwise there is no need to take it at all.

Keep following me:

And if you believe that the results of that one outdoor sample mean something and so is necessary, then you MUST also believe that a different result on the outside of the other side of the building would also mean something. Basic logic forces you to assign the two different results equal weight in terms of meaning. They either both mean nothing or they both mean something.

The ONLY counter to this logic is if you believe that the two results will always be similar and so only 1 outdoor sample need ever be taken.

Simple logic has brought us to the key question. And the key question isn’t “Do I take one outdoor sample or two?” The key question is “Am I scientifically positive outdoor samples will always produce similar results?”

If your answer to the key question is “yes”, feel free to always take 1 outdoor sample only.