Healthy Indoors Magazine
Issue link: https://hi.healthyindoors.com/i/1066484
Healthy Indoors | 9 Y ou've likely heard a bunch about indoor mold over the past several years--from deadly toxic hyste- ria to total dismissal by purported experts. Both camps appear to have vested interests in promot- ing their positions, and commercial or residential consumers are often left to sort out the subse- quent messes on their own. Powerful lobbies from the insurance and commerce sectors have often gone to extremes in an effort to limit or totally squash liabilities stemming from indoor mold-relat- ed issues, citing a lack of medical science to support such claims. Many indoor environmental practitioners and related product manufacturers have made a good deal of money riding the wave of the "Mold Rush of 2000." This has been especially true after major disasters like hurricanes, where would-be solution providers seem to spring up faster than microbes. As a result, the government responds with legislative mandates under the veil of consumer protection, in many cases in an attempt to curtail what has been described as predatory marketing tactics in the mold industry. While the intent of reining in renegade contractors and consultants is positive, such actions by state or local officials generally fall short of the desired results, often leading to additional reg- ulatory hoops to jump through and higher costs, with little effective benefit for consumers. Do mold and other moisture-related indoor microbial ac- tivity pose serious occupant risk, or is it just a fabricated ailment for a new snake oil sales industry? The truth likely resides somewhere in the middle of the din, with many gaps still lurking in the science. So, How Bad is it? With the exception of the rare, extreme cases, environmen- tal exposure to indoor mold probably won't kill you. For most people without compromised immune systems or serious pulmonary ailments, the "deadly black mold claims" are simply scare tactics, utilized by unscrupulous vendors. But, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that indoor environ- ments with elevated moisture conditions, which lead to sub- sequent microbial amplification, are potentially unhealthy. According to the American Industrial Hygiene Associ- ation (AIHA) from their 2013 Position Statement on Mold and Dampness in the Build Environment, "Well conducted epidemiology studies in several countries have consistently shown that exposures from building/house dampness and mold have been associated with increased risks for respi- ratory symptoms, asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, rhi- nosinusitis, bronchitis, and respiratory infections. In studies conducted in the non-industrial workplace, individuals with asthma or hypersensitivity pneumonitis were found to be at risk for progression to more severe disease if the rela- tionship between illness and exposure to the damp building was not recognized and exposures continued." Deniers insist that mold spores are everywhere and, with the exception of a few pathogenic species that might end up in critical healthcare environments, typically don't pose a health risk to "normal" people. Of course, you need to clearly define "health risk" here. If occupant exposures in a non-critical indoor environment adversely affect the health of a portion its occupants, even minimally, isn't that some sort of health risk? Do We Even Understand the Parameters? Mold is a lay term for fungal organisms that grow in the form of multicellular filaments called hyphae. In contrast, fungi that can adopt a single-celled growth habit are called yeasts. Damp indoor environments can also play host to bacteria that can pose even greater, immediate health risks. This may be especially true in the aftermath of flooding from catastrophic weather events that introduce unsanitary Category-3 (black) water into a building. Simply assessing structures for the presence of mold may omit uncovering a significant portion of a potential indoor environmental prob- lem. The IAQ (indoor air quality) industry typically uses fun- gal spore counts collected on spore traps or resulting col- ony forming unit (CFU) counts on culture media from an air-impaction collection device on a petri dish to identify po- tential airborne occupant exposure. Other parameters that are regularly looked at involve fungal surface colonization. Such tests for this can include sticky clear tape lifts or ster- ile surface swabs, or chemical tests to collect microscopic deposition and/or growth. These common investigative methodologies beg some questions. For one, how do surface samples relate to con- current air samples in a given environment? More impor- tantly, how do indoor environmental samples relate to po- tential occupant exposures, and how do such exposures affect occupant health? Are mold spores, for example, even the right parameter to be measuring with respect to occu- pant health, or show we be looking at chemical secretions like mycotoxins and microbial volatile organic chemical (MVOC) off-gassing, or something else? And, so on... It's the Moisture, Stupid! Molds (as well as many other micro-organisms) need water to grow, but, ironically, may present their greatest occupant