![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Issue 6 Volume 4 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
June 2006 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Mold Sampling and Data Interpretation When sampling for biological growth, one must first develop a hypothesis and then try to prove it wrong. There are several primary sampling methods: air sampling - (culturable and non-culturable), surface sampling - culturable or direct microscopic examination, dust sampling, contact plates, and content sampling. Air sampling is used to compare the inside spore numbers in cubic meters to the outside and can sometimes give false positives or negatives. This is because typical sample times are very short and may or may not reflect the true number of spores in an environment. A consultant may take more than one outside sample and several inside samples. The inside sample should have lower quantities, the same fungal species, and the same basic distribution. Look for indicator fungal types and an order of magnitude difference. Consider the air exchange rates for the house of the indoor air with the outdoor, activity levels of the inside and outside, the weather, and the magnitude of the fungi present. Samples can be read at different magnifications. The air samples are taken at specific volumes, and are almost always inspected by microscopy at 1000x. This procedure allows for counting and identifying the spores and other debris such as oil, fibers, insect parts and pollen on the slide. One of the pros of culturable air sampling is that it allows the viability needed in certain situations. For instance, it differentiates Aspergillus and Penicillium and permits further speciation when required. The cons are that culturable sampling misses fungi that are not viable, it does not compete well in the growth process, it does not germinate on the media provided, and it cannot be analyzed immediately. The non-culturable air sampling positive points are that this type of sampling captures all the spores in the air whether nonviable or viable, that do not culture well, that do not compete well, and can be analyzed almost immediately. The negative side is they cannot assess viability, they cannot differentiate between some spore types, and the background debris may limit visibility. Non-culturable surface sampling’s primary purpose is to determine whether mold is or has been growing on the suspect surface and what species are growing. The pros of surface sampling techniques are that they reveal what is present, they can be analyzed immediately, and they can differentiate between mold growth and normal fallout. The cons are that they do not provide information on airborne levels, they cannot differentiate between some spore types, they cannot assess viability, and some species may be missed because of high background debris. Culturable surface sampling assesses viability, can differentiate between Aspergillus, Penicillium and other species, and allows for further speciation. It does not give information about airborne spore levels. It misses fungi that are not viable, do not compete well, and do not germinate on the media provided. The results may not reflect what is growing on the surface and the results cannot be analyzed immediately. Data interpretation will not include any reference to health effects. A medical doctor or other medical professional must handle that aspect of the situation. The consultant’s job is to interpret the data: is there fungal growth in the building? Are people being exposed to it? Are there are any defects in the building needing correction to stop moisture intrusion? Stick to your original hypothesis. For more information on mold, allergens, sampling, and data interpretation visit www.emlab.com. Announcements:
For more information, please contact us at GWS (405)-946-0206 or email info@gwssi.com
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||