Mold | Restoraid

Archive for mold

High Efficiency Water Damage Drying

By admin

Saturday, October 15th, 2011

Anyone who lives in less than tropical parts of the country understands the value of a longer running, more efficient dehumidifier. Although we’d love 80 degrees Fahrenheit and 60% relative humidity for most of the year, the reality is that quite a few restorative dryers live in places like the Midwest and the North where freezing pipes can play just as much of a role in our business as summer thunderstorms. That’s where the Low Grain Refrigerant dehumidifier earns a reputation as the one of the most versatile drying tool in the restoration professional’s toolbox.

Utilizing a double cooling system, LGR dehumidifiers are more effective than standard refrigerant or hot-gas bypass dehumidifiers in that they help avoid additional freezing below 55 degrees Fahrenheit. While this alone translates in to more drying time and less defrosting time and can justify the investment, the LGR dehumidifier can also deliver dehumidified air down to 20% relative humidity, compared with standard refrigerant dehumidifiers that may only deliver 30-40% relative humidity. This not only allows for you to dry in less than perfect situations (which applies to pretty much every drying experience), but also dry faster and with less energy. Considering that a large portion of restorative drying in the Midwest is focused on the basement floods, this is especially important as it helps to eliminate frozen coils in these colder environments. Additionally, it also offers more dehumidification energy for less AMP draw than a conventional refrigerant dehumidifier that has to overcome the effect of ice blockage on its cooling coils.

Additional advantages of LGR dehumidifiers come in the form of a low weight-to-efficiency benefit, improved structural drying, and utilization of conventional household circuitry. With overall equipment weights of 92 lbs. to 175 lbs. for larger units, LGR dehumidifiers deliver more dehumidification time per pound than other conventional dehumidifiers. This is not only important to consider when equipping your job, but also when you have to take the equipment up and down several flights of steps in a day. Improved structural drying is also a benefit of the LGR dehumidifier in that its ability to reduce humidity below 30% Rh allows you to extract water from more dense materials like drywall over time. And since LGR dehumidifiers don’t extract more than about 15-20% Rh, they don’t have as much problems with over-drying that plagues the more aggressive desiccant dehumidifiers. This translates into more drying with less monitoring. Even better, by utilizing standard 110 volt household circuitry, LGR dehumidifiers are more versatile than desiccant dehumidifiers that rely upon distant and limited 220-volt circuitry.

Overall, LGR dehumidifiers offer our industry one of the most flexible and dependable options to date. With a fundamental balance between convenience, technology and drying options, they are a critical component of any restorative dryer’s toolbox.

On a personal note, for the past 23 years, we’ve relied on standard refrigerant dehumidifiers and were resistant to make the switch because of insurance pricing and overall cost. Now, after seeing the benefits of LGR dehumidifiers first hand, we are not only pleased with the results, but have realized cost savings from improved drying and the flexibility that LGR dehumidifiers offer.

Categories : Article

Avoiding Mold Cross-Contamination

By admin

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

You’ve been there before. You’ve just finished (or thought you’ve finished) a complex mold remediation project only to find that the testing results showed the presence of a previously undetected microbe. Worst yet, it’s a microorganism that could be toxic to your customer and will most certainly jeopardize your clearance. What do you do now? The following items are some additional steps that can be taken to help prevent and/or remedy the problem:

• Benchmark
Pre-tests, although costly, can be a critical benchmark in establishing the amount of cross contamination already present before you arrive. Whether it was because of previous remediation attempts, the movement of air, or even the manipulation of contents before you even arrived on the scene, chances are some mold spores have already migrated to other rooms. What a pre-test can tell you is where you’re starting from, and even more importantly, what you have to achieve in order to have a successful remediation.

• Seek advice
As a professional remediation contractor, the most important thing you can do is to seek consultation with an independent testing company. Although an independent pre-test may be optional, an independent post-test is critical – not only for the customer but also for you. After all, not only will they lend credibility to your clearance, but they will also help recommend ways of explaining and overcoming any negative test results. In a cross-contamination situation, they can often be your best ally and primary source of advice. It for this reason alone that you should not only look to work with testing companies that uphold your level of standards, but also consistently resist the opportunity to accept referral fees or “kick-backs”. This will ensure that they have enough integrity leftover to lend to your jobs.

• Start over
Yes, it can be as simple as that. Sometimes the reason that we don’t obtain clearance is because we didn’t do our job right. Provided that the problem now doesn’t extend outside of the original area remediated, you may still have the opportunity to fix the problem before it gets out of hand. Take a moment and review the scene. Was everything that was supposed to be removed actually removed? Was everything cleaned properly? If so, is there a possibility that the wrong items were removed and the affected items still remain? Were all the waste bags cleaned prior to removal? Take care to not only look at what you can see, but also at what you can’t. Have you checked the ceiling tiles? Did you look under the counter? How about in the air ducts? Then, after taking all these steps, regardless of any conclusions made, clean the entire site a second and third time. Better yet, have a second remediation team clean the second time. This will ensure a fresh outlook and a rested eye towards detail.

• Restrict Access
While you may be aware of your crew’s activities on the project, you can’t always predict the actions of the customer or any consultants. Take care to restrict containment access to only those people with the necessary credentials, safety training, and a legitimate need to view the project. For jobs where the containment will be left unattended in the evenings, invest in a lock and clearly mark all exits and entries with signs indicating the restricted access. Not only will this ensure a tight control of the project, but it will also ensure more efficient results.

• Look around
Sometimes a mold problem is not only an indication of a water problem, but also a sign of a larger maintenance issues. Examine whether the mold problem is more of a symptom of the general condition of the premises or workmanship and go from there. If you have a roof problem, you might also want to take a look at the siding and windows as these trades might have been performed by the same sub-contractor. Keep in mind that if one area exhibits poor workmanship, it might be chronic in other trades. If it is a maintenance issue, the range of problems might be even larger. In this case, look for just about every symptom possible. Keep in mind that sometimes the best way to find additional problems is to ask the customer. Make sure to ask about previous water damage problems regardless of their relevance.

• Check your equipment
Although painfully simple, simply checking your equipment may expose the solution to the problem. Was the HEPA filter cleaned or replaced prior to moving it to the next job? Was every tool disinfected? How about the cleanliness of that camera or the moisture sensor you just brought from the last job? Or even the cleanliness of the testing company’s own testing tools and sensors? Are the filters used on the job in good condition and free of any tears or splits? Are you using the correct Personal Protection Equipment – gloves, PPE suits, full-face masks, and boots? Keep in mind that not only does your preparedness and condition of the equipment demonstrate your abilities, but it also saves you from costly mistakes. Take a moment before each job to have a supervisor examine all equipment and general cleanliness prior to the job to ensure constant success. You will be pleased with the results. Who knows, it may even save you from step 1.

• Do the air math
According to virtually all IAQ resources, 4 changes of air per hour are a must for every remediation process. Still, without much work, many remediators commonly exceed 4 changes per hour and typically work in the range of 6-10. While this, by itself, is not a problem, it becomes a problem when you don’t understand where the make-up air is coming from.

In order to better understand this process, it is important to first understand how CFM’s (cubic feet per minute) are calculated. When deciding the amount of equipment necessary, consider the size of the containment. If the containment is 10 feet by 20 feet and 8 feet tall, you can calculate that the cubic feet of this containment is 1600 (10x20x8). With this in mind, you know that in order to have a minimum of 4 changes of air an hour, you need to move 6400 cubic feet of air an hour (1600×4). You can now look at the rating of various negative air machines and make some decisions. If you’re contemplating using a 2000 CFM machine, you know that this machine can circulate up to 120,000 cubic feet of air an hour (2000x60min in an hour). Now, of course a 2000 CFM machine will not actually produce 2000 CFM’s with the proper filters installed, it will probably only deliver 1800 CFM’s. (To confirm the actual CFMs, install a clean filter and check the CFM gauge on the side of the machine.) That’s why in reality; a 2000 CFM machine will probably circulate 108,000 cubic feet of air an hour (1800x 60 minutes). That means that this one machine alone will circulate the entire cubic feet of air within in your containment approximately 67 times an hour (108,000/1600). Obviously, this should be more than enough to conduct remediation activities, but is it too much?

Chances are, it may be way too much. That is, of course, if you do not make the proper accommodations to supply make-up air as well. Just as containment can be compromised by insufficient exhausting, it can also be compromised by inadequate make-up air. Keep in mind that the goal in remediation air management is to obtain 4 changes per hour while keeping a gentle negative pressure in the containment. Certainly 108,000 CFM of exhausting power is more than a gentle negative pressure. At that rate, the containment would collapse on itself and expose the surrounding environment to cross contamination. And even if it doesn’t collapse, any air sampling would be more representative of the outside environment than the containment air.

Simple ways to allow for make-up air to control this problem would be to duct from the outside with the aid of some basic filters covering the supply air ducts (keep in mind that we don’t want to add any more spores than we already have). More complex methods may involve using HEPA exhausting machines in a reverse manner. This provides superior results, as long as the machines are spotlessly clean and have brand new filters. Keep in mind, however, that when you opt for this method, you still need to make sure that negative pressure is maintained. Manometers are wonderful tools for monitoring these pressures and are the mark of a professional remediator.

• Know your molds
Nothing is more important than knowledge. If you want to better understand your options, it is important to understand the mold you are dealing with on each job. Just because an independent testing company claims to know everything about testing doesn’t always mean that they understand microbiology. Make sure that you not only read and refer the reports you receive, but that you also analyze them. Keep in mind, however, that it is not your position to influence the testing company’s conclusions – after all, it is independent for a reason. What you should know is when an additional testing company should be consulted for a third opinion. Ultimately this decision should be the customer’s decision, but as remediation costs increase on each attempt it will become increasingly difficult to ignore this option.

Secondly, carefully read the report. Make sure that it conclusively demonstrates that remediation attempts have met their objective and illustrates it in quantitative results. A good testing report will not only express conclusions, but will also back it up with visual inspection data, moisture readings, as well as spore sampling data. Look for spore sampling data that has adequate control samples from the outside and even a blank slide if your testing company is particularly precise. Know how to read the report and you will know how to exceed their expectations.

Cross contamination problems are certainly not common, but they are normally avoidable with a little bit of attention to detail and preparation. And while this preparation is time consuming, it is certainly less expensive than doing the job twice.

Categories : Article

Tags : HEPA, IAQ, mold, remediation, water damage

Dry Ice Blasting: The New Mold Remediation Tool

By admin

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

Dry ice blasting is nothing new. Discovered in the 1970’s and perfected in the late 1980’s, it has been used to remove grease, paint, rust and even clean tire rubber-molds. Now it’s being introduced to a whole new market and application: mold remediation. In this application, it not only proves itself practical but also a necessity in certain types of remediation activities.

Dry ice, or CO2, blasting combines the best of both worlds by effectively mixing chemical action with brute force. Similar to sand or even soda blasting, CO2 blasting delivers an aggressive force to dislodge contaminants on contact. And, although, the material used in CO2 blasting is softer than conventional blasting material, it is still a good match for wood and metal material. Still, what CO2 blasting lacks in force, it more than compensates in chemical energy. In pellet form, CO2 will hold a temperature of –79 degrees Celsius (less than negative 110 degrees Fahrenheit) that will spontaneously cool the impact area allowing contaminants to contract and dislodge. Then, upon impact, the pellet will convert from a solid to a gas, leaving nothing but the removed contamination as residue. This phase conversion, or sublimation, not only helps to dislodge any contaminants, but also expands in size at such a rate that it dislodges any remaining material. This conversion results in a volume increase of nearly 700 times the original size of the CO2 pellet – enough to lend additional impact energy.

Clearly, CO2 blasting offers specific benefits other than just acting as an aggressive remediation tool. Just like any other media blasting process, it can often reach hard to remediate areas such as those in an attic on the underside of roof sheathing riddled with nails. Previously, it would have been less expensive and more effective to replace the roof and the sheathing than to hand sand each square inch of the sheathing. Now, CO2 blasting makes this job simple. Even better, unlike soda or sand blasting, CO2 blasting will leave no residue other than the spores and contaminants being removed.

CO2 blasting can be performed with the use of commercially available equipment precisely designed for this purpose. Due to temperature and pellet size differences, standard media blasting units will not work. Common prices for CO2 blasting equipment range from $15,000 to $80,000, excluding an air compressor, depending on the type and size of the unit desired. Other than size, CO2 blasting equipment is available in two basic formats: direct feed or siphon feed. Siphon feed units supply ice pellets and air to the wand via two separate hoses. Once at the wand tip, the unit then uses the air to pull pellets from the other hose and mixes them just prior to release. The result is a lower priced unit that while still effective, is limited in power and spray head options. A direct feed unit, on the other hand, mixes CO2 and air at the equipment base to provide a consistent, more powerful result. Often these units will allow for wider spray heads and the ability to vary CO2 output, creating a more powerful or more detailed cleaning.

Beyond basic CO2 blasting machinery, additional equipment and supplies will be required. Most CO2 blasting machines require an air compressor capable of 80-100 psi and 120-250 cfm. While you may be able to get 80-100 psi from a basic handheld compressor, you will need a large, commercial-grade, tow-behind air compressor to deliver the amount of cfm (cubic feet per minute) of air volume required. Additionally, expect to use approximately 40-60 pounds of dry ice per hour during blasting operations. For this you will need to contact a local CO2 supplier and request either a pellet or shaved version of dry ice. Most people prefer the pellet form to the shaved form, but it is not as readily available. Plan several days in advance, as this may need to be shipped from another city for use. Also consider that not only will you have to calculate the amount of ice you plan to use, but also how much of that ice will sublimate (otherwise known as evaporation) prior to use. Expect to lose an additional 60-100 lbs. a day from this alone. That means that you will frequently order more than 400 lbs. of CO2 pellets at a time. It also means that CO2 blasting must be planned well in advance and jobs should be grouped to avoid additional costs.

Safety is another concern that must be taken into account when conducting CO2 blasting. Full-face respirators (for eye protection and respiratory protection), ear muffs (for noise protection), PPE suits, and leather gloves as well as nitrile gloves (for cold and contamination protection) are a must when working with CO2 blasting. Keep in mind that as CO2 is –79 degrees Celsius, it will burn your skin and should not be used in any manner that may cause harm. Although this may be common sense, never fail to discuss this risk with people performing this work and make available MSDS material for their review. Static charges may also be a consideration in CO2 blasting, or, for that matter, any blasting process. As the CO2 pellets pass through the wand, static electricity can build and then release when the technician completes the circuit by touching a metal object. By taking actions to ground the wand or your technician, you might be able to avoid this problem. Additional safety measures, such as oxygen level monitoring, are also important. When working in containment, it is also crucial to have vibrating O2 sensors to notify technicians when the oxygen level drops below acceptable levels. Chose only vibrating sensors that attach to an armband, as you will be unable to hear any audible alarms during blasting.

Although oxygen level is a common concern for most people contemplating CO2 blasting, with frequent air changes, it may never become a problem. Just make sure that you not only consider enough air exchanges for remediation activities, but also for CO2 blasting. A digital manometer is not an option in CO2 blasting, it is a requirement. Check it often and make sure that one person’s sole responsibility is to ensure containment throughout the job and verify with the manometer. Keep in mind that CO2 blasting requires even more than the standard 4 changes per hour. Not only will the CO2 expand at a rate nearly 700 times the original size, but you will also be forcing nearly 120-150 cfm’s of air from the air compressor into the containment. Now, of course, you won’t be constantly blasting for an entire hour, but if you did, you’d have an additional 7200 to 9000 cubic feet of air (120 – 150 cfm * 60 minutes) to consider in your containment planning calculations. That means that you would need an additional 4 to 5 2000 CFM HEPA machines just to create enough negative pressure to counteract this problem. Although this isn’t exact, it’s a good estimate to start with and it frequently will be enough to cover any additional air pressure that the CO2 sublimination creates. Just make sure that you not only protect containment by having enough negative air machines, but you also still provide enough HEPA supplied air from the outside as well. I typically look for about a 1:2 ratio of HEPA supplied air machines to HEPA negative air machines. In addition, you might also want several HEPA air scrubbers to help pick up any debris that is released in the process of blasting before it settles somewhere else. Position these air scrubbers in proximity to the blasting equipment for the best effect. Total, CO2 blasting will require far more HEPA filtration equipment and monitoring equipment than any remediation project you may have been involved with thus far. Very rarely will you use less than 6 HEPA filtering machines and 1 monometer on any CO2 blasting project. Plan accordingly.

Just as dry ice has definite applications, it also has significant limitations. As you may have already concluded, CO2 blasting is not for small or discrete projects. The setup and dismantling time alone makes it a large loss remediation tool. As a matter of fact, unless you do several hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in remediation services, it may not even be worthwhile investment. CO2 blasting is also not a tool to be used on every fire, vandalism, or even microbial claim. Not only is the setup time consuming, but the cost may be high. Even after purchasing the equipment, CO2 material costs can be quite high, depending on shipping and availability. And even if these costs are acceptable, you may have to wait 3-7 days for material to arrive. CO2 blasting is also typically less aggressive than soda or sand blasting resulting in less than satisfactory results if the damage is severe. Always offer a test to your customer prior to committing to a blasting method. This will not only save money and time, but also your reputation.

CO2 blasting, in addition to having logistical and investment limitations, also has several practical limitations. As with any other type of blasting technique, CO2, blasting is not a cure all. If the extent of the contamination is limited in scope or too serious to risk aerosolizing the contaminants, you may want to consider total removal rather than blasting. If you do decide to use CO2 blasting, always utilize proper containment with additional critical barrier to be used in the event that negative pressure fails. Extra HEPA machines to be used primarily for active scrubbing are always recommended during and after blasting. Additionally, take the extra effort to not only clean as a final step, but also throughout the job. It is not unusual to clean 4-5 times after concluding CO2, blasting operations.

If CO2 blasting is your best option, make sure you educate not only your technicians, but also your customers. Many customers, insurance companies and testing companies alike are unfamiliar with CO2 blasting. Unfortunately, this lack of knowledge can translate into misconceptions quite quickly. Before you know it, your efforts to conduct CO2 blasting can be rejected on the grounds that it is “too expensive”, “too dangerous”, or even “ineffective”. And although this may not be the case, these misconceptions can quickly become obstacles if you haven’t laid the proper knowledge base. Try to educate before the job. Discuss the CO2 blasting option with testing companies before working with them and turn this obstacle into a benefit for your sales growth. Additionally, make sure to review results and a CO2 Material Data Safety Sheet with the customer. Carefully explain how you plan on exhausting the leftover CO2 and point out how it is a naturally occurring chemical in the environment. Above all, don’t rush into the process. Discuss, answer questions and educate – you will be happy with the result.

CO2 blasting is certainly not for everyone and not for every project, but it is definitely a resource worth exploring if you have the volume and the project to work with. When you find that proper application, you will not only be pleased with the effectiveness, but also the time and money it saves.

Categories : Article

Tags : blasting, co2, dry ice, mold, remediation, water damage

Insurance Options for Mold, There’s No Perfect Solution

By admin

Thursday, January 6th, 2011

Mold damage is nothing new. It predates people, homes and the insurance policies designed to protect them. That’s one reason why it is difficult to write policies that effectively exclude all coverage resulting from mold damage. Just as you can’t exclude the smoke damage that accompanies a fire, insurance companies find it increasingly difficult to separate water damage from mold damage. As a result, they are attempting to specify the remediation efforts through testing or cap coverage limits. Although this may prove temporarily successful, in the long term it will be the customer and the court system that will best confirm the wisdom of this approach. Several coverage options that are being attempted are the following:

1. The mold exclusion

This is where the insurance company denies all mold coverage on the basis that mold results from a lack of proper maintenance and is thereby not a catastrophic event. While it may be one of the most popular options, it may be the most problematic. Although some mold claims are undeniably the result of neglect or poor maintenance, there are circumstances where the homeowner may not be aware of the damage and had no opportunity to prevent it.

2. The mold cap

There is nothing new about insurance caps. They’ve been used for water damage, fire damage and just about every other type of insurance claim that occurs. The difference in this case is that the limits are often far less than the actual costs incurred. Ranging from $1,000 to $5,000, these may cover little more than pre- and post testing reports.

3. Maintenance vs. resulting claim

Although a far more realistic option, this option requires the insurance company to constantly determine whether a mold loss was the result of neglect by the customer or whether it was the result of an otherwise covered loss. In the case of neglect, the claim would typically be denied and no claim funds would be paid. If it were determined to be resulting damage, the claim would be covered, but might be subject to a claim cap that is typically the same for water damage. In this option, the insurance company judges each claim separately. While it may be nice to allow for a custom approach, this option also breeds severe liability issues for the insurance company when the wrong judgment is rendered.

4. Total mold coverage, but no repair coverage

Realizing that mold is often the result of improper building design or other neglect that may or may not be the responsibility of the homeowner, several insurance companies are choosing to only cover the mold remediation rather than the repairs necessary to prevent it. And while it has never been the responsibility of the insurance company to cover repairs such as flashing, landscaping grading or other mold creating problems, insurance companies are becoming increasingly strict on the interpretation of their costs. In the case of a vapor barrier issue that results in mold damage, an insurance company with this approach might cover the basic remediation costs such as containment and HEPA machines, but stop short of everything else. This would leave the customer to pay for the replacement of the vapor barrier, removal and replacement of drywall, and replacement of the insulation. Their justification in this situation might be that the customer needed to make the repair anyway and would therefore need to remove the drywall, regardless of whether it was contaminated or not, in order to get to the vapor barrier.

5. Total mold coverage

Although the most expensive of all coverage options for the insurance company, it is also the most customer friendly option. Still, as a requirement, these policies will often require the homeowner to seek the advice of a certified industrial hygienist for testing and use only a qualified remediation contractor with a certified microbial remediation supervisor, an applied microbial remediation technician, or equivalent accredited personnel on staff. Regardless of which option the insurance company chooses, it is important to remember that these coverage options will continue to evolve as mold remediation changes. Additionally, by continuing to foster education and a high level of integrity, mold remediation companies can begin to show insurance companies why remediation efforts and their costs can lead to better business in the long run.

Keith E. Desserich is co-founder and president of RestorAid Restoration, with national headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. He has over a decade of experience in the cleaning, restoration and remodeling industry providing a wide range of restoration and consultation services. He holds certification in fire and water damage restoration and is a CMRS. For more information, please visit www.restoraid.com or e-mail him at keith@restoraid.com.

Categories : Article

Tags : insurance, mold