Why does our attitude about mold growth indoors keep flip-flopping?  Is it bad or not bad?

Long ago and in a land far away, we used to worry about mold/fungal growth because it was ugly and could rot pieces of our buildings. These were fairly solid reasons to try and control the stuff. They are still good reasons. 

For over a century, modern medicine knew that moldy material or places would make some (most) people sneeze. These were not controversial because they were not considered serious health hazards. Some fungi also cause very serious infectious diseases, serious as with high mortality rates. These infections are fortunately rare in temperate zones of the world and were not controversial since they were straightforward to diagnose (albeit often in autopsy). So, up until about the 1960s, mold issues were pretty boring.

Thinking then evolved during the 1990s, as people claimed illness in damp buildings and great concern emerged about occupants of moldy buildings being poisoned by mold. Since mold growth can produce some scarily potent toxins, this was plausible. The difficulty was in getting solid evidence that we were actually being poisoned rather than affected by some other mold factor, or something non-fungal altogether. Some very bright people improved how measurements were made of mold poisons. This increased our confidence that the measurements were good. This then showed that the poisons could get into the air and on fragments as well as spores, but the levels of poisons were very low even in houses with walls covered in mold growth. Some folks concluded that the mere presence of such potent toxins proved that mold caused the problem, but other folks noted that sitting by the pool exposed you to water but didn’t mean that all swimmers would drown. This dialectic continues; is mold growth indoors really scary, or just a nuisance treatable with antihistamines?

Then by about 2005 reasonable people accepted that even without knowing exactly how it happens, damp buildings are unhealthy. The explanation with the most evidence is the idea that stuff from mold (maybe toxins, maybe other stuff, but probably not allergens alone) makes damp buildings bad. The epidemiologic studies supporting this are always open to criticism that they are just observations in the messy real world rather than clean, controlled lab experiments showing mechanisms of cell damage. Dampness was also studied far more often than mold in these surveys so the support is stronger for conclusions about moisture than about mold growth. Without a mechanism, critics continue to debate whether it is mold or water or something else. But after multiple dozens of studies finding the same thing, even open minded skeptics said ‘enough already, don’t show me anymore.’ By 2007, we saw that asthma is costing us a fortune ($, missed school, absenteeism) and damp buildings contribute to that so why can’t we just keep the buildings dry? (Partly because water is so tricky. More on that later.)

In the last couple of years, research on innate immunity shows yet more ways that stuff from mold can affect humans. Does this finally show that mold growth is the culprit of the ‘damp building effect’? It clearly adds more to the combination of factors thrown at us by mold growth, and often when factors combine, they can amplify one another (but scientists prefer to study one factor at a time).    

So, we may be getting to the point of understanding the mold part. That will be good. But we already know the action item. In the words of the sage Bruce Jarvis “Keep your buildings dry or the boogeyman will get you” (or at least his attorney will). And “we can see clearly now” that it is easier to think about preventing damp than arguing over the consequences. 

Stay tuned, will arid common sense overcome the evil forces of damp? We need to know because now we get new ‘green’ building materials that save energy and resources (a good thing), but do they respond to moisture like we think they will?

Businesses, specifically product engineers and manufacturers, deserve our respect and appreciation. Why? They are under constant pressure to “raise the bar.” They must meet ever-more demanding performance, cost effectiveness and environmental standards – and at times, these can be conflicting objectives. For example, it can be extremely challenging to simultaneously enhance performance and maintain cost effectiveness. Sustainability objectives can also be conflicting. For example, one material may be biodegradable, but may increase VOC emissions.

Achieving low-emitting products that support healthy indoor environments is in many ways the latest in a long line of ever-changing performance requirements that product engineers and manufacturers must meet. And they must do so without compromising other product attributes. There can be a significant learning curve associated with developing low-emitting products. Here are some tips for conducting product emissions testing in the most cost effective, efficient way possible:

1)      Anticipate – In preparation for testing, it is a good idea to understand product construction and the raw material inputs that are used in the manufacture of your product. This will help an experienced lab better understand what potential problems may be before you even begin testing. This may even help to guide the testing needed.

2)      Get a strong baseline - If you’ve never had product emissions testing done on your product before, it’s critical to start with the basics. Work with your laboratory to conduct a baseline emissions test to gather some initial information about your product’s emissions. This includes data on emissions of total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), individual chemicals, and other contaminants such as particulates. Typically this testing is conducted over a 1 – 2 week period and allows for initial comparison to common marketplace criteria. 

3)      Partner with an experienced laboratory – Getting up to speed on the latest requirements, regulations, market changes, and ongoing updates can be a full-time job. The best way to ensure you have the most up-to-date information is to collaborate with an experienced partner that is focused exclusively on IAQ and product emissions standards and codes. They live and breathe this stuff every day so you don’t have to.

Understanding that product emissions are not the only requirement that a manufacturer must meet, there are many options for engineering low-emitting products without starting product planning from scratch. Explore the possibilities with IAQ experts and add another extremely valuable attribute to your products.

I dare say that indoor air quality is not top-of-mind for many people. But it should be. With allergies and asthma impacting one out of five Americans, breathing easy is no longer something to be taken for granted.

For nearly three decades, we have worried about air pollution outdoors. Recently, we have turned our attention to the health impact of the chemicals and nutrients in the foods we eat. But somewhere along the way we forgot about the indoor air that we breathe day in and day out in the places where we work, learn and live. Part of it is the fact that indoor air is invisible and often odorless. But with chronic diseases inexplicably on the rise, there is no doubt that what we ingest and breathe impacts the climbing rates of health problems in the modernized nations.

It will take years, perhaps decades of investigation and clinical studies to fully understand the health impacts of the specific chemicals we breathe and ingest, but we do know enough to know that what we put into our bodies matters. The EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act is embarking on a program to investigate a list of target chemicals and their precise health impact (see target list for 2012). But it’s not just the EPA pushing the good IAQ agenda. Consumers are demanding third party verification of the safety of products. Healthcare professionals are studying the impact of indoor air on health. Builders and architects are focusing on creating healthy indoor environments. Everywhere there are signs that increasingly people DO care about indoor air quality.

We owe it to ourselves to create breathable air in the spaces where we and our children spend upwards of 90% of our time. Each of us: manufacturers, builders, building owners and operators, occupants and the government plays a role and the resulting benefits extend to everyone.

The blog post this week comes from guest blogger, Scott Steady, who helps manufacturers identify the right product emissions testing to achieve their objectives.  He reports back from the Adhesives and Sealant Council Spring Expo.

Last week, I attended the Adhesives and Sealants Council Spring Expo in Denver, Colorado.  This is primarily a supplier conference where raw material manufacturers tout the benefits of their unique chemicals for formulating adhesives, but the subject of product emissions testing strikes a chord with the adhesive industry because they are aware of VOC issues from their products.

I got my start in the air quality field as a consultant helping industrial facilities comply with the Clean Air Act.  I now refer to this time of my life as my “outdoor air” experience.  Much of my work was focused on permitting combustion sources, but the more interesting projects were for facilities that were major sources of VOCs including hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).  These were sources such as glue lines at a flooring factory or paint booths at an aircraft manufacturing plant.  The VOC emissions from these facilities were tracked in terms of Tons Per Year.  The emission calculations were based on the VOC content of the material and the annual usage of each product.  Using lower VOC content products would help facilities lower their annual tonnage released and would lower their regulatory burdens.

Due to these facility regulations, there is significant awareness of VOC content in the adhesives industry.  Many manufacturers advertise their low VOC content products as beneficial for indoor use.  However, this is a leap that can’t be made without measuring the actual VOC emissions from the adhesive.  The typical VOC content measurements are designed to estimate tons per year emissions, but they are inadequate to assure healthy indoor environments.  Numerous studies have shown that the test methods used to measure VOC content from adhesives are not predictive of low emissions for indoor usage.  The acceptable levels for indoor air quality are very restrictive for some compounds and even some adhesives with zero VOC content do not meet the generally accepted indoor emissions requirements set by state and local authorities.

It is clear that there is a lack of understanding about the fundamental difference between VOC content and VOC emissions.  As green building rating systems and emerging green building codes start to demand truly low emitting adhesives and sealants, it is incumbent upon us to re-educate the market on how to formulate and verify their products for healthier indoor environments.