When it comes to the plethora of new sampling systems springing to market for indoor air quality, distinguishing the steak from the sizzle can be a difficult process. By the very nature of it being new, advertising for innovative technology tends to emphasize features, with a secondary focus on benefits, the sizzle.
The approach often taken by contractors is the simple and quick method to set up containment. In reality, the design and construction of containment often takes far longer than the actual remediation. Containment is one of the highest liabilities that impacts the contractor, as well as the client, and should be given priority.
“Hideous piles of plastic in our landfills or incinerators aside, containment is never a bad thing. Just like running a HEPA on every job site is never a bad thing, building containment is also never bad, from a purely scientific perspective. These decisions, however, do not happen in a vacuum,” Keith Gangitano writes.
Michael Pinto, CSP, CMP, RTPE, discusses mold sensitivity, mycotoxins, demand for mold remediation contractors who can properly serve mold-sensitive customers and what makes these projects unique.
The purpose of this discussion is to revisit the notion of a spore trap “Clearance Criteria,” and discuss what such a standard is and why it can be useful to everyone involved in a mold remediation project. Because of the turnover of professionals in the industry over the last 20 years, we will focus on a long-established spore trap post-work verification criterion as a teaching example.
For this R&R Roundtable, we asked four mold remediation professionals – Rachel Adams, Mark Cornelius, Cliff Grost and Jim Pearson – the same seven questions on topics including top tools, safety precautions, memorable projects and future predictions.
