The lack of numerical health based standards for airborne fungi has resulted in a variety of heuristically determined criteria to subjectively interpret data. Bioaerosol sampling utilizing spore trap methodology (direct microscopy of total non culturable spores) at three different facilities in September through October 2011 provided a bank of data to mathematically evaluate a standard mean-based numerical criterion and a widely utilized test of medians relative to a direct calculation of probability of population differences. Thirteen to 20 Air-o-Cell™ spore trap samples of 4 min duration were collected in each control zone and test zone from 8:30 am to 3:30 pm of the same day. Differences in fungal populations across control and test zones were evaluated using Student’s t test and the Mann–Whitney U test, and were compared to the directly calculated probability (significance) associated with observed differences in relative detection frequency (Δfd) equal to or greater than an appropriate reference value (i.e. combined median). Results were consistent with earlier studies indicating directly calculated significance associated with Δfd was consistent with water history, visible fungal growth, and/or building operational parameters, and serves as the basis for evaluating bioaerosol data within a building performance model.
EduardW. Fungal spores: a critical review of the toxicological and epidemiological evidence as a basis for occupational exposure limit setting. Crit Rev Toxicol2009; 39: 799–864.
2.
JohnsonDThompsonDClinkenbeardRRedusJ. Professional judgment and interpretation of viable mold air sampling data. J Occup Environ Hyg2008; 5: 656–663.
3.
MendellMJMirerAGCheungKTongMDouwesJ. Respiratory and allergic health effects of dampness, mold, and dampness-related agents: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Environ Health Perspect2011; 119: 748–755.
4.
New York State Department of Health. New York State Toxic Mold Task Force Final Report. December 2010, Albany, NY.
5.
World Health OrganizationExposure assessment. In: HeseltineERosenJ (eds). WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: dampness and mould, Copenhagen: World Health Organization, 2009, pp. 20–29.
6.
Planning and conducting a survey. In: Hung LL, Miller JD and Dillon HK (eds) Field guide for the determination of biological contaminants in environmental samples. 2nd ed. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2005, pp. 47–91.
7.
Sampling design strategy. In: Prezant B, Weekes DM and Miller JD (eds) Recognition, evaluation, and control of indoor mold. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2008, pp. 129–151.
8.
MoreyPRMicrobiological sampling strategies in indoor environments. In: YangCSHeinsohnPA (eds). Sampling and analysis of indoor microorganisms, New York, NY: Wiley Interscience, 2007, pp. 51–74.
9.
SpicerRCGangloffHJ. Differences in detection frequency as a bioaerosol data criterion for evaluating suspect fungal contamination. Build Environ2010; 45: 1304–1311.
10.
SpicerRCGangloffHJ. Verifying interpretive criteria for bioaerosol data using (bootstrap) Monte Carlo techniques. J Occup Environ Hyg2008; 5: 85–92.
11.
YangCSHeinsohnPAIntroduction to microbiological growth and contamination indoors. In: YangCSHeinsohnPA (eds). Sampling and analysis of indoor microorganisms, New York, NY: Wiley Interscience, 2007, pp. 1–13.
12.
BaxterDMPerkinsJLMcGheeCRSelzerJM. A regional comparison of mold spore concentrations outdoors and inside “clean” and “mold contaminated” Southern California buildings. J Occup Environ Hyg2005; 2: 8–18.
13.
BurgeHJMacherJMiltonDData evaluation. In: MacherJ (ed). Bioaerosols: assessment and control, Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1999, pp. 14-1–14-11.
14.
EudeyLSuHJBurgeHABiostatistics and bioaerosols. In: BurgeHA (ed). Bioaerosols, New York, NY: CRC Press, 1991, pp. 290–307.
15.
FungFHughsonWG. Health effects of indoor fungal bioaerosol exposure. Appl Occup Environ Hyg2003; 18: 535–544.
16.
GotsRELaytonNJPiragesWW. Indoor health: background levels of fungi. Am Ind Hyg Assoc2003; 64: 427–438.
17.
KuhnRCTrimbleMWVasanthiHLeeMNassofRS. Prevalence and airborne spore levels of Stachybotrys spp. in 200 houses with water incursions in Houston, Texas. J Microbiol2005; 51: 25–28.
18.
Data analysis. In: Macher J (ed) Bioaerosols: assessment and control. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1999, pp. 13-1–13-16.
19.
MacIntoshDLBrightmanHSBakerBJMyattTAStewartJMcCarthyJF. Airborne fungal spores in a cross sectional study of office buildings. J Occup Environ Hyg2006; 3: 379–389.
20.
Mahooti-BrooksNStoreyEYangCSimcoxNJTurnerWHodgsonM. Characterization of mold and moisture indicators in the home. J Occup Environ Hyg2004; 1: 826–839.
21.
MeklinTAHyvarinenMToivolaTReponenVReponenTHusmanT. Effect of building frame and moisture damage on microbial indoor air quality in school buildings. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J2003; 64: 108–116.
22.
NiemeierRTSivasubramaniSKReponenTGrinshpunSA. Assessment of fungal contamination in moldy homes: comparison of different methods. J Occup Environ Hyg2006; 3: 262–273.
23.
Laboratory analytical methods. In: Prezant B, Weekes DM and Miller JD (eds) Recognition, evaluation, and control of indoor mold. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), 2008, pp. 153–170.
24.
SpicerRCGangloffHJ. Limitations in application of Spearman’s Rank Correlation to bioaerosol sampling data. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J2000; 61: 361–366.
25.
Spicer RC and Gangloff HJ. Implications of error rates associated with numerical criteria for airborne fungal data. In: Proceedings of Indoor Air 2011, the 12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Austin, TX, 5–10 June 2011, Vol. 1, pp. 398–404.
26.
SpicerRCGangloffHJ. Bioaersol data distribution: probability and implications for sampling in evaluating problematic buildings. Appl Ind Hyg2003; 18: 584–590.
27.
Permutation tests. In: Efron B and Tibshirani R (eds) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1998, pp. 202–219.
28.
Standard errors and estimated standard error. In: Efron B and Tibshirani R (eds) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1998, pp. 39–44.
29.
Hypothesis testing with the bootstrap. In: Efron B and Tibshirani R (eds) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1998, pp. 220–236.
30.
ErnstMD. Permutation methods: a basis for exact inference. Stat Sci2004; 19: 676–685.
31.
ASTM D 7338-10. Standard guide for assessment of fungal growth in buildings, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2010.
32.
TverskyAKahnemanD. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science1974; 185: 1124–1131.
33.
ChapmanGCJohnsonEJ. The limits of anchoring. J Behav Decis Making1994; 7: 223–242.
34.
ChapmanGCJohnsonEJ. Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process1999; 79: 115–153.
35.
Kahneman D. Maps of bound rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. In: Nobel prize lecture 2002. Stockholm: The Nobel Foundation.
36.
Paritosh PK. Symbolizing quantity. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, IL, 2004, pp. 1083–1088.
37.
GriffethsTLTanenbaumJB. Optimal predictions in everyday cognition. Psychol Sci2006; 17: 767–773.
38.
Developing a sampling plan. In: Macher J (ed) Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), Cincinnati, OH, 1999, pp. 5-1–5-12.
39.
Developing an investigative strategy. In: Macher J (ed) Bioaerosols: assessment and control. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1999, pp. 2-1–2-15.
40.
Data interpretation. In: Macher J (ed) Bioaerosols: assessment and control. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1999, pp. 7-1–7-15.
41.
ASTM E 678-07. Standard practice for evaluation of scientific or technical data, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007.
42.
ASTM D5792-10. Standard practice for generation of environmental data related to waste management activities: development of data quality objectives, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2010.
43.
ASTM D 6044-96. Standard guide for representative sampling for management of waste and contaminated media 1, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2010.
44.
FinkelsteinMMVermaDK. Exposure estimation in the presence of nondetectable values: another look. Am Ind Hyg J2001; 62: 195–198.
45.
HorningRWReedLD. Estimate of average concentration in the presence of nondetectable values. Appl Occup Environ Hyg1990; 5: 46–51.
46.
Institute of the National Academies. Exposure assessment. Damp indoor spaces and health, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004, pp. 90–124.
47.
Environmental assessment. In: Storey E, Dangman KH, Schenck P, DeBernardo RL, Yang CS, Bracker A and Hodgson MJ. Guidance for clinicians on the recognition and management of health effects related to mold exposure and moisture indoors. Farmington, CT: University of Connecticut Health Center Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Center for Indoor Environments and Health, 2004, pp. 45–55.
48.
FlanniganBMillerJDMicrobial growth in indoor environments. In: FlanniganBSamsonRAMillerJD (eds). Microorganisms in home and indoor work environments, New York, NY: CRC Press, 2001, pp. 35–67.
49.
YangCSLeiD-WEcology of fungi in the indoor environment: introduction to microbiological growth and contamination indoors. In: YangCSHeinsohnPA (eds). Sampling and analysis of indoor microorganisms, New York, NY: Wiley Interscience, 2007, pp. 191–214.
50.
FlanniganBMicroorganisms in indoor air. In: FlanniganBSamsonRAMillerJD (eds). Microorganisms in home and indoor work environments, New York, NY: CRC Press, 2001, pp. 17–31.
51.
MillerJDMycological investigations of indoor environments. In: FlanniganBSamsonRAMillerJD (eds). Microorganisms in home and indoor work environments, New York, NY: CRC Press, 2001, pp. 231–246.
