Yes. Time is MONEY. When there is no need to wait for laboratory results, remediation work can be started quickly, allowing for quick revitalization and rapid reuse of land / areas. In addition, the Mycometer Surface Test can measure the efficiency of certain methods used to clean contaminated materials. The use of the Mycometer Surface Test allows remediators and consultants to quickly and empirically determine whether or not materials can be cleaned.

While we cannot predict the outcome of litigation in court, we can report the latest outcome of proceedings in Texas and Florida courts. Expert opinions based on Mycometer samples were accepted in three Florida courts and six Texas courts. The widespread acceptance of Mycometer test results by U.S. federal agencies such as the Department of Defense or state institutions (e.g., the Florida and Texas Departments of Health) illustrates the acceptance of the method by scientific experts. The acceptance of Mycometer depends on expert opinions based on the data provided. Overinterpretation endangers the acceptance of any test method.

Cultivation methods such as agar plates, RODAC plates or dipslides can be used for the quantification of fungal spores, which are usually (with few exceptions) unicellular. One cell = one colony. However, mold consists of multicellular hyphae, so that the principle “one cell = one colony” cannot be applied. Since spores typically consist of only 0-5% of the total fungal biomass present in mold, cultivation methods are not well suited to quantify fungal biomass (mold). The Mycometer test quantifies mold by measuring the enzyme activity present in both spores and hyphae in approximately the same amount per unit of biomass.

If you take “fair” as confirmation or evidence that the contractor has fulfilled the task of returning materials to an uncontaminated state, then Mycometer is absolutely fair. However, it is fair to say that Mycometer is a very accurate, unadulterated test that is more difficult for some inefficient contractors to handle than previously applied air sampling or visual inspection.

Adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-based tests are often very inexpensive, fast and easy to use, but they are much less reliable than Mycometer-based methods. Overall, Mycometer differs greatly from ATP-based methods, mainly for the following reasons:

1. the ATP molecule is present in all living organisms, which is not the case with the enzyme ((N-acetylhexosaminidase (NAHA)) measured in the Mycometer test.

2. the thick-walled fungal cells must be opened to measure ATP, while no extraction is necessary to measure NAHA. The ATP molecule is not fungus-specific, it is present in all living organisms, in cells as well as in exudates and secretions. Enzyme activity (NAHA, which is detected by the Mycometer method, even if it is not purely fungus-specific, is a much more specific evidence for the presence of fungal infection.

An example: Wipe a surface with a finger. This will leave large amounts of ATP on the surface, while no NAHA can be detected.

It is often argued that ATP can at least be used to test whether surfaces have been successfully cleaned, although it is not fungus-specific: if there is no ATP on the surface, there is no more mold on the surface. On the surface this sounds logical and correct – but it is not. To measure ATP from fungal cells, the cell walls must be opened and the ATP must be extracted. In most ATP studies, no chemicals are added to open the cell walls. And even if this were done, it would take a relatively long time to open the cells. As a result, the available ATP tests only measure a small amount of ATP in the fungus and thus lead to false, negative results. In other words, mold may be present without being detected by ATP tests.

In addition, the Mycometer test has been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an independent agency that has found the method to be highly reproducible. To the best of our knowledge, there are no ATP methods or procedures recognized by the US EPA.

Mycometer results perform well in relation to adhesive tape. This is especially true when the microscopy is performed by only one person. Both methods aim to measure fungal biomass, both hyphae and spores. Due to the subjective nature of microscopy, which is subject to personal interpretation, the two methods do not always correlate well. A more detailed discussion of this correlation can be found in the paper “”Measuring the efficacy of Mold Remediation on Contaminated Ductwork” by J.D. Krause and Y.Y. Hamad.

Anyone can learn to perform the analysis. However, all those who use the Mycometer procedure must undergo training. A basic course is available on the Internet or on USB stick. This course contains instructions on all the basic steps of sampling and analysis and ends with a final exam. On-site training is more comprehensive. It is an interactive course with a high practical component. On-site training is available for Mycometer-Surface, Mycometer-Air and for bulk solids (as well as for Bactiquant-Surface and Bactiquant-Water). Each on-site training course lasts approximately 5 hours per course (“Surface” and “Air”) plus an additional 1-2 hours for porous materials. All courses end with a required final exam. We also offer a course on the Internet and on CD-ROM. This course covers all steps of sampling, analysis and test questions. In order to pass the final examination, at least 80% of the questions must be answered correctly. Our experience has shown that personal on-site training is the more effective option.

Mould infestation should always be treated, regardless of the type of mould. There may be species of fungi that have a greater impact on health than others. However, it is undisputed that there is no good mold if it occurs in too high a concentration indoors. Mold problems are primarily a question of quantity. The larger the regions affected by mold, the greater the problem. Dead mold should be removed just like viable mold. Mold remediation does not mean killing the mold, but (and this is more important) removing it.