Dry Fog Mold Removal + Mold Prevention: A 6-Month Study

Mold Prevention - Army Corps Mold Research Post Header 1600x300

 

Will the dry fog system used by Pure Maintenance Mold Remediaiton - Orlando provide continued kill of mold, and mold prevention for 90+ days after fogging a location?

 

SHORT ANSWER:

The US Army Corps of Engineers conducted a study that sufficiently verifies that it does.  The engineers in their final report stated...

"The dry-fog treatment was successful in reducing and maintaining mold at below background levels over the duration of the 6 month demonstration period. "

"Simply put, while the outdoor/background total spore count increased 3,120%, the indoor (i.e. treated space) total spore count decreased 95.21%."

Conducted in 2017 at the Fort Myers army base in Kentucky, these statements are based on real-world mold abatement using the Pure Maintenance patented two-step process and system for two vacant buildings on the base that had visible mold growth.

Click to Expand

The orange bars in the chart represent the outdoor spore count. The term "background" is used because the spore count readings were taken from air quality mold tests conducted at Fort Meyers, just outside of each infected building.  As opposed to using an outdoor air sample from somewhere else.  The blue bars represent air quality spore count tests, using an identical testing protocol, taken inside each building.

 

In conclusion: This study demonstrates that the dry fog process and system used by Pure Maintenance Mold Remediation - Orlando achieves effective mold removal + ongoing mold prevention for 90+ days.  It shows that at the end of six months: the air in indoor spaces that we treat can be fresher than the immediate outdoor air based on mold spore counts per cubic meter. This is in spite of an onslaught of new higher counts of mold spores in the air immediately outside of a treated building.

 

A MORE IN-DEPTH ANSWER:

Registered EPA Claims Aren't Enough

Pure Maintenance Mold Remediation - Orlando's claim of 90+ day antimicrobial action for dry-fogging a business or home is partially based on a claim registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The problem with this claim is this EPA registered claim is for the liquid sterilant we put in our fogging machine; not for dry fog.

The EPA registration is also based on the results of tests conducted with the liquid inside "EPA approved" labs. Which is problematic as well. Just because something works in a lab, it doesn't mean it will work in the real world.

However, the EPA's hands are tied because labs are likely the only reasonable and controllable environment in which multiple products can be tested in a way that results in a fair, apples-to-apples comparison.

This said, in theory, it is possible that nothing registered with the EPA does what it claims to do.

This is why the EPA has developed and continues to develop complementary initiatives that test out efficacy in real-world environments, like hospitals. This is commendable, but for the variables that need to be controlled, which could number into the hundreds, this is an absolutely impossible task.  Could the EPA, for example, catch the one bottle of liquid that expired, and was used anyway, by that one person on cleaning staff at that one hospital?

Take bleach for example. Would you say it is a fair assumption that most people believe bleach is a good disinfectant? And that it will kill mold?

These assumptions would be absolutely wrong in many scenarios.

The internet is teeming with articles that point to evidence that bleach can actually encourage toxic mold growth because it is mostly water. The sodium hypochlorite evaporates, and you are left with water. Mold loves water.

Bleach also expires. Who knew?

Making claims is easy.  Verifying those claims in the real world is expensive and time-consuming.

Which is why, when evaluating a solution, the EPA claims are good for marketing, but that is where it ends.

Our dry fog is no different.  Considering we don't use a liquid, and we don't clean according to a lab testing protocol.  Further evidence is therefore needed, inside a real-world environment.

 

Mold Removal At a Humid U.S. Army Base

In 2017 the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) within the US Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the Pure Maintenance Novel Dry-Fog Mold Remediation and Prevention Process.

They used two buildings at Fort Campbell in Kentucky that were vacant and had visible mold growth.  Building 6733 and Building 2261. An aerial map showing these two buildings can be seen in figure 2 below.

In figure 4 below is an example of one room in building 2261.  There was mold throughout both buildings with similar visible mold growth.

Kentucky is humid. Mold only needs 60% humidity levels to grow, and with vacant and an average morning humidity across the state of Kentucky that is 80%+, that was all the mold needed to grab hold and grow.

Vacant buildings in Fort Campbell were a perfect place to study mold prevention.  If the Pure Maintenance antimicrobial keeps mold at bay there, it will assuredly succeed anywhere else in the country as well.

The real-world validation was ready to begin.

 

Mold Removal Success

Success can be defined in multiple ways.

  1. Speed, 2. Safety, 3. Effectiveness, 4. Cost, and the 4. Customer Experience to name a few.

SPEED

With a single operator, building 2261 took about five hours to complete.  This includes the time spent to swab mold and take air samples, both before and after dry-fogging is completed. This way it is known for sure whether the mold has been successfully remediated, and how much it was improved.

Building 6733 took roughly four hours to complete all the same tasks.

For vacant buildings, speed is less important. Other than it represents less labor, implying a lower cost solution. But for a hotel, or apartment building, restaurant, or office building, downtime can mean a significant loss of revenue, that far exceeds to the cost of any mold remediation solution.

Speed, for financial reasons, could very well be the determining factor when choosing our dry-fog. When comparing hours to weeks of work.  The choice becomes very clear for many businesses.

The engineers who wrote the report mentioned...

"...the dry-fog technology provides rapid and quantifiable improvements to indoor air quality. It also drastically reduces exposure of Army building occupants and
maintenance workers to harmful chemicals resulting from current mold remediation
practices."

SAFETY

This brings us to safety.  Between months three and six is when renovations in the two buildings began to take place. While the dead mold was still visible, it was safe for anybody to remove.

Low-cost labor hired for demolition and renovation were able to do their work without the need to hire any further mold remediation specialized labor.  Why?  Because the environment was now safe.

There have been some concerns related to dead mold, as dead mold is a well-known allergen as well. But this is only for dead mold that has not also been denatured.

The Pure Maintenance dry fog also denatures the mold's DNA, disarming its allergenic properties after it dies.

EFFECTIVENESS

Determining the effectiveness of a mold remediation service is simple.  If your post-remediation air quality test says your indoor air quality is equal to or better than your outdoor air quality? Then your remediation was a success.

To determine whether you need mold remediation to begin with... The rule of thumb is if your mold count is 2000 spores / m^3 greater than the outdoor air, then you have indoor mold growth and should consider paying for mold remediation.

For Fort Campbell, the data below says it all. Here is a summary in bullet form...

  • mold spore counts were brought down by 99.45% for building 6733
  • mold spore counts were brought down by 95.21% for building 2261
  • outdoor air mold spore counts simultaneously increased 545% for building 6733
  • outdoor air mold sport counts simultaneously increased 3120% for building 2261
  • Spore counts for both buildings came down between 30 and 90 days in spite of rising outdoor mold counts, suggesting that the antimicrobial provided ongoing protection.

See the data at the very bottom of this page.

COST

Priced at $1 per square foot, this means the cost for this remediation, At roughly $6,500.  The remediation included all walls, floors appliances, desks, chairs, HVAC, ceilings, and other contents.  Between two buildings that is a total of $6,500 square feet of treated floor-space and tens of thousands of square feet of surface area.

Completed in roughly 6 hours total between just two workers, this represented a significant cost reduction in labor compared to other mold remediation approaches and was completed in one day, which means very little inconvenience and disruption to those impacted.

 

Other Evidence of Mold Remediation Efficacy

As mentioned at the beginning, EPA claims of efficacy aren't enough.  And even thorough in-depth studies like this one, pale in comparison to the health improvements of clients.

When your sinus, breathing, headache, or other symptoms go away just a few days after we complete dry fogging your home, that is all the proof you need.

At Pure Maintenance Mold Remediation - Orlando we have served hundreds of customers, thus far.  We are only one of over 100 locations across the country that have exclusive rights to serve their respective cities and counties.

We have offer a 100% guarantee our product will work.

Because of our guarantee, we never have a customer that is unsatisfied with our service.

We now estimate as a result that nationwide there are now over 20,000 Satisfied Customers.

This is our biggest and most important proof that what we do not only works, but that it works better, and for longer than other options. And perhaps most importantly for some, it comes with potentially very large cost savings as well.

 

 

Surface Sample Results Building 22621
Surface Sample Results Building 6733
Air Sample Building 2261 Results
Surface Sample Results Building 22621 - individual tests
Air Sample Building 6733 Results
Surface Sample Results Building 6733 individual tests

Leave a Comment