WHAT'S NEW IN THE MOLD INDUSTRY?

Molds, fungi and bacteria can have a significant impact on our health, environment and economy. As such, innovations in mold and fungi industry are important to monitor.

Recent advances in the mold industry include innovations ranging from new detection methods to discoveries of novel species of fungi. For instance, scientists have developed a technique that utilizes laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy to accurately identify mold and fungi spores. This method is incredibly precise, allowing researchers to accurately detect even the smallest of spores in a sample.

Other innovations include new inventions and innovations to combat mold growth. For example, researchers have developed a new type of paint that can be applied to walls to hinder the growth of fungi on them. This invention has been incredibly successful in reducing the spread of fungi in hospitals and other medical facilities where it is important to control mold growth.

In addition, new discoveries of novel species of fungi have been made. For example, a newly identified species called Penicillium benjamini was recently discovered in the Philippines and is being studied for its potential medicinal applications.

Finally, innovations in mold and fungi detection technology have allowed researchers to identify certain strains of molds that are resistant to commonly used antifungal drugs. This has enabled the development of new treatments for stubborn forms of mold.

Overall, it is clear that innovations in the mold and fungi industry are playing a vital role in helping us understand more about these organisms and how they can affect our lives. From new detection methods to novel species, innovations in this field have been incredibly important in furthering our understanding of molds and fungal life.

By staying informed on the latest innovations in this field, we can better protect ourselves and our environment from the negative effects of molds, fungi and bacteria.

With these innovations in mind, it is important to remember that there is still much more research to be done. As new discoveries are made and innovations continue to be developed, we must stay informed on the latest news in the mold and fungi field.

Today we have some questions about using Encapsulants during Mold Remediation

Definition:

An encapsulant is a material used to protect and preserve components, circuits, and other fragile items by sealing them in a protective cover. Encapsulation involves completely encasing an item with the chosen material in order to provide complete protection from environmental elements and physical damage. The most common materials used for encapsulation are epoxy resins.

When it comes to mold remediation, the main purpose of encapsulation is to prevent moisture from entering the material being encapsulated. This will also prevent any further spread of the mold or mycotoxins, which require moisture to grow along with air and food.

The encapsulant is typically a waterproof paint or coating that is applied to affected areas. This helps to prevent moisture from entering into the area and also serves as an effective barrier between the environment outside and the materials inside. Encapsulation can be a great solution for preventing further spread of mold spores.

Wrong Definition:

Encapsulating mold is a process in whicha mold sealant is applied to a surface in order to prevent any mold there from growing or spreading. This use of a sealant or encapsulate is what we are trying to avoid. Remediators who use encapsulants to kill mold or trying to prevent it from growing or spreading are cutting corners in a big way.

When can I use an encapsulant during a mold remediation?

When a mold assessor directs you to do so. It's that plain and simple. A mold assessor will determine whether mold cannot be fully removed from a surface and a moldy surface cannot be removed and replaced. The best example of this is when mold is in an inaccessible place such as an air duct, space between floors, space in an attic or space in a crawl space. If a human cannot reach such places and touch it with his person, then applying an encapsulant is sometimes the best option.

Encapsulants can also be used in cases where the affected material is too porous and difficult to clean. In these cases, the best option may be to apply an encapsulant to prevent mold spores from entering the surface and growing further. A good example would be outer sheathing that has become wet and it is not structurally feasible to remove it and replace it. A mold remediator should NEVER make this decision on his own. In short, it's always best practice to seek the advice of a certified mold assessor before using an encapsulant.

What Products Should I Use?

If a mold assessor specifies a specific product, then only use that specific product. Only those products that are EPA approved for this specific use. If the EPA does not approve, then do not use it. Sometimes the assessor will recommend a specific product but will add "or equivalent". This means as long as the product being substituted by the remediator has exactly the same properties as the recommended product, then the assessor will allow it to be substituted.

Here is a list of products that may be used as an encapsulant on a mold remediation project:

• FiberLock IAQ 6000HD (Perfect for OSB Outer Sheathing)
• FiberLock IAQ 6040 (Provides a translucent finish that will not block the appearance of coated building materials.
• FiberLock IAQ 9000
• FiberLock IAQ 8500 (Perfect for use in duct work. Also, to seal prior to component removal)

There are other manufacturers that make equivalent products. One such product is KILZ Mold & Mildew Resistant Primer Film. The remediator should be careful NOT TO USE any other KILZ product as they are for covering stains and not making the wall mold and mildew resistant. KILZ products are cheaper than the products made by FiberLock. My personal belief is that you get what you pay for. Under no circumstance should a DISINFECTANT/CLEANER be substituted for or used as an encapsulant.

Remember read the label and make sure it is EPA-Approved for the intended use and always follow the application instructions on the label.

Please join me in welcoming our newest At-Large Board Member, Dennis Butts. Dennis is the owner of NTX Enviro.  Dennis is a licensed mold assessment consultant (MAC#1317). He is a member of the Texas Assessors and Remediators Association and IAQA.   Dennis, his wife and two sons live in The Colony, TX. He started out in the property damage in the restoration  business in 2011. 

Dennis can be reached via email at dennis@ntxenviro.com and by telephone at 972-643-8379.                     

Congratulations to Jason Adams, our 2023 President. Jason is the owner of Prime 1 Consulting, Houston, Texas. Also elected to the 2023 Board is Linda Lauver, owner of A.Q. Testing Services LLC, Katy, Texas. Linda will serve as Vice President. Our 2023 Secretary/Treasurer will be Mike Marshall from  BlackHill Restoration in Austin, TX.

Appointed by our new President were Morris Smith, Membership Chairman and Brad Caldwell, Legislative Liaison.

There are two At-Large Board positions open at this time. 

The Texas Mold Assessors and Remediators Association is searching for current members who would like to join the Board for a 2-year term. A point of emphasis for TMARA is to shift our focus from supporting lobbyist activity with a focus on the legislature to providing our members with resource tools and information that enables them to understand more about our industry and keeping them informed about the activity of the TDLR. In order to do this, we need people who are willing to step up and "work the problem". We don't need members who are only interested in having the title of Board Member. We do not have all the answers. But we know there are people out there who probably do. 

Speaking of the TDLR, some of you may already know the following:

TDLR Evaluating Use Of Third Party Inspectors For Mold Program

For several years, TDLR has contracted with the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to perform mold inspections on TDLR’s behalf because TDLR does not have staff with the training and skillset to perform these inspections. DSHS notified TDLR that, as of August 31, 2022, it would no longer conduct mold inspections on our behalf. We are currently evaluating the use of alternate third-party inspectors and developing a request for proposals for mold inspection services to determine if that solution will be cost-effective and beneficial from a regulatory standpoint. TDLR will evaluate the effectiveness of alternate third-party inspections during the 2023 fiscal year. Fr: BC -- The bottom line is that no one is doing any type of inspections on registered mold projects and haven't since 8/31/2022. This has been confirmed.

Q1 Board Meeting was held on January 10, 2023 via videoconference.

TMARA Board Meeting Minutes 1.10.23.pdf

One of our TMARA board members and current member of the TDLR Strategic Planning Committee, Linda Lauver sent the following response to Jessica Escobar, Assistant General Counsel to the TDLR on July 7, 2022. I have re-printed it with Ms. Lauver's complete approval below:  It is quite lengthy but does represent the most professional thinking I have seen when it comes to protecting the livelihood that all of us have chosen. 

LAUVER RESPONSE - - 8_1_22.pdf

The results of Ms. Lauver's efforts were outstanding. None of the recommended changes put forth by the building industry were adopted.

Texas Administrative Code 78.pdf

At this time, it would be great if you would join the TMARA for $45.00 to gain access on the inside of what is happening in our industry and inside the walls of the TDLR in Austin. Thanks for your efforts, Linda.

 

RESPONSE TO DRAFT OF PROPOSED MOLD RULES AS REQUESTED BY

JESSICA ESCOBAR, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, JULY 7, 2022

You have requested that I as a member of the Strategic Planning Committee and a Texas licensed mold assessment consultant, to provide you with a response to the changes proposed to the TDLR Mold Program that were provided by Ms. Jessica Escobar, Assistant General Counsel to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, by email dated July 7, 2022. The following is responsive to that request.

My opinions are based on

(i) 22 years of mold investigation experience in the state of Texas

(ii) more than 5000 mold investigations including, but not limited to residences, commercial buildings, hospitals, government buildings, court houses and a former President of the United States and

(iii) more than 15 years as a designated expert by defendants and plaintiffs in cases of arbitration and/or court litigation. The following should be read and considered in its entirety. For clarity, the proposed language appears hereinafter first and my response immediately thereafter. Consequences resulting from the adoption of the proposed changes and conclusions appear at the end.

Proposed Changes

“§78.10 Definitions “The following words and terms when used in this chapter shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.”

Proposed Language

“(XX) Building thermal envelope--The basement walls, exterior walls, floor, roof and anyother building element that enclose conditioned spaces.”

Response

The term “building element” in the proposed definition needs to be defined. Without definition, the term is vague and likely to be interpreted differently by others leading to potential litigation over its meaning. I object to the proposed language and reserve further opinion until my response is considered and I can consider the reply. Additionally, the impact of moisture and the requirement for effective vapor barriers need to be included in the definition.

Proposed Language

“(XX) Cause—To be defined.”

Response

All language changes, definitions and use of terms and words should be concurrently defined to avoid confusion, changes in meaning and unintended consequences by their use. I object to the lack of a definition for the term “Cause”. The meaning of any defined term/words could change when used together with other defined terms/words so the context, definition(s) and manner in which used should be considered together. I reserve my opinion until a definition for “Cause” has been developed.

Proposed Language

“(XX) Conditioned space – An area, room nor space that is enclosed within the building thermal envelope and that is directly heated or cooled or that is indirectly heated or cooled. Spaces are indirectly heated or cooled where they communicate thru openings with conditioned spaces, where they are separated from conditioned spaces by uninsulated walls, floors, or ceilings or where they contain uninsulated ducts, piping or other sources of heating or cooling.”

Response

The proposed language includes “uninsulated walls, floors, or ceilings or where they contain uninsulated ducts, piping or other sources of heating or cooling” is unacceptable as its use prevents assessment for mold hidden in a building’s interior rooms, HVAC duct chases, wall, floor and ceiling cavities that can impact the breathing space and cause occupant illness and degradation of the building. Since mold is microscopic in size and sometime colorless, significant mold growth that can be harmful to occupants and property can be present without being visible. See American Industrial Hygiene Association (“AIHA”) publication Recognition, Evaluation, and Control of Indoor Mold, Copyright 2020, below. See also Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) publication Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings, EPA 402-K-01-001, March 2001 below.

Proposed Language

“(11) Contiguous – An area sharing a common border.”

Response

This definition is unacceptable because its use combined with the purposed definition of “Total surface area”, restricts remediation of mold to only what is visible. Mold is microscopic in size; therefore, significant mold growth can be present without being visible and remediation of mold growth hidden inside the walls that can migrate into the breathing space and cause occupant illness is completely ignored.

Proposed Language

“(18) Indoor air—Air within the building thermal envelope in conditioned spaces normally occupied by persons in the building. Indoor air specifically excludes air in wall and building cavities, attics and crawl spaces.”

Response

The purposed definition of “Indoor air” is unacceptable because it is intended to prevent mold assessment of wall cavities for mold growth that can migrate into the breathing space and cause occupant health effects.

Proposed Language

“(43) Survey—An activity undertaken in a building to determine the presence, location, or quantity of indoor mold or to determine the underlying cause(s) contributing to indoor mold contamination, whether by visual or physical examination or by collecting samples of potential mold for analysis.”

Response

This definition is unacceptable because it limits mold assessment to surface sampling of suspect mold growth and totally excludes air sampling to determine the levels of mold in the evaluation site, thereby eliminating testing of the air to determine occupant health exposure and/or potential moisture and mold damage to the building. This totally defies the purpose of mold investigations and the protection of the public for the adverse health effects of mold under Sec. 1958.051. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES. “The executive director shall administer and enforce this chapter to protect the public from the adverse health effects of mold.” Added by Acts 2003, 78Leg., ch. 205, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

The proposed definitions “Building Thermal Envelope, Conditions Space, Indoor Air, and Survey” are unacceptable because their use clearly prevents the mold consultant from testing wall cavities, thereby failing to do what the Texas Mold Assessment and Remediation Rules were originally created to do “…provide needed standards and oversight for the public’s first line of defense against the proven, harmful effects of some types of mold”. (HB 329 House Research Organization bill analysis, 2003) The bottom line for the public if these definitions are adopted is “You can have mold in the interior walls of your house but that doesn’t count even though the CDC, EPA, World Health Organization, ASTM, AIHA, IICRC S520 and numerous other authoritative organizations say otherwise.

Proposed Language

“(44) Total surface area—The contiguous area that needs to be cleaned or removed to remediate visible mold contamination.” 

Response

This definition is unacceptable because its use combined with the purposed definition for total surface area restricts remediation of mold to only what is visible. Mold is microscopic in size and unless colonized, cannot be seen by the naked eye.

Ҥ78.30 Exceptions and Exemptions

(a) - (b) (No changes)

(c) - Proposed changes eliminate this subsection in its entirety.

Response

Eliminating the language of subsection (c) could be interpreted to mean unlicensed persons or entities can perform mold remediation regardless of the amount of mold. This proposed change is unacceptable because it is unclear and needs to be clarified.

Ҥ78.100 Minimum Work Practices and Procedures for Mold Assessment

(a)-(c) (No changes.)

(d) Sampling and data collection. If samples for laboratory analysis are collected during the assessment:

(1) Sampling must be performed according to methods established by ASTM International, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, The American Industrial Hygiene Association, or the Occupational and Health Administration;

(2) (No changes)

(3) proper sample documentation and data collection information must be recorded for each sample, including;

(A)the type of sampling device used;

(B) the sampling method or specific steps used to collect the sample; (C) the sample identification code or number;

(D)each location and material sampled;

(E) the date collected;

(F) the order in which the samples were collected;

(G)the name of the person who collected the samples; (H)the project name or number; and

(4) Proper chain of custody procedures must be used;

(5) Samples must be analyzed by a laboratory licensed under §78.62; and

(6) An assessor must verify the presence of mold growth through a secondary methodology if a sample appears to reveal the presence of mold that the assessor concludes would require remediation and shall identify all methodologies used in the assessment report.”

Response

Although 78.100 sets a standard for minimum practices and procedures for mold assessment, the proposed changes are intended to create maximum work practices and procedures and are effectively changing the scope and purpose of the rules without changing the language of 78.100 (a) Scope and (b) Purpose.

The proposed changes are unacceptable because their use restricts the mold consultant’s ability to assess anything other than a surface “material sampled”.

The standard Chain of Custody form provided by TDLR licensed mold laboratories identifies the Name of Company submitting the samples, Client Name and Address, Date Collected, Sample Type, Analysis Type i.e. Spore Trap, Air Sample Analysis, Direct Exam Surface Sample, Culturable Air / Surface Samples – 7-10 days, Sample ID, Sample Location, Analysis Type, Area, Volume (of air) and Notes, Relinquish Date and Time that is signed by the Consultant.

Proposed requirement A, C, E, G and H are suggested to obfuscate B, D, and F. The use of “B” would require the COC forms to be changed. “D” uses the “Material Samples, omits “Air Sampling”. The use of Air Sampling is critical to mold assessment. There is no value to “F”, therefore, it should be excluded.

Consequences of Proposed Changes to § 78.10 and § 78.100 if Adopted

1. The proposed changes are inconsistent with the definition of “Purpose” as defined in §78.100 (b) adopted effective November 1, 2017, 42 TexReg 4619.

2. The proposed changes are inconsistent with the definition of “Scope” as defined in §78.100 (a) adopted effective November 1, 2017, 42 TexReg 4619.

3. The proposed changes are inconsistent with Sec. 1958.002. SCOPE OF AUTHORITY. “(a) This chapter applies only to the regulation of mold-related activities that effect indoor air quality, including a mold-related activity performed by a third party for compensation at a property owned or operated by a governmental entity.”

4. The proposed changes are inconsistent with Sec. 1958.051. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES. “The executive director shall administer and enforce this chapter to protect the public from the adverse health effects of mold.” Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 205, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

5. The proposed changes are inconsistent with Sec. 1958.054. RULES REGARDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND WORK PRACTICES. “The commission by rule shall establish minimum performance standards and work practices for conducting a mold assessment or mold remediation in this state.”

6. Under the proposed changes, the mold assessment consultant would not be able to give a “passed” clearance report or sign the Texas Department of Insurance of Certificate of Mold Damage Remediation because the MAC cannot say with reasonable certainty that mold has been remediated.

Many authoritative organizations including, but not limited to the EPA, IICRC, ASTM, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, American Industrial Hygiene Association, World Health Organization (“WHO”) have reported that spores from hidden mold growth can migrate into the living space and cause health effects.

The following information regarding Mold Toxins (Mycotoxins) is published in the EPA publication Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings. “Many symptoms and human health effects attributed to inhalation of mycotoxins have been reported including: mucous membrane irritation, skin rash, nausea, immune system suppression, acute or chronic liver damage, acute or chronic central nervous system damage, endocrine effect, and cancer.

Conclusions

The original Administrative Rules of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation,

16 Texas Administrative Code were created with input from Gregory Becker, Texas Association for Indoor Air Quality and TDH Mold Task Force Assessment Guidance Committee; David Brown, Indoor Air Quality Association; Gary Caldwell, International Association of Mold Remediation Specialist; Katherine Giaramita, Servicemaster Clean Disaster Restoration Services; James Killian, Farmers Insurance Group; Jerry Lauderdale; David Mintz, Texas Apartment Association; Scot Norman, Texas Association of Builders; (On committee substitute:) Stephen Pape, Texas Air Conditioning Contractors Association. The adopted rules were based on then current science and their use remain constructive and serves the public well.

The proposed changes to the Administrative Rules of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, 16 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 78 shifts away from the original purpose of protecting public health to ignoring public health by dramatically limiting mold assessment to only that which is visible, allowing only surface sampling and preventing air testing to determine occupant mold exposure and hidden mold growth. If changes were needed to modernize the rules and regulations to conform to the latest scientific findings on mold in buildings and their related air quality, they would be reasonable; however, the proposed changes are contrary to recent findings and opinions that would benefit the public. These proposed revisions make it considerably more difficult for a mold assessment consultant to perform the tasks historically assigned to them to protect the health of the public. The proposed rules sacrifice the health and welfare of Texas citizens and are in direct conflict with the requirements of the Texas Occupations Code and other Texas laws, rules, and regulations.

The EPA publication Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings specifically cites the presence of hidden mold as follows: “It is possible that mold may be growing on hidden surfaces, such as the back side of drywall, wallpaper, or paneling, the top of ceiling tiles, the underside of carpets and pads, etc.” Eliminating the interior walls from investigation by a mold assessment consultant removes one of the most common and overlooked locations for hidden mold, the back side of drywall, thereby, subjecting the public to molds that can cause health effects.

I have not seen any published argument as to why the proposed changes are needed much less why the changes would benefit the public which is directed by Sec. 1958.051 of the Texas Occupations Code. In fact, the proposed changes are designed to inhibit the work of mold assessment consultants in identifying mold growth by changing and narrowing definitions of the areas where their work may be performed thereby eliminating the locations where mold may be present.

Any change in law, whether it be a code, administrative rule or regulation is championed by those who benefit from the change and will be criticized by those who have suffered health effects, property damage and financial loss by the change. Balancing those competing interests is the work of the political bodies that are charged with that responsibility. The Texas Mold Assessment and Remediation Rules were originally created and should remain to “…provide needed standards and oversight for the public’s first line of defense against the proven, harmful effects of some types of mold”. (HB 329 House Research Organization bill analysis, 2003)

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) “Exposure to materials and structures contaminated with mold should be assumed to present a potential health risk regardless of the type of mold. Risk for illness does not necessarily vary with the type of mold or the extent of contamination.”

As a mold assessment consultant that has inspected the home of a former President of the United States, I do not know how I could protect the health of the President and First Lady using these proposed changes.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda K, Lauver

MAC 0405

We all know that performing mold/fungal services in the state of Texas requires special licensing. But if your company does work in other states and/or jurisdictions, then you can't go in there and work blind. 

Not every state requires documentation for damage remediation/restoration, but others require particular credentials depending on various factors related to the job.

Varying from state to state and business to business, being informed about what certifications your company needs and the accompanying state laws, will give current and potential clients confidence in your company. Restoration businesses could face fines, removal of projects, or experience business closures without acquiring and maintaining the proper credentials for jobs in location matters, different regions of the country experience disasters typical for that area. Each type of disaster requires specific remediation and reconstruction procedures. These procedures sometimes require specific licenses to complete the job.

Extreme natural disasters are becoming more frequent, meaning recovery services will be a necessity. In 2021, the U.S experienced 20 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, making it second all-time behind the year 2020. The strength and damage caused by natural disasters are increasing. 

As a result, state and city leaders are adding new legislation regarding restoration. Acquiring the proper licenses and recommended certifications will prepare damage restoration companies for whatever mother nature throws their way.

While some states do not carry license requirements for restoration projects, others do and have extensive requisites required to receive specific licenses. Depending on the scope of the work required, a general contractor license may be required to complete a job. 

Some states may also demand a business register with the state contractor board. Furthermore, a handful of states obligate restoration companies to maintain a mold remediation license. 

Knowing state contractor license requirements is vitally important for every restoration company. Every state has its own demands for restoration businesses. Property managers and homeowners will often verify if hired contractors are properly licensed, to protect them from the dangers and consequences of work not being performed correctly. Restoration businesses must visit official state government websites to safeguard them from any violation.

Safety

Safety training is a vital part of the construction and restoration industry. All restoration workers, from remediation to administration, can benefit from OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) safety training. The minimum company-wide safety training requirements for construction and remodeling companies include: 

10-hour OSHA card: The 10-hour course is for entry-level workers. It provides information about worker rights, employer responsibilities, and how to file a complaint. The course also outlines basic awareness training on, the recognition, avoidance, and prevention of workplace hazards.

30-hour OSHA card: The 30-hour course is intended for supervisors or workers with some level of safety responsibility. It provides a greater depth and variety of training on an expanded list of topics associated with workplace hazards than the 10- hour course.

Insurance

Restoration work is a part of the insurance claim process. Restoration companies work closely with insurance companies, thus knowing the ins and outs of the entire insurance process and requirements will keep all parties informed and protected. Accidents can happen at any construction project or restoration job. Damage from fire, flooding, and other disasters can severely weaken the structural integrity of a building, making accidents more prevalent. Restoration contractors need an insurance policy to protect themselves and their workers while on site. There are usually two types of insurance that restoration contractors need to have:

General liability insurance- This provides legal and financial protection in instances where someone is hurt, or something is damaged during the restoration work. 

Workers’ compensation- This provides medical assistance and wage replacement for workers who are injured during the job.

For restoration and disaster recovery companies, potential clients may ask to see a contractor's licenses and other various environmental certifications. Certain states require additional documentation from restoration companies depending on the scope of the work. Obtaining these licenses and certifications before working on a project will not only eliminate any financial responsibilities in the event things go array but also being certified gives all parties the peace of mind that the job will get done efficiently and safely, efficiency and safety go hand-in-hand. Although certain certifications or licenses may not be mandatory for your area or the buildings you typically work on, having them helps assure safety on the job for you, your customer, and, the cooperating insurance company.

Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) refers to the ability of a building's inhabitants to be aware of the indoor environment. This includes things like temperature and humidity levels, as well as the presence of pollutants like volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

VOCs are chemicals that can be found in many common household products. They can cause a number of health issues, including nausea, dizziness, and even respiratory problems. To protect yourself from the negative effects of VOCs, it is important to be aware of the products you bring into your home, and to make sure that they are properly ventilated when in use.

There are also steps you can take to improve your IAQ, such as regularly cleaning and dusting your home, and installing high-quality air filters. If you are concerned about the quality of the air in your home, it is always a good idea to consult with a professional who can provide recommendations on how to improve your IAQ. With proper care and attention, you can ensure that you and your family are breathing clean, healthy air in your home.