Success of repairs

This page is a study. The page identifier is Op_en4910
Moderator:Nobody (see all) Click here to sign up.
This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page, and then a rating bar will appear here.
Upload data Show results

Research group

National Public Health Institute:

• Aino Nevalainen (project leader)
• Ulla Haverinen-Shaughnessy
• Anne Hyvärinen
• Tuula Husman

Consulting Engineers Mikko Vahanen Ltd:

• Pekka Laamanen

Funding

• National Technology Agency of Finland
• Ministry of Environment 1998-2002

BACKGROUND

Follow-up is an important part of a repair process. In the process, it is possible to use technical, microbiological and health measurements. However, there is lack of knowledge on how to assess the repairs and their effects in practical situations. Findings from few follow-up studies published so far have been promising in showing that comprehensive repairs decrease the exposure and group level symptoms of the occupants, providing that the repair needs have been evaluated correctly and the repairs have been done carefully as planned. A central requirement is that the evaluation of the repairs is made reliably.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Aims of this study were to develop and test evaluation methods for moisture and mould damage and their repairs, to develop co-operation between research institute and a private consulting company, and to determine what documentation is needed for evaluation of repairs. We also aimed to develop recommendations for how to carry through a follow-up study. Several methods to study moisture and mould problems of buildings have been tested and further developed in this study as well as in other studies carried out by the research group. This study concentrated on gathering theoretical and practical information from the methodological point of view.

METHODS

Methods to investigate moisture and mould problems of buildings include engineering measurements (building investigations), measurements of microbes and other pollutants from building constructions and/or indoor air (exposure measurements), and health effect studies of the building occupants. Building investigations may include non-destructive methods such as visual investigation, short and long -term moisture measurements, and ventilation performance tests. On the other hand, building investigations may include the use of destructive methods such as structural openings. Exposure measurements may include use of air samples, surface samples and material samples, of which material samples are destructive by their nature. Health effect studies may include use of questionnaires and clinical studies. After repairs, the usability of destructive methods is limited, and therefore the focus of this study was in development of non-destructive methods: visual inspection of buildings, air sampling of viable fungi and bacteria, and test of toxicity from filter samples. In health effect studies, the focus was in the use of questionnaires, although clinical findings of lung function and allergic reactions were of interest in follow-up studies of school environments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In practical situation, evaluation the success of repairs should be made by using non-destructive methods. Therefore, the focus is in visual inspection of buildings from technical point of view, and indoor air samples for exposure assessment. Health effect studies may be needed if the problem has been remained unsolved for a long time, and there is a risk for adverse health effects. We have been able to develop visual inspection method by means of its objectivity and quantitativity. The study group has also been able to assess the effect of temporal and spatial variation of fungal concentrations in indoor air, and develop a test of toxicity for filter samples. The use of questionnaires and clinical studies in health effect assessment has been evaluated. All of this information is readily applicable in follow-up studies. However, evaluation the success of repairs, and performing follow-up studies after the repairs have been made in practical situations, may not be possible unless several other factors affecting them have not been sufficiently addressed in the earlier phases of the repair process. These factors may involve assessment of the need of repairs, repair plans, work supervision and decision-making. Therefore, follow-up aspects should be incorporated with each stage of the repair process. Publications

Files

<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>