Comment on fungal tape lift reporting frameworks

Full text

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com
consensus unit used for reporting. The method of using sticky tape
to transfer fungal colonies from one surface onto microscope slides
was rst reported for dermatophyte fungi in the 1970’s and later
for other fungi.8,9 This was shown to be an excellent technique that
preserved for example the conidium and conidiophore morphology.
Many researchers still use sticky tape sampling to evaluate biological
contaminants like indoor fungi.10‒12 while the method has proven
valuable in criminal and civil forensics where mould growth or
absence has been used as evidence linking people and objects with
places;13 or for sampling of other contaminants like chemical threat
agents.14 The commercial development of readily available and
inexpensive tape lifts,15,16 offer a consistent sample area on a exible
plastic slide for the determination of mould, other microbial, settled
bioaerosols, and inorganic dust contamination. However, the problem
of ‘describing what is seen’ remains. This has a lot to do with the
diversity of locations that samples may come from and from the type
of information that is sought. Eight methods have been identied. Each
has more or less merit depending on the amount and quality of fungal
material versus background debris. The rst aim of this comment
is therefore to review the literature and offer an opinion about a
standardized protocol for fungal surface testing using tape lifts. The
second aim is to offer the analyst a exible framework when choosing
an appropriate qualitative or semi-quantitative reporting index that is
matched both to the quality and objectives of the sampling. Usually
the goal is to identify a healthy or unhealthy building microbiome and
to guide the scope or validate any remediation effort that has or should
or must occur (IICRC S500/S520/R520).17,18
Method 1
Two current Standards focus on sampling surfaces for fungi using
tape lifts. The rst19 (D7910-14) is a Standard Practice that states that
tape lifts may be used for both “qualitative or quantitative analysis by
direct microscopy” of “material present at one specic location on a
surface for fungal content”. The signicance of use is for “qualitative
analysis or to quantify fungal material per sample or per unit area”.
These statements are entirely sensible since the recovery efciency
is a source of uncertainty and the Standard does not comment on
sampling objectives or how the method is used to address building
occupant exposure or occupant health risk. The second20 (D7658-17),
is a Standard Test Method and the signicance of use is to ensure
consistency between laboratories and analysts, where “Fungal
structures are identied and semi-quantied regardless of whether
they would or would not grow in culture”. As well, the intention of the
Standard “is to standardize the analysis of the detection of removable
fungal structures lifted from a surface with tape”. The analyst will
then “determine and record each fungal type as encountered” into 12
minimum categories including into Genus and spore type morphologies
as seen. The problem is that depending on how the sample was taken,
where it was taken from, and how much vegetative material is present,
will all impact on the type and accuracy of information that is possible
to meaningfully obtain from each slide. The Standard (D7658-17) is
unclear since the only quantitative scale offered is a semi-quantitative
fungal loading category scale from 0-5 where: Category 0=no fungal
material present; Category 1 = fungal material covers <5% of a
representative eld of view; Category 2=5-25%; Category 3=25–
75%; Category 4=75–90% and Category 5=>90%. The reference in
the Standard D7658-17 is for particle loading of debris but seems to
be used interchangeably. Notably, this same approach was adopted for
spore counting in the superseded21 and current Standard22 (D7391–09
and D7391-17e1) where the percentage debris scale dened above was
used for recording background debris, not to be mistaken for the spore
numbers. To some extent, the objectivity goal of the two Standards for
tape lifts falls short since in practice there are several other approaches
for microscope-image classication.
Method 2
The second method for describing contamination according to
the Australian Mould Guideline6 proposes a Hygiene Rating using
5 categories: Low=<50 spores/cm2; Normal = 50 – 500 spores/cm2;
Elevated=500–1000 spores/cm2 + prevailing species; Contaminated
= >1000 spores/cm2 + dominant species + propagules; Extreme
Contamination =>5000 spores/cm2 + dominant species + propagules
+ conuent spores. Implementations of this scale have sometimes
described the last two categories as ‘High’ and ‘Extremely High’
respectively.
J Bacteriol Mycol Open Access. 2019;7(6):155‒157. 155
©2019 Jones. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.
Comment on fungal tape lift reporting frameworks
Volume 7 Issue 6 - 2019
Cameron L Jones1,2
1Biological Health Services, Australia
2National Institute of Integrative Medicine, Australia
Correspondence: Dr. Cameron L. Jones, Biological Health
Services, Level 1, 459 Toorak Rd, Toorak, Victoria, 3142, Australia,
Tel +61414998900, Email
Received: November 26, 2019 | Published: December 10,
2019
Journal of Bacteriology & Mycology: Open Access
Short Communication Open Access
Introduction
The microbiology of the built environment and its relationship to
occupant health indoors is an increasingly active area of scholarship.1
For example, adverse human-microbe interactions are often claimed
as the cause of sick-building syndrome-type complaints; while it is
argued that different indoor habitats including inanimate surfaces
confer selection pressure on common environmental fungi leading
towards increasing virulence.2 In turn, measuring actual or suspect
indoor fungal contamination is increasingly common especially on
indoor damp surfaces3 or following water damage,4 and is an ongoing
area of occupational health and safety and the focus of building
disputes and litigation.5 While there are established metrics for
assessing the microbiological component of air using viable colony
counts or viable and non-viable fungal spore counts in units per cubic
meter of air;6,7 there is some difculty with how best to measure and
report surface fungal contamination using tape lifts where there is no

Comment on fungal tape lift reporting frameworks 156
Copyright:
©2019 Jones
Citation: Jones CL. Comment on fungal tape lift reporting frameworks. J Bacteriol Mycol Open Access. 2019;7(6):155‒157. DOI: 10.15406/jbmoa.2019.07.00262
Method 3
A third method for evaluating contamination was proposed by
Krause & Hammad23 who used 4 categories: Category I = described
as a “clean surface” =<10 fungal structures/cm2; Category II=
described as “light deposition of fungal structures including hyphal
fragments and spores” =100–1000 fungal structures/cm2; Category III
= described as “accumulation of fungal structures” =100–1000 fungal
structures/cm2; Category IV = described as “heavy accumulation
of fungal structures and possible amplication” =>1000 fungal
structures/cm2. The presence of conidiophores and hyphae are used as
indicators of past or present fungal growth.
Method 4
Another approach used by the American Industrial Hygiene
Association (see: Clarke, GA. 2001)24 used 3 categories: Normal
background = no signicant fungal material or no signicant fungal
biomass showing no more than 1-5%; Possible contamination source
=5-25%; and Probable contamination source = 25-100%. This has
also been adopted by the NYCOSH.25
Method 5
Another percentage-based method26 to determine if contents
are contaminated by mould and that has been suggested for use as
part of post-remediation evaluation sampling or third-party post-
remediation verication is the following. Surface samples by tape lift
can be “analyzed so that the quantity of fungal spores is presented as
a percentage of the sample area”, “rather than a raw count” where:
Normal fungal ecology = ≤1%; Indoor environment contaminated
with settled spores that were dispersed directly or indirectly (Condition
2) = between 1 and 3%; Indoor environment contaminated with the
presence of actual mold growth and associated spores (Condition 3)
= ≥ 3% The presence of target spore types (Chaetomium, Fusarium,
Memnoniella, Stachybotrys, and Trichoderma) is an automatic
indication of fungal contamination, regardless of the percentage of
spores.
Method 6
Similar interpretations for evaluating toxigenic fungi and
mycotoxins in outdoor, recreational environments have been used,27
where “the amount of fungal spores was rated based on the coverage
of spores on the tape samples observed”: Trace =<5%; Light=5-25%;
Moderate =26-75%; Heavy =76-90% and Very Heavy =>90%.
Another variation uses: Low = 1-25%, Medium = 26-50%, High =
51-75%, Very High = 76-100% that broadly follows the D7391-09
Standard for estimation of non-microbial particle debris rating.21
Method 7
Other methods28 describe the benets of tape lifts where they are
used to test “discolorations resulting from moisture damage [that] may
imply mould growth” and are “used to conrm that fungal growth
has been removed following remediation”. The overall objective is
to determine whether mould is present or not? The authors stress that
care must be taken not to inappropriately extrapolate from the tape lift
area to larger areas that may have different moisture or fungal growth
conditions. The method is understood to be “qualitatively specic”
and “semi-quantitative at best”. Notably, results from interpretation
should be “approached with caution” and “laboratory reports
should not state results in terms of number of spores per unit area,
because the measure is meaningless.” The value of the method lies
in being able to differentiate between normal accumulation of mould,
unusual accumulation of spores linked to adjacent fungal growth or
conrmation of fungal growth on a surface. Two sets of categories are
proposed: No spores detected; No abundance of unusual types (those
types often associated with growth on building materials); minimal
abundance of unusual types; moderate abundance of unusual types,
and; high abundance of unusual types. The second category scale is:
0=no growth; 1+= minimal fungal growth; 2+= low to moderate fungal
growth; 3+= moderate fungal growth; 4+= heavy fungal growth.
Method 8
One nal descriptive scale for tape lifts was advanced by Horner
et al.29 where the presence or absence of spores, hyphae and fruiting
structures were recorded against common Taxa from: Alternaria,
Chaetomium, Eurotium, Cladosporium, Penicillium/Aspergillus,
Stachybotrys. Spore amounts were noted as: S = scattered single, F
= few, A = Abundant or M = massive. Amounts of hyphae/fruiting
structures were noted as: S = scattered single, F = few, or A = abundant.
Conclusion
From the above 8 methods, we see that describing tape lift
observations is sometimes objective and sometimes subjective. There
is uncertainty in tape lift data because there is variance in: (i) the area
or region of interest being sampled, (ii) the number of samples, (iii)
the hypothesis being tested (i.e. is the expected outcome clean or
unclean)30 (iv) the experience of the sampler, (v) how much pressure
was used to take the sample, (vi) how much background debris was
present, (vii) the relationship between the tape lift data and other
metrics of microbial exposure (surface and airborne) and potentially
(viii) cost factors. Sampling too few surfaces or selectively choosing
or avoiding locations could skew or bias the data set. Similarly, only
relying on tape lifts for surface contamination measurement without
performing companion testing like RODAC contact plates or swab
testing to viable culture or surrogate surface cleanliness metrics
like ATP bioluminescence could allow for a lack of convergence
when assessing all the surface data and lead to interpretation and
recommendation errors. With this in mind, I propose that tape lift
fungal assessments should use a combination of several (at least 3)
of the above methods that are well-matched to the observed structures
seen under the microscope. Including representative micrographs
in reports could also be helpful. This will improve reliability and
validity of surface sampling for fungi. There is also considerable
risk in over-objectifying subjective microscope-data, especially
when image-analysis is not used. This can occur when lab reports
are produced showing extensive fungal Speciation categorized into
ne-grained spore or fungal structures. Apart from going against the
advice from the AIHA,28 the relationship between the human observer
and how biased judgment and misrepresentation can occur should not
be underestimated. Excepting for tape transfers made from surfaces
showing abundant visual mould growth (like biolms or surfaces
showing visual bulk), there is little chance that strict numerate
taxonomic rankings can be reported. It is undisputed that tape lifts
are useful in industrial hygiene water damage investigations or for
environmental screening of contaminated surfaces and objects31,32 or to
assess for potential fungal particle transmission.33 However, the value
of this method of measurement is a continuum between the objective
and subjective and depends on the overall image quality of the fungi
that can be removed by the adhesive from any chosen surface.

Comment on fungal tape lift reporting frameworks 157
Copyright:
©2019 Jones
Citation: Jones CL. Comment on fungal tape lift reporting frameworks. J Bacteriol Mycol Open Access. 2019;7(6):155‒157. DOI: 10.15406/jbmoa.2019.07.00262
Funding details
None.
Acknowledgements
None.
Conicts of interest
The author declares no conict of interest.
References
1. Adams RI, Bhangar S, Dannemiller KC, et al. Ten questions concerning
the microbiomes of buildings. Build Environ. 2016;109: 224‒234.
2. Gostincar C, Grube M, Gunde-Cimerman N. Evolution of fungal
pathogens in domestic environments? Fungal Biol-UK. 2011; 1008‒1018.
3. Habibi A, Safaierfarahani B. Indoor damp surfaces harbor molds with
clinical signicance. Curr Med Mycol. 2018;4(3): 1‒9.
4. WHO. WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: dampness and mould.
2009.
5. Jones CL. Mould in building disputes. J Bacteriol Mycol Open Access.
2018. 6(4): 264‒272.
6. Kemp P, Neumeister-Kemp H. Australian Mould Guideline; the Go-to
Guide for Everything Mould. 2nd edn. Sydney. Messenger Publishing;
2010.
7. Jones CL. Crowd sourced taxonomic identication guide for categorization
and quantication of fungal spores by optical microscopy. J Mycol
Mycological Sci. 2019;2(1):000106.
8. Flegal TW. Semipermanent microscope slides of microfungi using a sticky
tape technique. Can J Microbiol. 1980;26:551‒553.
9. St-Germain G, Summerbell R. Identifying Filamentous Fungi, A Clinical
Laboratory Handbook. California: Star Publishing Company; 1996.
10. Portnoy JM, Barnes CS, Kennedy K. Sampling for indoor fungi. J Allergy
Clin Immunol. 2004;113(2):189‒198.
11. Thomas G, Burton NC, Mueller C et al. Comparison of work-related
symptoms and visual contrast sensitivity between employees at a severely
water-damaged school and a school without signicant water damage. Am
J Ind Med. 2012;55(9):844-854.
12. Hung LL, Miller JD, Dillon HK, et al. Field Guide for the Determination
of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples. 2nd edn. Fairfax
(VA): The American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2005.
13. Hawksworth DL, Wiltshire PEJ. Forensic mycology: current perspectives.
Research and Reports in Forensic Medical Science. 2015;5:75‒83.
14. Brady K, Stilley B, Olds M. Tape lift sampling of chemical threat agents.
J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(4):1015‒1021.
15. Zefon Bio-Tape.
16. Stick-to-it Lift Tape. SKC Inc.
17. Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certication. ANSI/
IICRC S520 Standard and IICRC R520 Reference Guide for Professional
Mold Remediation. 2015.
18. Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certication. ANSI/
IICRC S500 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water
Damage Restoration. 2015.
19. ASTM D7910-14. Standard practice for collection of fungal material from
surfaces by tape lift.
20. ASTM D7658-17. Standard test method for direct microscopy of fungal
structures from tape.
21. ASTM D7391 – 09. Standard test method for categorization and
quantication of airborne fungal structures in an inertial impaction sample
by optical microscopy.
22. ASTM D7391 – 17e1. Standard test method for categorization and
quantication of airborne fungal structures in an inertial impaction sample
by optical microscopy.
23. Krause JD, Hammad YY. Measuring the efcacy of mold remediation on
contaminated ductwork. Proceedings: Indoor Air. 2002;360‒365.
24. Clark GA. Assessment & Sampling Approaches for Indoor Microbial
Assessments. The Synergist (AIHA). 2001.
25. NYCOSH. Methods for Evaluation of Indoor Mold Growth. New York
Committee for Occupational Safety and Health.
26. Pinto MA. Mold testing: The old, the new, the useful. Cleaning &
Restoration. 2012;49(30):38‒43.
27. Sudakin D, Fallah P. Toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins in outdoor,
recreational environments. Clin Toxicol. 2008;46:738‒744.
28. Prezant B, Weekes DM, Miller JD. Recognition, Evaluation, and
Control of Indoor Mold. Fairfax (VA): The American Industrial Hygiene
Association; 2008.
29. Horner WE, Barnes C, Codina R, et al. Guide for interpreting reports
from inspections/investigations of indoor mold. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2008;121(3):592‒597.
30. Bloomeld SF, Stanwell-Smith R, Crevel RWR, et al. Too clean, or not
to clean: the Hygiene Hypothesis and home hygiene. Clin Exp Allergy.
2006;36(4):402‒425.
31. Wilson SC, Palmatier RN, Andriychuk LA, et al. Mold contamination and
air handling units. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007;4(7): 483‒491.
32. Shirakawa MA, Gaylarde CC, Gaylarde PM, et al. Fungal colonization
and succession on newly painted buildings and the effect of biocide.
FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2002;39:165‒173.
33. Meheust D, Le Cann P, Reboux G, et al. Indoor fungal contamination:
health risks and measurement methods in hospitals, homes and workplaces.
Crit Rev Microbiol. 2013; 40(3):1‒13.