The INVENTOR of ERMI Tells EVERYONE: do NOT use this. Period.
Do not waste $ on ERMI sampling!
The Inventor of ERMI explains why it’s Flawed. Simple math and science.
By J. Scott Armour, Sep. 28, 2021
The ERMI sample method has gained popularity over the last five years against all odds. It was not designed nor validated to perform risk assessment, exposure assessment, or damage assessment.
“The agency said it considers MSQPCR and ERMI to be research tools not intended for public use.” U.S. EPA, 2013
ERMI can not “find” mold growth, nor even correlate to any amount of growth, large or small.
ERMI can not diagnose health exposure risk.
ERMI can not predict treatment outcome.
There are many problems with ERMI methodology, too many to discuss in detail here. Here are three examples:
If you want to assess exposure, you need to measure the amount of the hazard that can get to a person. In this case, the mold that is in the air and being breathed by the occupant. However, ERMI analysis uses the wrong units - it reports the amount of DNA as a concentration (mold DNA per milligram of house dust) when what is required for risk and exposure is a “Loading Factor”. Concentration does not tell you how much dust is available for being an exposure. There might be a lot of dust exposure in the home or very little, but the ERMI Score will be the same! ERMI can NOT distinguish between high and low exposure risk. It is not reliable. It is not valid.
One of the most critical problems is the collection of dust. EPA is clear that if you collect the sample any other way then originally designed, with a vacuum, and instead you collect a sample with a single microfiber cloth by taking wipes of many surfaces (as is commonly told to buyers of the analysis from labs), it is not valid. The score can not account for surface deposition variability. One surface may be actual mold growth, another might have only outdoor mold spores, and a third surface have 10 years of regular house dust. But the wipe method mixes them altogether and the lab can only analyze and report the combination. This confuses the interpretation of results and helps with nothing. It is not reliable. It is not valid.
The cloth wipe method does not account for and standardize the size of the area being wiped by the cloth - the user does not know to collect one square foot or one square inch. Like the problem of the location of dust sampling, this only confuses the interpretation of results and helps with nothing. It is not reliable. It is not valid.
“If mold samples are not collected in accordance with the sampling procedures (vacuum of one area of carpet only) used to develop the ERMI, the results would be of questionable value.” U.S. EPA, 2013
The technical and scientific details aside, the U.S. EPA funded and created the invention of ERMI analysis method. It also stopped the funding and research before complete relationship with actual mold growth and water damage conditions could be validated. In other words, it’s an unfinished work.
“ERMI had not been validated or peer reviewed for public use by the EPA…”, U.S. EPA, 2013
For several years back around 2008, many of us in the environmental health, industrial hygiene, and indoor environment professions lobbied the EPA to stop people from using ERMI for “testing homes”. However, many labs had already been given license to use the method and sell the analysis; many mold inspectors found out they could profitably sell the sample to clients.
In 2013, EPA found labs making ‘misleading advertising by the active and inactive licensees’…
In fact, an EPA review of the labs selling ERMI analysis found “misleading advertising by the active and inactive licensees”. This means the labs told the buying public, their clients, that the ERMI method was endorsed and backed by the EPA, and in one instance, the EPA had “created a new standard” for mold assessment. None of that is true. The U.S.EPA did not do any of those things. According to the EPA, advertising like these were, and continue to be, violations of the licensing agreement.
And, worse, a doctor used it for a single research project and then trained others to use it also. That has led to a widespread and false belief that ERMI is a validated diagnostic tool. It has never been validated as an appropriate tool for diagnosing patients’ exposures. This doctor’s one-time research has never been replicated. By anyone. No other medical researcher has validated his results.
Yet, using ERMI as a health and environment diagnostic tool is occurring daily, maybe hourly, around the world:
Doctors are telling patients to get the ERMI sample so they can make diagnostic and treatment decisions for mold-related illness;
“Friends”, on facebook and instagram who have never been to a science class or understand sample collection, are advising patients looking for help, patients who are very ill and often desperate for answers of any kind, that ERMI is “valuable” and “the only” test to take;
Mold assessors are taking samples and making remediation recommendations;
Patients and home-owners are using ERMI results to discard contents and move out of homes.
In my experience, ERMI actually does the complete opposite of helping or diagnosing the patient:
ERMI results and scoring confuse the client, frighten the client, and is used inappropriately by physicians, naturopaths, and mold-related illness practitioners as a diagnostic tool.
ERMI is persuading people to spend ten’s of thousands of dollars on unnecessary remediation work.
People are losing their personal belongings because of a test method that simply does not do what they have been told it will do.
However, I am not the only one that sees this happening:
“There is a risk that the public may make inappropriate decisions or take unnecessary actions regarding indoor mold…”, U.S. EPA, 2013
In 2010, EPA clearly stated the ERMI is “a research tool” and told homeowners they should not routinely test homes for mold. (See EPA ERMI Fact Sheet , June 17, 2010.)
Then, in 2013, the EPA Office of Inspector General reviewed the situation and published a lengthy and detailed explanation of ERMI development, licensing, marketing, and validity. It includes this statement,
“…because ERMI has not been validated and peer reviewed for public use, the work necessary to assure that mold test results are accurate has not been done.
Further, if samples from the same home were sent to two or more MSQPCR licensed labs, there is no guarantee that the homeowner would get the same test results.”
The document is available online direct from the EPA: “Public May Be Making Indoor Mold Cleanup Decisions Based on EPA Tool Developed Only for Research Applications”, Report No. 13-P-0356, August 22, 2013.
As always, if you need more info, please sign up to get automatic notifications of new emails and helpful articles about mold, environmental acquired illness, mold remediation, and water damage restoration.
To contact Scott, please go to Armour Applied Science - Scott's Bio and Contact Info
Thank You and I Sincerely Hope You Get Well Soon…
Again, did you read the article? And no it does NOT suggest i am the inventor. I would have said so! Please reconsider. Thank you.
The title leads to people thinking the writer aka you being inventor.