🧠 The ASBB Framework for Mould Management, Mycotoxins & Health Protection

Why one test can mislead parents, professionals, and entire institutions

In this episode, we unpack one of the most misunderstood and damaging trends in indoor environmental health: the growing reliance on single mycotoxin test results—particularly urine panels—to diagnose mould exposure in buildings.

Drawing directly from the ASBB evidence-based framework and a widely discussed LinkedIn article by Nicole Bijlsma (December 28, 2025), this episode explains why one test, one number, or one emotional narrative can send Indoor Environmental Professionals (IEPs), restoration contractors, and facility managers down a completely incorrect and costly pathway.

Sensitive environments concentrate vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, and immunocompromised patients. A single misinterpreted test can result in:

• Unnecessary school closures

• Costly and invasive remediation

• Legal exposure for facility managers

• Failure to address the real source of exposure

This episode explains why biological testing alone does not identify the location of exposure, and how professionals must separate dietary mycotoxin intake from environmental inhalation risks.

Urine mycotoxin tests often detect compounds such as Ochratoxin A or Citrinin—substances most commonly introduced through food, not indoor air.

Children are particularly vulnerable to false assumptions because:

• They consume cereal-heavy diets (crackers, rice products, juices)

• They have lower body mass

• Global health agencies identify food as the primary exposure route

As highlighted by Bijlsma, a positive urine test does not prove a mould-contaminated building—yet professionals are often pressured to treat it as such.

A single parent-provided test result can trigger:

• Misguided remediation scopes

• Structural interventions with no moisture evidence

• Ongoing exposure if the dietary source is ignored

Hospitals face a different risk:

• Low spore counts do not equal safety

• Hidden condensation behind walls is often missed

• Australian clinical guidance explicitly discourages mycotoxin panels as diagnostic tools

There are no health-based exposure limits for mould in Australia, making context, moisture history, and building physics essential.

Both the ASBB framework and current Australian health guidance confirm:

• Testing ≠ diagnosis

• Numbers without context mislead

• There is no dose-response threshold for mould illness

This episode explains how professionals can fall into:

• False positives (demolishing the wrong building)

• False negatives (declaring safety while moisture remains)

While there is no government-mandated checklist, the ASBB framework and IICRC S520 provide a clear methodology.

In this episode, we break down the Top 5 Strategic Areas every paid professional should assess before accepting a single test result at face value:

1. Dietary vs Environmental Exposure – Is the mycotoxin profile consistent with food sources?

2. Moisture History First – No moisture, no mould growth. Always validate leaks, condensation, or water events.

3. Ventilation & Humidity Control – Sustained humidity above 60–65% is a red flag, even without visible mould.

4. Evidence-Based Health Symptoms – Focus on respiratory outcomes, not unproven systemic syndromes.

5. Sensory Verification – If you can see or smell mould, remediation is required—regardless of test results.

🚨 Why This Matters for Schools, Child Care & Hospitals🧪 The Mycotoxin Testing Problem (Explained Clearly)🏫 Real-World Impact by EnvironmentChild Care Centres & SchoolsHospitals & Healthcare Facilities🧠 Why “One Direction” Fails🛠️ The Professional Solution: Differential Exposure Assessment

#CARSI, #DisasterRecovery, #Mould, #ASBB