Keeping Pace^® with Analytical Services

With demands on the American healthcare system growing, construction projects to expand capacity or update services are a common sight in facilities across the country. However, construction and renovation projects can inadvertently pose significant health risks if not managed properly. Among the various hazards, microbiological dangers such as Legionella, molds, and other waterborne or airborne pathogens present serious concerns. Additionally, disturbances to older structures can release contaminants such as asbestos, adding to the dangers to patients, healthcare workers, and construction personnel.  

Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) are a major public health concern as they increase the length of hospital stays, healthcare costs, and mortality rates. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HAIs rose by 47% across all types of healthcare facilities and by 65% in intensive care units (ICUs). Thankfully, rates have dropped again, but the pandemic demonstrated just how vulnerable healthcare systems can be to opportunistic pathogens.  

Curious about the advantages and limitations of various asbestos detection methods? During my April webinar, I took a deep dive into settled dust sampling—a topic that's both technically important and practically relevant for industry professionals. Let's start with the basics: settled dust refers to those loose fibers and particles that collect on surfaces throughout buildings. For those who appreciate the technical details, ASTM defines it specifically as particulate matter measuring less than one millimeter in size. 

There are five collection methods at your disposal: the scrape and scoop technique, adhesive tape sampling, micro vacuuming, wet or dry wiping, and passive monitoring. Each of these settled dust methods has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. 

Just add water... 

USP <797> is often talked about as though compliance is a “pass/fail” test. Either CFU counts are exceeded or they are not. However, the USP <797> mentions data trending several times throughout the standard. In this post, we will look at what data trending is, how it’s used to promote patient safety, and how and when it’s required. 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are called “the forever chemicals” for a reason. These man-made compounds can be incredibly environmentally persistent and have been shown to build up in the tissues of plants, animals, and people. Most widely available PFAS treatment solutions focus on removing the PFAS. However, to solve the challenge of PFAS environmental contamination wholistically, both sequestering and destruction approaches will frequently be utilized in tandem. 

At its essence, USP <797> is a quality control (QC) standard used to protect patients from contamination that can occur when pharmacies produce compounded sterile preparations (CSPs).Media-fill, gloved fingertip, surface sampling, and other tests are used to confirm personnel competency and ensure bioburden control of compounding areas and personnel. For these results to be valid, the medium used in these tests must be uncontaminated and capable of supporting growth. This can be confirmed using positive and negative controls. 

Mold spores are ubiquitous in the indoor and outdoor environment. Damp and moldy conditions indoors have been associated with adverse health effects such as the development and exacerbation of asthma, bronchitis, allergic rhinitis and other respiratory tract symptoms. Please note that if you or your client are concerned about specific health effects, you should consult a medical professional. In this post, we will be discussing the laboratory methods used for identifying molds and how they can inform the remediation process. 

In 2024, the New Jersey state legislature passed S2188/A1970, a law requiring Public Community Water Systems, owners or operators of certain types of buildings, and others to take action to protect public health by preventing and controlling Legionella in their water systems. This bill is now enshrined in New Jersey state law.  

After several months of initial monitoring for PFAS under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), water systems across the country continue to ask questions about how to interpret these rules, especially the Hazard Index calculation. Late last month, I did a national webinar in which I drilled down into some of the more confusing aspects of the PFAS MCLs and the initial monitoring period. This webinar is now available on-demand: