ᐅ Contaminants in a 1950s Single-Family Detached House with Solid Construction
Created on: 9 Mar 2019 20:31
H
HaLonse
Hello dear forum,
we are currently in the process of buying a single-family house built in 1956. Unfortunately, back then, many less healthy materials were often used in construction. What should one look out for, and what can be left as is? Asbestos is clear (though I rather doubt it in this case) and I’ve heard about parquet adhesive. Who inspects these things?
Thanks in advance 🙂!
we are currently in the process of buying a single-family house built in 1956. Unfortunately, back then, many less healthy materials were often used in construction. What should one look out for, and what can be left as is? Asbestos is clear (though I rather doubt it in this case) and I’ve heard about parquet adhesive. Who inspects these things?
Thanks in advance 🙂!
HaLonse schrieb:
So, I have now received an offer for an inspection with an expert and a lab technician, who will take samples where they suspect contaminants and analyze them. The total cost is 1400€. Is this price reasonable? Does anyone know?Does the total cost include VAT / sales tax?
How many rooms will be inspected?
HaLonse schrieb:
I've heard about parquet adhesiveRegarding parquet adhesive, as already mentioned, the issue is with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These were mainly present in tar-containing parquet adhesives. Such adhesives were widely used in large-scale parquet flooring until the mid-1960s. For smaller parquet strips, other adhesives were already adopted by the late 1950s.
You can perform a simple preliminary test yourself, especially if something is already loose or missing. Remove a strip or piece. If the parquet adhesive is NOT black, but rather gray or brown, it is not tar-based adhesive.
If it is black, that does not necessarily mean it is dangerous. From the late 1950s onwards, bitumen was used as an adhesive instead of tar. The PAH content in bitumen is only a fraction of that in tar, and the emissions are correspondingly low or harmless. The change to other adhesives took place primarily because they simply perform better. There was no ban on bitumen-based adhesives—them are still used today, for example, for basement waterproofing and insulation bonding.
Aside from laboratory testing, tar-based adhesives can usually be identified by their smell. The odor of tar is distinctly different from bitumen and is noticeably more irritating or pungent to the nose. Of course, this does not provide 100% certainty.
HaLonse schrieb:
Expert and lab staff who then take samples where they suspect pollutants and analyze them.If it is only about identifying a specific contaminant (e.g., PAHs in household dust), sending in a self-collected sample is significantly cheaper, on the order of 250€. If a general assessment of pollutants is required, an inspection by an expert is certainly advisable. Without knowing the exact scope, it is impossible to estimate the cost. I would also define this precisely in advance—what will be tested and according to which limit values. Why? Does this make sense given the building’s age and conditions?
Apart from PAHs under certain conditions, solid constructions from the 1950s are generally not heavily contaminated. Later renovations may, of course, have introduced other materials.
HaLonse schrieb:
By now, I have doubts that the house was built in the 1950s. I agree with that – the mentioned wall thicknesses would also be unusual for earlier decades; I suspect the renovation architect took approximate measurements. Typical (for before World War II) would be walls tapering towards the top – then, however, 38 cm (15 inches) in the basement and 25 cm (10 inches) on the ground and upper floors. Are the walls possibly not solid but have an air cavity?
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
It is clearly visible that, contrary to the original plan, the existing roof was extended instead of modifying the roof structure. Does this also apply to the floor plan? Extending in this way is the more practical solution if the extension does not run along the entire eaves side. Thanks for including this!
Uh... what do you mean by that? What is an "eaves side"?
The upper floor/roof structure was not expanded, if that’s what you’re referring to.
Unfortunately, I can’t embed (how does that work?), so here is an external link again.
11ant schrieb:
I agree with that – however, the mentioned wall thicknesses would have been unusual even in earlier decades; I suspect the renovation architect took rough, approximate measurements. Typically (for buildings before World War II), the walls would taper upwards – usually 38cm (15 inches) in the basement and 25cm (10 inches) on the ground and upper floors. Could the walls possibly be cavity walls rather than solid?Unfortunately, I don’t know that. Well, let’s wait and see what the seller says. The 15cm (6 inches) upstairs should be correct.
Similar topics