Schleibinger, H., Laussmann, D., Bornehag, C., Eis, D. and Rueden, H.
2008
Indoor Air, 18(2): 113-124
| * H. Schleibinger11National Research Council, Indoor Environment Research Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada,
* D. Laussmann22Department Epidemiology and Health Reporting, Division Epidemiology of Non-communicable Diseases/Environmental Medicine, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany,
* C.-G. Bornehag33Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Boras, Sweden,
* D. Eis22Department Epidemiology and Health Reporting, Division Epidemiology of Non-communicable Diseases/Environmental Medicine, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany,
* H. Rueden44Charit¨¦ - Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany
*
1National Research Council, Indoor Environment Research Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2Department Epidemiology and Health Reporting, Division Epidemiology of Non-communicable Diseases/Environmental Medicine, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany, 3Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Boras, Sweden, 4Charit¨¦ - Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Abstract A single-blinded study was performed to analyze whether indoor environments with and without mold infestation differ significantly in microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOC) concentrations. Air sampling for MVOC was performed in 40 dwellings with evident mold damage and in 44 dwellings, where mold damage was excluded after a thorough investigation. The characteristics of the dwellings, climatic parameters, airborne particles and air exchange rates (AER) were recorded. The parameters mold status, characteristics of the interiors and measured climatic parameters were included in the multiple regression model. The results show no significant association between most of the analyzed MVOC and the mold status. Only the compounds 2-methyl-1-butanol and 1-octen-3-ol indicated a statistically significant, but weak association with the mold status. However, the concentrations of the so-called MVOC were mainly influenced by other indoor factors. 2-Methylfuran and 3-methylfuran, often used as main indicators for mold damage, had a highly significant correlation with the smoking status. These compounds were also significantly correlated with the humidity and the AER. The compounds 3-methyl-1-butanol, 2-hexanone, 3-heptanone and dimethyl disulfide were weakly correlated with the recorded parameters, the humidity being the strongest influencing factor. Only 2-methyl-1-butanol and 1-octen-3-ol showed a statistically significant association with the mold status; however, only a small portion (10% in this case) of the total variability could be explained by the predictor mold status; they do not qualify as indicator compounds, because such minor correlations lead to a too excessive part of incorrect classifications, meaning that the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of these compounds are too low.
Practical Implications
The assumption that mold infestations might be detected by microbial VOC emissions must be considered with great reservation. The major part of the total variability of the measured MVOC concentrations originates from not known influencing factors and/or from factors not directly associated with the mold status of the dwellings (confounders). More specific and sensitive markers for the assessment of the mold status should be found, if the screening for mold infestations should be performed by volatile organic compounds. |
