Higher measured moisture in California homes with qualitative evidence of dampness

Relationships between measured moisture and qualitative dampness indicators (mold odor, visible mold, visible water damage, or peeling paint) were evaluated using data collected from California homes in a prospective birth cohort study when the infants were 6 or 12 months of age (737 home visits). F...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inIndoor air Vol. 26; no. 6; pp. 892 - 902
Main Authors Macher, J. M., Mendell, M. J., Kumagai, K., Holland, N. T., Camacho, J. M., Harley, K. G., Eskenazi, B., Bradman, A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.12.2016
Hindawi Limited
Subjects
Air Pollution, Indoor - analysis
Asthma - etiology
California
Correlation
Dampness
Dampness indicators
Environmental Monitoring
Female
Houses
Housing
Humans
Humidity - adverse effects
Indicators
Indoor air quality
Male
Measured moisture
Moisture
Moisture location
Mold
Mold odor
Molds
Odors
Prospective Studies
Visible mold
Walls
INE, USA, California
Dampness indicators
Moisture location
Measured moisture
Mold odor
Dampness
Visible mold
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Relationships between measured moisture and qualitative dampness indicators (mold odor, visible mold, visible water damage, or peeling paint) were evaluated using data collected from California homes in a prospective birth cohort study when the infants were 6 or 12 months of age (737 home visits). For repeated visits, agreement between observation of the presence/absence of each qualitative indicator at both visits was high (71–87%, P < 0.0001). Among individual indicators, musty odor and visible mold were most strongly correlated with elevated moisture readings. Measured moisture differed significantly between repeated visits in opposite seasons (P < 0.0001), and dampness increased with the number of indicators in a home. Linear mixed‐effect models showed that 10‐unit increases in maximum measured moisture were associated with the presence of 0.5 additional dampness indicators (P < 0.001). Bedroom (BR) walls were damper than living room (LR) walls in the same homes (P < 0.0001), although both average and maximum readings were positively correlated across room type (r = 0.75 and 0.67, respectively, both P < 0.0001). Exterior walls were significantly damper than interior walls (P < 0.0001 in both LRs and BRs), but no differences were observed between maximum wall readings and measurements at either window corners or sites of suspected dampness.
Bibliography:istex:524B0CFF0C55D2254BB43E985DA9325D5F8D05E7
US Environmental Protection Agency - No. R82679-01-0
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences - No. PO1ES09605
ark:/67375/WNG-VLHTHLZ3-T
Table S1. Comparison of systematic living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) moisture readings at prescribed wall locations in homes with vs. those without specific qualitative indicators of dampness for the averages and maxima of multiple measurements. Table S2. Frequencies of observing four selected dampness indicators associated with higher measured moisture in both living rooms (LRs), and bedrooms (BRs) (N = 737 home visits, HVs). Table S3. Comparison of systematic living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) moisture readings at prescribed locations on perimeter walls facing the outdoors (Exterior) and walls next to other rooms (Interior or Interior/Bath). Table S4. Comparison of targeted living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) moisture readings at sites of suspected dampness on perimeter walls facing the outdoors (Exterior), on walls next to other rooms (Interior), and at other locations (Other). Table S5. Comparison of targeted living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) moisture readings at sites of suspected dampness (Suspected) and systematic readings at prescribed wall locations (Wall) in the same rooms for the averages and maxima of multiple measurements if more than one. Table S6. Comparison of systematic living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) moisture readings at the corners of windows (Window; single measurements) and at prescribed wall locations (Wall; averages and maxima of multiple measurements) in the same rooms. Table S7. Comparison of targeted living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) moisture readings at sites of suspected dampness (Suspected; averages and maxima of multiple measurements if more than one) and systematic measurements at the corners of windows (Window; single measurements) in the same rooms. Table S8. Comparison of targeted living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) moisture readings made for different reasons for suspecting dampness. Figure S1. GMs of average and maximum moisture meter readings at prescribed wall locations in homes with different total numbers of qualitative dampness indicators (i.e., musty odor, visible water damage, visible mold, and peeling paint; % in box = percentage of home visits, restricted to the 621 with three systematic measurements in both rooms). Figure S2. Maximum targeted moisture readings at sites of suspected dampness (suspect) and systematic readings at prescribed wall locations (wall) and the corners of windows (window) in the same rooms (r = correlation coefficient; error bars above and below each column represent the GM for that type of measurement multiplied and divided, respectively, by one GSD for the measurement type).
ArticleID:INA12276
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0905-6947
1600-0668
DOI:10.1111/ina.12276