Literature DB >> 16862714

Controlled study of mold growth and cleaning procedure on treated and untreated wet gypsum wallboard in an indoor environment.

Michael Krause1, William Geer, Lonie Swenson, Payam Fallah, Coreen Robbins.   

Abstract

The basis for some common gypsum wallboard mold remediation practices was examined. The bottom inch of several gypsum wallboard panels was immersed in bottled drinking water; some panels were coated and others were untreated. The panels were examined and tested for a period of 8 weeks. This study investigated: (a) whether mold growth, detectable visually or with tape lift samples, occurs within 1 week on wet gypsum wallboard; (b) the types, timing, and extent of mold growth on wet gypsum wallboard; (c) whether mold growth is present on gypsum wallboard surfaces 6 inches from visible mold growth; (d) whether some commonly used surface treatments affect the timing of occurrence and rate of mold growth; and (e) if moldy but dried gypsum wallboard can be cleaned with simple methods and then sealed with common surface treatments so that residual mold particles are undetectable with typical surface sampling techniques. Mold growth was not detected visually or with tape lift samples after 1 week on any of the wallboard panels, regardless of treatment, well beyond the 24-48 hours often mentioned as the incubation period. Growth was detected at 2 weeks on untreated gypsum. Penicillium, Cladosporium, and Acremonium were early colonizers of untreated panels. Aspergillus, Epicoccum, Alternaria, and Ulocladium appeared later. Stachybotrys was not found. Mold growth was not detected more than 6 inches beyond the margin of visible mold growth, suggesting that recommendations to remove gypsum wallboard more than 1 foot beyond visible mold are excessive. The surface treatments resulted in delayed mold growth and reduced the area of mold growth compared with untreated gypsum wallboard. Results showed that simple cleaning of moldy gypsum wallboard was possible to the extent that mold particles beyond "normal trapping" were not found on tape lift samples. Thus, cleaning is an option in some situations where removal is not feasible or desirable. In cases where conditions are not similar to those of this study, or where large areas may be affected, a sample area could be cleaned and tested to verify that the cleaning technique is sufficient to reduce levels to background or normal trapping. These results are generally in agreement with laboratory studies of mold growth on, and cleaning of, gypsum wallboard.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16862714     DOI: 10.1080/15459620600798663

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  4 in total

1.  Case studies: evaluation of cut-resistant sleeves and possible fiberglass fiber shedding at a steel mill.

Authors:  Diana M Ceballos; Loren C Tapp; Douglas M Wiegand
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.155

2.  Testing antimicrobial cleaner efficacy on gypsum wallboard contaminated with Stachybotrys chartarum.

Authors:  Marc Y Menetrez; Karin K Foarde; Tricia D Webber; Timothy R Dean; Doris A Betancourt
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 3.  Home and school environmental assessment and remediation.

Authors:  Thomas A Lupoli; Christina E Ciaccio; Jay M Portnoy
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.806

Review 4.  Moisture parameters and fungal communities associated with gypsum drywall in buildings.

Authors:  Sandra Dedesko; Jeffrey A Siegel
Journal:  Microbiome       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 14.650

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.