Comparison of Methods to Identify and Monitor Mold Damages in Buildings

Abstract

Molds thrive in indoor environments, challenging the stability of building materials and occupants’ health. Diverse sampling and analytical techniques can be applied in the microbiology of buildings, with specific benefits and drawbacks. We evaluated the use of two methods, the microscopy of visible mold growth (hereinafter “mold” samples) (tape lifts) and the DNA metabarcoding of mold and dust samples (swabs), for mapping mold-damage indicator fungi in residential buildings in Oslo. Overall, both methods provided consistent results for the mold samples, where nearly 80% of the microscopy-identified taxa were confirmed by DNA analyses. Aspergillus was the most abundant genus colonizing all materials, while some taxa were associated with certain substrates: Acremonium with gypsum board, Chaetomium with chipboard, Stachybotrys with gypsum board and wood, and Trichoderma with wood. Based on the DNA data, the community composition was clearly different between the mold and the dust, with a much higher alpha diversity in the dust. Most genera identified in the mold were also detected with a low abundance in the dust from the same apartments. Their spatial distribution indicated some local spread from the mold growth to other areas, but there was no clear correlation between the relative abundances and the distance to the damages. To study mold damages, different microbiological analyses (microscopy, cultivation, DNA, and chemistry) should be combined with a thorough inspection of buildings. The interpretation of such datasets requires the collaboration of skilled mycologists and building consultants.