Online supporting information for the following article published in Indoor Air
DOI: TO BE ADDED BY THE PRODUCTION EDITOR
Higher Measured Moisture in California Homes with Qualitative
Evidence of Dampness
Janet M. Macher,1 Mark J. Mendell,1 Kazukio Kumagai,1
Nina T. Holland,2 José M. Camacho,3 Kim G. Harley,2 Brenda Eskenazi,2 and Asa Bradman2
1
Environmental Health Laboratory Branch, California Department of Public Health, 850 Marina
Bay Parkway, Richmond, CA 94804-6403, USA
2
Center for Children’s Environmental Health Research, School of Public Health, University of
California, Berkeley, 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94704-1358, USA
3
Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS),
Natividad Medical Center, 1441 Constitution Boulevard, Salinas, CA 93906-3100, USA
Corresponding Author: Janet Macher, 850 Marina Bay Parkway G-365/EHLB, Richmond, CA
94804-6403, (510) 620-2859
(510) 620-2859, Janet.Macher@cdph.ca.gov
Page 1 of 13
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
Indicators
(present vs absent)a
LR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 653 home visits)
BR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 714 home visits)
Musty odor vs
no odor
Average
Ratiob
Average
Ratio
GM (GSD)
13.1 (1.3) vs
11.5 (1.3)
1.14
14.3 (1.4) vs
12.2 (1.3)
1.18
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.01
p = 0.003
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
GM (GSD)
14.9 (1.4) vs
12.7 (1.3)
1.17
17.0 (1.5) vs
13.8 (1.4)
1.23
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.02
Visible mold vs
no mold
p = 0.0001
Average
Ratio
Average
Ratio
GM (GSD)
12.5 (1.3) vs
11.2 (1.3)
1.11
13.4 (1.3) vs
11.7 (1.3)
1.15
Mann Whitney test
p <0.0001
p <0.0001
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
GM (GSD)
14.0 (1.4) vs
12.2 (1.3)
1.15
15.7 (1.5) vs
13.1 (1.3)
1.20
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.0002
p <0.0001
Page 2 of 13
Indicators
(present vs absent)a
LR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 653 home visits)
BR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 714 home visits)
Rotting wood vs
no rot
Average
Ratio
Average
Ratio
GM (GSD)
13.1 (1.3) vs
11.6 (1.3)
1.13
13.8 (1.4) vs
12.2 (1.3)
1.13
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.002
p = 0.15
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
GM (GSD)
14.9 (1.4) vs
12.7 (1.3)
1.17
15.9 (1.5) vs
13.9 (1.4)
1.14
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.04
Water damage vs
no damage
p = 0.08
Average
Ratio
Average
Ratio
GM (GSD)
12.5 (1.3) vs
11.5 (1.3)
1.09
13.1 (1.4) vs
12.2 (1.3)
1.07
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.0002
p = 0.04
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
GM (GSD)
14.3 (1.4) vs
12.6 (1.3)
1.13
15.3 (1.5) vs
13.8 (1.4)
1.11
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.002
p = 0.05
Page 3 of 13
Indicators
(present vs absent)a
LR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 653 home visits)
BR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 714 home visits)
Peeling paint vs
no peeling paint
Average
Ratio
Average
Ratio
GM (GSD)
12.1 (1.3) vs
11.0 (1.2)
1.10
12.7 (1.3) vs
11.7 (1.4)
1.08
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.001
p = 0.001
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
GM (GSD)
13.4 (1.4) vs
12.1 (1.3)
1.11
14.4 (1.4) vs
13.4 (1.4)
1.07
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.002
Kitchen leak vs
no leak
p = 0.003
Average
Ratio
Average
Ratio
GM (GSD)
12.0 (1.3) vs
11.7 (1.3)
1.03
12.8 (1.3) vs
12.3 (1.3)
1.04
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.04
p = 0.02
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
GM (GSD)
13.2 (1.3) vs
12.9 (1.4)
1.02
14.6 (1.4) vs
14.0 (1.4)
1.04
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.11
p = 0.08
a
Musty odor, rotting wood, water damage, and peeling paint anywhere in the house; visible
mold in any room other than a bathroom; and kitchen leak at kitchen sink.
b
Ratio = (GM if indicator present)/(GM if indicator absent).
Page 4 of 13
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)
Qualitative dampness indicatorsc
Overall GMb
(GSD)
Musty Visible Peeling Water
(%WME)
odor
mold
paint
damage
Number of indicators
Wall GMa
(number of HVs,
% of HVs (GSD)
% of 737 HVs)
in group (%WME)
No indicators
(N = 112, 15%)
100%
12.3 (1.3)
12.7 (1.3)
1 indicator
(N = 330, 45%)
<1%
16.3 (1.2)
18.0 (1.1)
21%
14.7 (1.5)
15.8 (1.5)
77%
13.9 (1.3)
14.8 (1.4)
2%
11.6 (1.2)
11.6 (1.2)
9%
17.2 (1.4)
21.3 (1.6)
12%
17.5 (1.4)
19.4 (1.5)
*
9%
17.1 (1.4)
18.5 (1.4)
*
49%
16.3 (1.4)
17.1 (1.5)
21%
14.7 (1.4)
15.6 (1.4)
19%
19.8 (1.6)
20.8 (1.6)
*
*
7%
16.3 (1.7)
18.8 (1.6)
*
*
1%
13.0 (N = 1)
18.0 (N = 1)
*
73%
16.4 (1.5)
17.6 (1.5)
100%
19.5 (1.7)
21.0 (1.7)
2 indicators
(N = 180, 24%)
3 indicators
(N = 101, 14%)
All 4 indicators
(N = 14, 2%)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
a
Wall GM: the highest systematic moisture reading at a prescribed wall location in a LR or BR.
b
Overall GM: the highest moisture reading at a wall, site of suspected dampness, or window
corner in either room.
c
Asterisks identify the indicators that were reported alone and in various combinations.
Page 5 of 13
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)
Locations of moisture
measurementsa
Exterior walls vs
Interior walls
GM (GSD)
Mann Whitney test
Exterior walls vs
Interior/Bath walls
GM (GSD)
N = 653 home visits
N = 714 home visits
LR moisture
readings
(%WME)
BR moisture
readings
(%WME)
Ratiob
Ratio
n = 1056 and 802
measurements
n = 1058 and 834
measurements
12.2 (1.3) vs
13.1 (1.4) vs
1.12
1.15
10.9 (1.2)
11.4 (1.3)
p <0.0001
p <0.0001
n = 1056 and 83
measurements
n = 1058 and 228
measurements
12.2 (1.3) vs
13.1 (1.4) vs
1.13
1.12
10.8 (1.3)
11.6 (1.3)
p <0.0001
p <0.0001
Interior walls vs
n = 802 and 83
Interior/Bath walls
measurements
n = 834 and 228
measurements
Mann Whitney test
GM (GSD)
Mann Whitney test
10.9 (1.2) vs
1.01
11.4 (1.3) vs
10.8 (1.3)
11.6 (1.3)
p = 0.35
p = 0.41
a
0.98
Per the field protocol for the systematic wall measurements, approximately half of the
measurements were from perimeter walls facing the outdoors (exterior walls): 54% and 50% of
all wall measurements for LRs and BRs, respectively (Figure 3). The second most frequent
measurement location was an interior wall with a room other than a bathroom on the other side
of it (interior walls): 41% and 39% of LR and BR measurements, respectively. The remaining
measurements were from interior walls next to bathrooms (interior/bath walls): 4% and 11% of
LR and BR measurements, respectively. No measurements were made in rooms that shared a
wall with a kitchen or laundry room, and <1% of measurements were reported as “other” or had
missing wall type.
b
Ratio = (GM location1)/(GM location 2).
Page 6 of 13
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)
N = 100 home visits
N = 221 home visits
Suspected site
moisture measurements
LR moisture
readings
(%WME)
BR moisture
readings
(%WME)
Exterior walls vs
Interior walls
n = 128 and 9 measurements
n = 262 and 33 measurements
GM (GSD)
15.0 (1.5) vs
14.1 (1.5)
16.1 (1.5) vs
14.6 (1.4)
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.68
p = 0.14
n = 128 and 3 measurements
n = 262 and 19 measurements
GM (GSD)
15.0 (1.5) vs
16.5 (1.6)
16.1 (1.5) vs
15.1 (1.6)
Mann Whitney test
too few measurements at
other locations to calculate
p = 0.62
n = 9 and 3 measurements
n = 34 and 19 measurements
GM (GSD)
14.1 (1.5) vs
16.5 (1.6)
14.6 (1.4) vs
15.1 (1.6)
Mann Whitney test
too few measurements at
other locations to calculate
Exterior walls vs
Other locations
Interior walls vs
Other locations
a
Ratioa
1.07
0.91
0.85
Ratio = (GM location1)/(GM location 2).
Page 7 of 13
p = 0.41
Ratio
1.10
1.06
0.97
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
LR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 100 home visits)
Suspected site vs
Wall moisture measurements
GM (GSD)
a
Ratioa
Average
Ratio
1.15
16.0 (1.5) vs
13.7 (1.4)
1.17
Average
15.2 (1.5) vs
13.2 (1.4)
BR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 221 home visits)
Wilcoxon signed rank test
p <0.0001
p <0.0001
Correlation (r)
0.84, p <0.0001
0.74, p <0.0001
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
GM (GSD)
15.7 (1.5) vs
15.6 (1.5)
1.01
16.6 (1.5) vs
16.1 (1.4)
1.03
Wilcoxon signed rank test
p = 0.58
p = 0.01
Correlation (r)
0.85, p <0.0001
0.81, p <0.0001
Ratio = (GM Suspected)/(GM Wall).
Page 8 of 13
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
LR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 295 home visits)
Window vs
Wall moisture measurements Average
GM (GSD)
Ratioa
Average
Ratio
1.11
14.7 (1.4) vs
12.7 (1.3)
1.16
Wilcoxon signed rank test
p <0.0001
p <0.0001
Correlation (r)
0.80, p <0.0001
0.73, p <0.0001
GM (GSD)
a
13.2 (1.4) vs
11.9 (1.3)
BR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 332 home visits)
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
13.2 (1.4) vs
13.1 (1.4)
1.01
14.7 (1.4) vs
14.4 (1.4)
1.01
Wilcoxon signed rank test
p = 0.38
p = 0.24
Correlation (r)
0.79, p <0.0001
0.73, p <0.0001
Ratio = (GM Window)/(GM Wall).
Page 9 of 13
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
Suspected site vs
Window moisture
measurements
GM (GSD)
BR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 74 home visits)
Average
Ratioa
Average
Ratio
18.7 (1.5) vs
18.7 (1.5)
1.00
16.4 (1.4) vs
17.2 (1.5)
0.95
Wilcoxon signed rank test
p = 0.70
p = 0.16
Correlation (r)
0.85, p <0.0001
0.72, p <0.0001
GM (GSD)
a
LR moisture readings
(%WME)
(N = 22 home visits)
Maximum
Ratio
Maximum
Ratio
19.5 (1.5) vs
18.7 (1.5)
1.04
17.1 (1.5) vs
17.2 (1.5)
0.99
Wilcoxon signed rank test
p = 0.48
p = 0.83
Correlation (r)
0.87, p <0.0001
0.79, p <0.0001
Ratio = (GM Suspected)/(GM Window).
Page 10 of 13
Table S8 Comparison of targeted living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) moisture readings made
for different reasons for suspecting dampness
N = 100 home visits
N = 221 home visits
Reasons for suspecting
dampness
LR moisture
readings
(%WME)
BR moisture
readings
(%WME)
Two or more reasons vs
Visible mold
n = 19 and 100 measurements
n = 36 and 183 measurements
GM (GSD)
17.8 (1.5) vs
14.2 (1.5)
20.4 (1.5) vs
14.9 (1.5)
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.02
p = 0.0001
n = 19 and 10 measurements
n = 36 and 70 measurements
GM
17.8 (1.5) vs
15.9 (1.5)
20.4 (1.5) vs
15.7 (1.4)
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.42
p = 0.003
n = 10 and 100 measurements
n = 70 and 183 measurements
GM (GSD)
15.9 (1.5) vs
14.2 (1.5)
15.7 (1.4) vs
14.9 (1.5)
Mann Whitney test
p = 0.38
Two or more reasons vs
Musty odor
Musty odor vs
Visible mold
a
Ratioa
1.25
1.12
1.11
p = 0.24
Ratio = (GM reason 1)/(GM reason 2).
Page 11 of 13
Ratio
1.37
1.30
1.06
Fig. 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 621with three systematic measurements in both rooms).
Page 12 of 13
Fig. 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).
Page 13 of 13