Potential of the volatile-producing fungus <i>Muscodor albus</i> for control of building molds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibility of using the volatile-producing fungus Muscodor albus for biofumigation against building molds was investigated. Several species of Aspergillus and Penicillium as well as fungi belonging to nine other genera were inhibited or killed in vitro by volatiles produced by potato dextrose agar or rye grain cultures of M. albus. Trichoderma viride was the only fungus that was not inhibited by M. albus volatiles. To test biofumigation as a preventative treatment against fungal colonization of building material, dry pieces of gypsum drywall were fumigated with grain cultures of M. albus in closed boxes. After a simulated water damage and incubation under saturated humidity for 2 weeks, untreated drywall developed natural fungal populations of about 10(5)-10(6) cfu/cm2, while drywall fumigated with M. albus culture (20 g/11 L) had nondetectable fungal populations. To test for curative ability, moist pieces of drywall heavily colonized with Cladosporium cladosporioides, Aspergillus niger, or Stachybotrys chartarum were fumigated for 48 h with grain cultures of M. albus. Cladosporium cladosporioides was eliminated within 48 h, while A. niger and S. chartarum were usually more resistant. However, a longer curative fumigation of 96 h was effective in reducing A. niger or naturally occurring mold populations by about 5 log values. The production of volatile organic compounds from 20 g of rye grain culture in 11 L containers was monitored by solid-phase micro extraction and gas chromatography. Concentrations of isobutyric acid, the most abundant volatile, increased gradually in the headspace until it reached 25 microg/L (m/v) within 96 h. The second and third most abundant compounds, 2-methyl-1-butanol and isobutanol, peaked at about 10 and 5 microg/L (m/v), respectively, within the first 24 h and declined gradually afterwards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".