logo
The ‘extreme' mould threatening to destroy our heritage

The ‘extreme' mould threatening to destroy our heritage

Telegraph08-05-2025
As if it weren't enough of a challenge to conserve priceless paintings and historical artefacts from environmental damage, there is a sinister new threat to contend with: a strain of mega-mould that has wreaked havoc in Denmark's museums could already have made its way to the UK. While we usually associate mould with damp, this variety actually thrives in dry conditions, creating a fresh headache for art owners and gallery directors.
Camilla Jul Bastholm, head of conservation and collection storage at the National Museum of Denmark, says she first noticed the problem around 10 years ago. 'I was wondering what was going on in the Danish museum repositories,' she recalls. 'I couldn't work out what kind of mould it was because the methods we normally use to detect mould, for example after a building has water damage, don't work with this species.'
It's a completely atypical variety called aspergillus section restricti, explains Bastholm, and it's known as 'extreme' mould because 'for mould, which usually prefers humidity, dry conditions are extreme'. It's also very difficult to spot because it's white and nearly transparent.
But the damage it does is significant. 'The fungi decimate enzymes and assets, which deteriorates an object, and secrete pigments that colour it, so it actually changes its appearance,' says Bastholm. 'Even if you clean the mould off, it can leave marks. And the longer it grows on something, the worse it gets.'
It's a potentially very expensive predicament for museums. One of the storage depositories Bastholm examined had more than 200,000 artefacts. 'Even if only 40 per cent of them have mould, it's still an extensive job to clean them all off. Some may need restoration work depending on the level of damage.' So far the mould has been detected in 12 Danish museums, and there are studies under way at 150 more sites.
Oddly, Bastholm notes, this mould isn't just restricted to organic material like wood or paper, which is normally more vulnerable. 'I've seen it on ceramics, glass and metals too. But it doesn't seem to affect modern materials. For some reason this mould has a taste for cultural heritage.'
That's potentially alarming news for many in the UK, whether gallery heads, custodians of stately homes, churches, libraries or even members of the public who have historic pieces of art or book collections. 'That mould could well be present in Britain already,' says Chris Woods, director of the National Conservation Service. 'Moulds spread around. We're constantly surrounded by spores – we can't escape them.'
Woods is taking a keen interest in the Danish situation. 'We need to be aware of the risks if a mould is emerging that is seriously different to what we're used to and could potentially breach the stable environments in which we keep art and artefacts. I'll definitely be keeping a close eye to see if any British collections might be at risk. Our climate is very similar to Denmark's, so we could learn a lot.'
Bastholm believes this is already an international problem. 'There are case studies from numerous places, like a Chinese museum depository, an Austrian church, a Swedish library and a Leonardo da Vinci self-portrait in Italy. It seems to be the same species.' She thinks we have it in the UK as well, but just haven't detected it yet. 'I've seen photographs and thought, 'Oh, yes, that looks like it.' The reason you haven't found it might be that you tend to find what you're looking for – and no one was looking for this.'
It's essentially impossible to stop the spread of mould, explains Woods, with so many objects (including loans for exhibitions) transported around the world. 'We're alert to the risk of pests but we're not able to track mould spores at a very microscopic level, which are embedded in materials. You could bring back an unusual mould and not even know it.'
Most big museums and galleries have sophisticated systems in place to control the environment for their collections, such as the light, temperature and relative humidity. However, Bastholm notes that the Danish museums where she found mould had all adhered to the International Council of Museums guidelines, and it hadn't prevented this particular mould from thriving.
It's even harder in an uncontrolled environment, points out Woods. 'Think of a historic stately home with furniture, libraries or venues – you can't seal it off. Churches are definitely the trickiest.'
Woods is an advisor to cathedrals such as Lincoln and Salisbury on how to conserve their Magna Carta exemplars. 'They're made of sheep-skin parchment, so they have naturally accumulated mould and bacteria over 800 years. That's why they're kept in tightly sealed frames that maintain extremely stable relative humidity of 40 per cent, which stops the mould from growing and prevents new spores from landing on them.'
That should mean the Magna Carta is safe from this new strain reaching it, but, says Woods, you can't be too careful. 'Mould can create total destruction if it's allowed to. Parchment is such a nutritious source: I've seen it virtually be turned to dust.'
Since few objects have the level of protection that the Magna Carta enjoys, what can the rest of us do to protect our artwork?
The key thing is to be on high alert, says Camilla Hughes-Hunt, managing director of restoration specialists Plowden & Smith. That includes using a data logger to record the temperature and relative humidity of the space where you're storing your pieces, and keeping a close watch on the surfaces. '[This strain] may not smell as strongly, unlike typical moulds, making it harder to detect without close inspection.'
She also recommends good ventilation and air filtration, which helps to reduce spore load, and frequent removal of dust, since these types of mould need it to get enough moisture to survive.
Danielle Burke, lead art historian at the Fine Art Restoration Company, says many people forget to look behind their paintings. 'But mould can come through from the back, and then you don't see it until it's too late and already causing cracking or flaking on the canvas. We become so used to the art in our homes that we stop paying attention to it. We really need to monitor it carefully, especially if something is high value – either monetarily or emotionally, like a family heirloom.'
Once spores have become ingrained in the surface of a painting or piece of furniture 'it becomes increasingly difficult to fully and safely remove the mould and prevent it from recurring,' says Sophie McAloone, conservation manager and easel painting conservator at the Fine Art Restoration Company. 'As the mould develops, it feeds on the organic material in the artwork and can cause irreversible damage.'
McAloone suggests keeping a photographic record of artworks so you can immediately spot early signs, like staining or warping. Let it take hold and you'll pay a steep price. McAloone says paper restoration can be upwards of £900 for badly damaged pieces.
Mould is also a health issue, which is another nightmare for museums, observes Bastholm, since by nature they need to be accessible for exhibitions, education and research. 'But if there's huge fungal growth, it becomes a health hazard. You might need to look at precautions like not letting people near items without wearing a mask.'
It's a crisis in the making – and it could be right under our noses.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Oral sex could increase your risk of SKIN cancer – the 3 ways to protect yourself
Oral sex could increase your risk of SKIN cancer – the 3 ways to protect yourself

The Sun

time36 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Oral sex could increase your risk of SKIN cancer – the 3 ways to protect yourself

SCIENTISTS have discovered a new cause of skin cancer - and it's linked to oral sex. Human papillomavirus (HPV), one of the most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the UK, is primarily transmitted through skin-to-skin contact during sexual activity, including oral sex. 3 3 It's previously been linked to increased risk of several cancers, including anal, head and neck, throat, penile cancer and cervical cancer. But now, US researchers say the virus could also cause a deadly form of skin cancer - squamous cell carcinoma. Scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) discovered the link after a 34-year-old woman was referred to the clinic. She presented with 43 spots of the skin cancer on her face, hands and legs. But while she had surgery to remove them, as well as immunotherapy, the cancer returned. Doctors first suspected sun damage and a weak immune system, but later found the beta-HPV virus had inserted into her skin cells' DNA and was producing viral proteins, taking control of the cells. Dr Andrea Lisco, a virologist who led the study, said: "This discovery could completely change how we think about the development, and consequently the treatment, of [skin cancer] in people who have a health condition that compromises immune function. "It suggests that there may be more people out there with aggressive forms of [skin cancer] who have underlying immune defect and could benefit from treatments targeting the immune system." The woman in the case report was found to have a genetic condition that weakened her T-cells (a type of immune cell), leaving her unable to fight off the virus. Doctors treated her with a stem cell transplant to restore her immune system. Urgent health alert as most sexually active will get cancer causing virus at some point in life Three years later, her skin cancer hadn't returned, and other HPV-related complications, such as growths on her tongue and skin, had disappeared. The findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and are preliminary, only suggesting a potential link between HPV and skin cancer. Three ways to protect yourself from HPV The most effective way to protect yourself from HPV is to get the HPV vaccine. Additionally, practising safe sex, such as using condoms, and getting regular screenings can further reduce the risk of infection and potential health problems. HPV vaccination In the UK, the vaccine is routinely offered to children aged 12 to 13, but is also available for older individuals who may have missed it, especially those at higher risk. The vaccine is most effective when administered before the first sexual contact, but it can still provide protection even after sexual activity has begun. 3 How do you know if you have HPV? HPV doesn't usually cause any symptoms, which means most people who have it don't realise and don't have any problems. But sometimes the virus can cause painless growths or lumps around your vagina, penis or anus (known as genital warts). Genital warts appear on their own or in a group (groups of warts can look like a cauliflower. They may feel soft or firm, and be white, red, skin-coloured, or darker than the surrounding skin. Source: NHS Safe sex practices Using condoms consistently and correctly during sexual activity can significantly reduce the risk of HPV transmission, though they don't offer complete protection as HPV can affect areas not covered by the condom. Dental dams can also be used to reduce the risk of transmission during oral sex. And being in a mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who also has only had sex with you can also reduce the risk. Screening and testing Regular screenings, such as Pap tests and HPV tests, can help detect HPV and abnormal cell changes early, allowing for timely intervention and prevention of cervical cancer. Guidelines recommend starting Pap test screening at age 21 and continuing until age 65 for most women. Other ways to reduce skin cancer risk Sun protection Limit sun exposure: Avoid prolonged sun exposure, especially during peak UV hours (usually between 11am and 3pm). Seek shade when outdoors, especially during these hours. Sunscreen: Use a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher, and reapply it every two hours, or more frequently if swimming or sweating. Protective clothing: Wear clothing that covers your arms and legs, and choose a wide-brimmed hat to protect your face, neck and ears. Sunglasses that offer UV protection are also crucial. Skin self-exams and professional check ups Regular skin checks: Regularly examine your skin for any new moles, changes in existing moles, or any unusual spots. Pay attention to the ABCDEs of melanoma: Asymmetry, Border, Colour, Diameter, and Evolving. Dermatologist visits: Schedule regular skin exams with a dermatologist, especially if you have risk factors like a family history of skin cancer or a history of sunburns.

Full-fat milk vs low-fat milk: Study finally reveals which is healthier for your heart
Full-fat milk vs low-fat milk: Study finally reveals which is healthier for your heart

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Full-fat milk vs low-fat milk: Study finally reveals which is healthier for your heart

A decades-long study has finally revealed how healthy full-fat and low-fat milk are, with researchers concluding that one is safer for your heart. Experts analysed three decades of health data and found the fat level of milk influenced a person's risk of dying of heart disease. The study published in the The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition used data from three cardiovascular health screenings conducted between 1974 and 1988. Researchers in Norway tracked the data of 73,860 individuals, with an average age of 41, over 33 years and recorded 26,393 deaths, including 8,590 from cardiovascular disease. They found those who drank full-fat milk had a higher mortality risk in than those who drank low-fat milk. Researchers were able to make this comparison due to a unique historical context. In the 1970s, most people in Norway drank whole milk, but by the 1980s more people drank low-fat milk. This meant researchers were able to investigate the long-term health consequences of drinking both of these milk types. Those who drank the most milk in the study had a 22 per cent increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 12 per cent increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease in comparison to those who drank the least. But further analysis revealed whole milk in particular was driving this increased risk of death. When researchers compared full-fat and low-fat milk and adjusted for how much they drank, they found consuming low-fat milk was associated with a 11 per cent lower mortality risk and a 7 per cent lower risk of cardiovascular disease than consuming whole milk. The findings remained consistent even after excluding early deaths or participants with pre-existing conditions. However, low-fat milk drinkers tended to be females, have higher education and not smoke, in comparison to whole fat milk drinkers who frequently reported being current smokers. Study authors concluded: 'Associations between milk intake and cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality varied by type of milk, with positive associations found for whole milk and a modestly inverse association with ischemic heart disease and all-cause mortality was found for low-fat milk when compared with whole milk.' The results are in line with current NHS health advice. Most of the fat in milk and dairy foods is saturated fat which when eating in large amounts can contribute to weight gain, the NHS explains. A diet high in saturated fat can also lead to raised levels of cholesterol in the blood, increasing the risk of having a heart attack or a stroke.

Brits should only eat a burger once every 2 WEEKS to save the planet, climate scientist claims
Brits should only eat a burger once every 2 WEEKS to save the planet, climate scientist claims

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Brits should only eat a burger once every 2 WEEKS to save the planet, climate scientist claims

Whether you have yours with pickles, extra cheese or covered in sauce, a burger can be one of the most satisfying meals to tuck into. But people should limit their intake to one every two weeks to help curb climate change, according to an expert. Paul Behrens, a British Academy Global Professor at the University of Oxford, claims Brits must cut down on their meat and dairy intake to help save the planet. He argued that long–term climate change could make it impossible to grow food in a third of current production areas. 'A shift to plant–rich diets in the UK would free an area almost the size of Scotland,' he wrote on The Conversation. Those who love chicken, pork and beef shouldn't worry though – as they'd still be able to enjoy their favourite meals. 'It's not even vegetarian, although it does include a reasonable – and healthier – amount of meat and dairy,' he said. 'For example, it still includes a hamburger every fortnight.' Professor Behrens explained that a shift to plant–rich diets would provide more space to grow crops and help curb rising food prices. He cited research by agricultural economists that found a third of UK food price increases in 2023 resulted from climate change. Other studies also predict significant food price increases every year in the coming decade. Consistent stress on the food system could even cause collapse, according to some experts, prompting civil unrest and riots. 'This trajectory of climate–driven food price hikes – leading to social unrest and political decay – is not inevitable,' Professor Behrens added. 'The scientific consensus shows that the biggest opportunity we have for reducing food's environmental impacts across many countries is increasing the amount of plants we eat and reducing meat and dairy intake.' A previous study, also carried out by academics at the University of Oxford, revealed that eating just 100g meat per day – less than a single burger – creates four times more greenhouse gases compared to a vegan diet. 'Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet,' said lead author Peter Scarborough, professor of population health at Oxford's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences. Why is meat bad for the planet? Meat–heavy diets risk the health of our planet, as livestock farming on a massive scale destroys habitats and generates greenhouse gases. Animal agriculture contributes to global warming because of the methane, nitrous oxide and carbon emissions of livestock and their supply chains. The clearing of trees to make way for grazing cattle also reduces carbon sequestration – the process of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide. 'Our results, which use data from over 38,000 farms in over 100 countries, show that high meat diets have the biggest impact for many important environmental indicators, including climate change and biodiversity loss. 'Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint.' Earlier this year, scientists claimed that Brits will need to curb their meat consumption if the government is to meet its net zero targets. The government's climate advisers said that the average amount of meat eaten by Brits each week equates to roughly eight kebabs, but that this needs to be reduced by a quarter to help meet emissions targets. They also suggested that Brits reduce their dairy consumption by 20 per cent by 2040. Labour's Climate Change Committee said this would allow for farmland to be freed up for increased tree planting to absorb carbon at greater rates. Separately, a report compiled by HelloFresh predicted that Brits will soon be eating the likes of kelp noodle stir fry, soybean spaghetti and dandelion salad in the fight against climate change. All dishes are free from any meat and very little cheese, which studies show are a big drivers of greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide and methane. Meanwhile, a study published in 2022 suggested that a total elimination of meat production around the world by 2037 could slash global emissions by 68 per cent and save Earth from climate change. Researchers performed computer modelling scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions up to the 22nd century using publicly available data from the UN. Eliminating all animal agriculture in the next 15 years would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they found. Animal agriculture contributes to global warming because of the methane, nitrous oxide and carbon emissions of livestock and their supply chains. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FARMING COWS The livestock animals are notorious for creating large amounts of methane, which is a major contributor to global warming. Each of the farm animals produces the equivalent of three tonnes of carbon dioxide per year and the amount of the animals is increasing with the growing need to feed a booming population. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, trapping 30 times more heat than the same amount of carbon dioxide. Scientists are investigating how feeding them various diets can make cattle more climate-friendly. They believe feeding seaweed to dairy cows may help and are also using a herb-rich foodstuff called the Lindhof sample. Researchers found a cow's methane emissions were reduced by more than 30 per cent when they ate ocean algae. In research conducted by the University of California, in August, small amounts of it were mixed into the animals' feed and sweetened with molasses to disguise the salty taste. As a result, methane emissions dropped by almost a third. 'I was extremely surprised when I saw the results,' said Professor Ermias Kebreab, the animal scientist who led the study. 'I wasn't expecting it to be that dramatic with a small amount of seaweed.' The team now plans to conduct a further six-month study of a seaweed-infused diet in beef cattle, starting this month.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store