Biocompatibility and Habitability

Biocompatibility
and Habitability
of Materials
and Products
Svetozr Katuk
Balz Gfeller
Biocompatibil
ity
and
Habitability
of Materials
and Products
Svetozr Katuk
University of Technology, Bratislava, SK, EU
Balz Gfeller
HSB University of Applied Sciences, Bienne,
Switzerland
3
n the 20
th
century, the term biocompatibility was used mainly in reference to
medical materials and implants for sick people. The concept of
biocompatibility has not been examined and focused in relation to healthy
people and healthy world.
The book Biocompatibility and Habitability of Materials and Products is
correct answer to the objectionable environmental quality of the present
world: the authors define the complex quality as logical sume in word of the
eco-quality (EQ), technical, economic, and aesthetic quality; the EQ of
materials and products of human activity has been defined through the eco
balances, biocompatibility and habitability. The EQ Science is introduced as
young discipline with extraodinary developing potential. The EQ
measurement is based on the quantifying of material - living organism
interactions. Dr. Katuscak has been considered to be the co-founder of the
idea of quantifying and measurement of EQ (Katusck, Qubeck City l988).
The authors promote the idea of EQ science and education. The EQ science,
eco-engineering and eco-design based on measurable EQ data will enable
the unavoidable transfer of the present centre of the enironmental problems
solving from the end of the human products life cycle the elimination of
waste - to its begin the EQ desing. The EQ desing of the tangible and
intangible human products should be performed in advance in the first stages
of EQ and Biocompatibility research, development, design and education
instead of late solving of environmental and human and ecosystems health
problems from problematic materials, products, buildings, cars, energy,
services, processes and systems ex post. The book can increase the
interest in EQ design as it was the case in the 20th century.
Prof. Dr. Dipl Ing. Juraj Ladomersk 2006,
Head of the !ironmental ngineering Dept.,
"ni!ersit# in $!olen, %&, "
SBN 80-88812-17-8
Copyright 2002, 2006. All Rights Reserved: Ekorex SK, Bratislava.
Published by Ekorex SK, Bratislava, The Slovak Republic, EU.
This project was supported by the Bratislava, the
consortium of 40 Swiss and German companies which make up HAG
AG, Switzerland, devoted to natural cellulose bio-materials and bio-
composites production and development, University of Applied
Sciences Bern, Biel/Bienne and Bell Novaman nternational.
ncludes ndex.
Printed by: STU, Bratislava, Slovakia, EU.
5
Foreword
The idea of biocopatibility !B"# $%antification and classification for all natural
and man-made materials and products was supported by the JSPS director
general of the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science. n 1991
(20.8.1991) he awarded a grant to Dr. Sveto Katuscak from the Czechoslovak
State Forest Products Research nstitute, Bratislava, and Dr. Tetsuo
Takemura from Nagoya University for their project concerning the
quantification of biocompatibility and habitability. Although this first grant could
not be put to use, because of our duties in the Swiss Federal nstitute of
Technology Zrich, the idea was later financially supported by the consortium
of 40 Swiss and German companies which make up HAG AG. The objectives
of the authors have been widely discussed, and selected results published in
the Green Report of the HAG AG in Switzerland. Additional projects on
biocompatibility and habitability were performed in Japan in the 1990s.
Why write a book devoted to the biocompatibility of natural and man-made
products?
The 20
th
century heralded the era of ecological and health problems. An
enormous continuous stream of new man-made products - materials, things,
services and systems-- were developed, using mostly traditional primary and
physical materials. Health or eco-related issues other than toxicity were not
defined or properly understood. Therefore, ecological properties were not
routinely considered in the design of man-made products. Such product
design was typical for 20
th
century civilization, and, as a result, toxicity
became so rampant that a vast number of specialized authorities had to be
established worldwide for the control of toxification of "civilized people, living
organisms the living world. The process of contin%ing toxification of living
organisms was thereby authorized, and continues today in a manner
"controlled by authorities mostly ex post. At the same time, BC knowledge,
BC development and BC optimization issues have been reduced to
iniizing and controlling toxicity.
The limits on toxicity were decreased during the 20
th
century even as industry
expanded. Why? Because other things are often considered more important
than health. Toxins and limits considered highly dangerous today were
approved by "authorities in previous decades, jeopardizing and damaging
living systems. This process of slow permanent toxification of the living world
continues. t has been generally accepted by industry, including health care
companies, governments and most international bodies. Toxins are now
considered the characteristic byproduct of a civilization rooted in consumption.
Huge quantities of 20
th
century products materials, buildings, cars, textiles
and other articles - have resulted in decreasing biodiversity, damage to the
6
health of human and other living systems, and the diseases of civilization.
ncreasing numbers of people worldwide suffer from cancer, allergies,
asthma, acne, diabetes, heart diseases, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, ulcers and
acid reflux, constipation, fibromyaglia, herpes, prostate problems, yeast
infections, migraine headaches, joint pains, etc. than ever before. n the most
civilized country, the USA, over $200 billion has been spent since 1971 trying
to prevent cancer, yet its citizens have a higher chance of getting cancer than
ever before in history. Americans consume over half of all the drugs
manufactured in the world, more people exercise and get diagnostic testing,
take prescription and non-prescription drugs, and more surgeries are carried
out than ever before, yet people in 30 other countries live longer than
Americans (Trudeau 2004). The diseases of civilization are often considered
unavoidable negative cons paid for the pros of civilization.
n addition, health and eco-related problems have been solved ex post,
meaning only after they appeared, often in the form of an epidemic. Further,
doctors and other specialists have been trained to provide only ex post
solutions to these "unavoidable health or ecological problems brought on by
civilization. The society addressing health problems ex post may be
advantageous for business or employment, but it is a big disadvantage for the
health of people and other living systems. The winners are drug companies,
health care organizations and specialists, including doctors -- but not human
and living systems.
ndustry is aware of this, and yet persists in using technical and economical
parameters based on physical and chemical properties for design,
engineering and optimization processes. Why? Generally speaking, the
answer is simple ignorance and an old-fashioned misconception of industry as
a technical or technical economical phenomenon. This is because
engineers, specialists, technicians and managers study technical and
economical properties, but have very limited knowledge of health-related
properties. Why? And what improvements can be made in future?
n our opinion the solution is a knowledgeable society focused on health as
the number one priority. Without knowledge there is no health. The solution is
to address the cause of the failures of 20
th
century civilization product
development and design without knowledge or quantification of
biocompatibility.
7
"opatibility means tolerance. Every biosystem is tolerant of some materials
and products and less tolerant or intolerant of others. This tolerance can be
studied in terms of material organism interactions, quantified, measured and
used to design healthy products the field of biocompatibility.
Biocompatibility should be used in future along with physical and chemical
properties to design biocompatible products in a new era of ecological and
health concern and to prevent further damage to living organisms and
diseases in the 21
st
century. This preventative approach could be the proper
answer to the inability of the current ex post strategy to cure the "unavoidable
diseases of civilization so prevalent in the 20
th
century.
Sveto Katusck
8
Table of Contents
Foreword......................................................................................................................6
1. Introduction...........................................................................................................12
References.................................................................................................................19
2. Potential benefit of analyzing and quantifying biocompatibility .....................21
2.1. Theoretical significance of quantifying biocompatibility..............................22
2.2. Practical significance of quantifying biocompatibility..................................23
....................................................................................................................................2
References.................................................................................................................2!
". #efinition of t$e properties re%iewed.................................................................."&
3.1. Need for a universal biocompatibility language.............................................30
3.2. Definitions..........................................................................................................32
References.................................................................................................................'
'. (eneralization and researc$ of biocompatibility of materials and products .'9
.1. !iocompatibility generally................................................................................"
.2. !iocompatibility and biofunctionality of biomaterials in medicine..............#
4.2.1. Biofunctionality versus biocompatibility of biomedical materials...........55
4.2.2. Interfacial processes and properties...........................................................59
4.2.3. Examples of the experimental methods for measurin B! of biomaterials
............................................................................................................................."#
.3. !iocompatibility of te$tiles used in upholstery and clothing ......................%1
.. !iocompatibility and habitability of building& furniture& automotive and
other materials and products..................................................................................%1
4.4.1. $ensory properties....................................................................................."4
4.4.2. %oxicity& biocompatibility and habitability ..............................................'5
4.4.3 Eco(physical properties..............................................................................''
4.4.4 )ene*ability and recyclin properties of materials and products..............''
References.................................................................................................................9
). *uantifying of t$e biocompatibility+ $abitability................................................!1
#.1. 'uantifying of the biocompatibility ( habitability )!*(+,- and related
properties of materials generally. .trategy............................................................/1
#.2. 0$amples of the quantifying of properties similar and related to the
biocompatibility ( habitability ................................................................................./3
#.3. 'uantifying of the biocompatibility and habitability )!*(+,- of materials
based on present 1no2ledge.................................................................................."/
#.. Prognosis.........................................................................................................10#
9
#.#. 3esearch and development needs and proposal ........................................104
5.5.1 +ar,et surveys.........................................................................................1#'
5.5.3 -evelopin diaram . alorithm of the transformation of abstract eneral
phenomena /Es0 into 1uantities /Eo0.................................................................113
References...............................................................................................................126
6. ,onclusions.........................................................................................................12
Inde-.........................................................................................................................1"&
10
,./P01R 1
Introduction
References .......................................................... 1rror2 Reference source not found
1. Introduction
The word biocompatibility consists of two parts: "bio and "compatibility.
"Bio is a reference to a living organism, any of its parts, or biologically
relevant fluids water or liquid, air or gas. "Compatibility refers to the degree
of tolerance a living organism demonstrates toward a material, device or man-
made product. n other words, the biocompatibility of material is a measure of
the compatibility between the material and a living organism. From the
measurement theory point of view, the biocompatibility of a material is a
secondary quantity expressing the degree of interaction between the material
and a living organism.
The biocompatibility of a material is a measure of how the material responds
to a specific application and is very dependent on the partic%lar application or
circumstances. t is a general term describing the suitability of a material for
exposure to a living organism, body or bodily fluid. A material or product will
be considered biocompatible in a specific application if it allows the body to
function without any interference and as normally as possible.
Biocompatibility cannot be determined through evaluation of toxicity or
sterility
f two materials are non-toxic according to hygienic standards or authorities,
they may still differ in their biocompatibility. There is, for instance, a big
difference in compatibility between non&toxic polypropylene and non&toxic
wool in relation to human skin. There is a difference in compatibility between
the living organism and concrete or wood. There are certainly differences in
biocompatibility between polystyrene and the human body and natural
cellulose materials and the human body, both generally and in specific
applications as well.
Biocompatibility is not the same as sterility. Sterility is the treatment of a
material to remove or destroy all living organisms (including bacterial or fungal
spores), and does not concern itself with the biocompatibility of the actual
material.
nteractions between material and organism can be either direct or indirect,
through fluid or air, and can take many forms e.g. chemical, biological,
electric, physical, sensory or psychical.
nteractions between organisms and materials are quantifiable.
Biocompatibility can be used to assess any health-related interactions
5ntroduction
between a product and an organism which have come into direct or indirect
contact. This is the idea of biocompatibility analysis.
To date, there has been little or no research into the interactions between
products and living organisms, into biocompatibility, eco-properties, sensory
properties, or the thermal comfort or discomfort of products. These concepts
are not currently used in developing or optimizing new buildings, cars, etc. Up
to now, biocompatibility has been defined by Western medicine and
understood solely as a concept useful in the ex post surgical treatment of
diseases or during replacement of defective organs.
More and more diseases and health problems have been caused by the
millions of tons of toxins, pesticides, stabilizers, and "specialized drugs
developed for the purpose of ex post treatment of the "unavoidable ailments
of modern civilization. The health of all living systems has been continuously
jeopardized by the millions of tons of new products developed without
knowledge, definition, or discussion of complex general product
biocompatibility and without consistent reference to biocompatibility
parameters, which should be assessed in addition to the already routine
evaluation of mechanical, physical, electric, chemical and fire safety
properties.
Health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not
merely the absence of disease and infirmity (World Health Organization). t is
important, therefore, to distinguish between non-toxicity, which gives no
indication of how healthy a product is, and biocompatibility
1
(kada 1994),
which involves a complex analysis of all properties potentially influencing the
physical, mental, or social well-being of a human or other living organism. As
an example of the consequences of irresponsibly confusing non-toxicity and
biocompatibility, we can consider the case of a non-toxic biomaterial implant
that was developed and used on patients without any determination of its
biocompatibility. The device caused blood coagulation and thrombus
formation, encapsulation, calcification, and multiple other health problems,
which were then resolved ex post by means of additional treatments imposed
on the suffering patients. This unnecessary suffering is the direct result of
producing increasing numbers of new products without any knowledge of or
reference to biocompatibility parameters.
Biocompatibility of materials and products versus cause of illness and
disease
People usually do not distinguish between illness and disease. These two
terms seem to mean essentially the same thing and are often used
interchangeably. However, illness and disease are defined differently in many
non-western cultural traditions and when identifying causes worldwide.
Disease is an objectively measurable pathological condition of the body.
Tooth decay, measles, and broken bones are examples of disease. n
13
*+,PT03 1
contrast, illness is a feeling of not being normal and healthy. llness may, in
fact, be due to disease, or it may have other causes.
Are medical devices and biomaterials designed as factors in or causes of
illness? Are doctors or biomedical applications of biomaterials the primary
causes of illness? We do not think so, although some data suggest these
things may have negative effects
2
(Trudeau K. 2004, 2005). Medicine is
focused on illness and sickness. Doctors of medicine and traditional
biocompatibility engineers are focused on disease and sick people. Most
illnesses are certainly not caused by medicine.
Causes of illness and disease
The naturalistic explanation of illness assumes that illness is due to
impersonal, mechanistic causes in nature that can be potentially understood
and cured by the application of the scientific method of discovery. Typical
causes of illness accepted in naturalistic medical systems include organic
breakdown or deterioration (e.g., tooth decay, heart failure, senility),
obstruction (e.g., kidney stones, arterial blockage due to plaque build-up),
injury (e.g., broken bones, bullet wounds), imbalance (e.g., abnormal white
blood cell count, too little estrogen or testosterone), malnutrition (e.g., too
much or too little food, not enough protein, vitamins, or minerals), and
parasites (e.g., bacteria, viruses, amoebas, worms).
n our opinion, however, the material environment, habitat and man-made
products are important factors in health, and primary causes of illness and
disease.
Most man-made products are made from materials. Not the services, or
software. Worldwide, the largest industry on earth is the construction industry.
n North America, for instance, the construction industry is double the size of
the auto industry. Over the past several years there has been a growing
awareness of the need for health, biocompatibility or humane considerations
to reverse the destructive trends of modern industrialization and embrace a
more holistic, harmonious and sustainable legacy for future generations. One
comprehensive and focused body of knowledge that examines the delicate
balance between human health and the man-made environment is called
Bau-Biologie (B%ilding Biology).
t is possible for material and other engineers, the building industry,
automotive industry and other industries to participate in the design and
construction of breathing, fully non-toxic and bio-compatible buildings and
cars. And even more - new materials, buildings, cars and other products
better copatible with bio-systems, people and other living organisms could
be continuously developed and optimized in terms of biocompatibility. The
only precondition to achieving this desirable state of affairs is the development
of the necessary tools and language so that engineering, chemistry, industry,
economy, and environmental science professionals can accurately measure
14
5ntroduction
and assess the various aspects of natural and man-made product
biocompatibility.
Too frequently, assessments of strengths and weaknesses of competing
materials and products are limited to tangible characteristics such as price
and priary physical attributes. Further, the primary physical properties are
very often evaluated in terms of price/performance ratios, disregarding
characteristics such as consumer perceptions and attitudes. But it is highly
unlikely that it is the primary physical properties which make wood and wood
products attractive to consumers. nstead, characteristics such as nat%ral
character and relationship to the environment and health
'
(Mantau 1992) play
a dynamically developing role.
With affluence and wealth come greater life expectancy. And, with greater
affluence comes a greater awareness of health and ecological iss%es
(
(Ross
1986). These phenomena will strongly influence the future market, science
and technology, education, politics and health. t influences relations between
man and man-made products. Why? Because health is the most important
consideration for human beings. Education, research and industry should pay
more attention to the health of nature and the environment, to health in terms
of psychical, physical and social comfort, and to holistic health management.
Above all, the health industry should be oriented towards health, not illness.
This trend is a reality in the West, and it will become a reality in other Central
and Eastern European, Asian and African market-oriented states where, once
economic problems have been overcome, the increasing awareness of
health- and eco- issues may strongly affect the market, science, education,
politics and further development.
EQ, EB/LCA, EP/BC
The complex of characteristics comprising the behavior and properties of
material and man-made products in the environment can be called the
ecological $%ality (EQ) of the material, including eco&balances, &profiles and
&properties. Over the last decade, these qualities have been studied and
quantified, with attention paid mainly to eco&balance
)
!*e+obilanzen & EB#, or
life cycle assessment (LCA) which refers to data characterizing impact on
environment such as on the consumption of energy and raw materials and
pollution of air, water and soil. The EB data have indirect effect on bio-
compatibility and health of man and other living organisms.
Such properties of materials that express interactions between material and
man or other living components of the environment have an important role.
We call these properties ecological !or environental# properties of aterials,
They do not describe the materials themselves, or the environment, but the
materials in relation to their living environment.
ithout !no"ledge there can be no health
15
*+,PT03 1
The lack of objective information on biocompatibility of natural materials and
products results in a negative impact on health. Without such information,
people may refuse or avoid healthy natural products and instead use synthetic
products, containing bio-incompatible chemicals or toxins that have a direct or
indirect negative effect on their health. People must be offered accurate,
objective evaluation of the biocompatibility of products and materials --
information on both positive and negative effects of interactions of living
organism with the products -- so that they can make intelligent, informed
choices regarding their own health and the health of their environment.
Some preliminary results show that an evaluation of ecological quality,
biocompatibility or habitability (BC/HA) might yield persuasive data
demonstrating excellent performance/price ratios for wood (chapter 5).
Unfortunately, the results of research to date are mostly semi -quantitative
and suggestive but not definitive in character.
To a large extent, this lack of conclusive research has been caused by the
passive and defensive approach of the woodworking industry, which focuses
almost exclusively on the priary, easily measurable, "objective" properties of
wood.
Unfortunately, the industry seldom addresses the concerns that are often of
the highest importance in the market, for present and future consumers in an
era of ecological and health concern, especially in increasingly affluent
countries. They do not say anything about ecological quality or the effect of
their products on psychical and physical well-being.
The positive effects of natural materials and products such as forest products,
natural phytochemicals, wood, lignocellulosics, and healthy fuels products
healthy for nature and people are very rarely studied and measured in
comparison with negative effects. Problems connected with health or ecology
are often addressed ex post, after they have been formulated by hygienic or
environmental authorities, following the appearance of negative information or
health effects connected with wood products. The result is a strategy of
minimizing toxic and other negative postindustrial effects ex post, instead of
research, development, planning and optimization of man-made products to
reach the highest possible levels of biocompatibility and eco-quality.
Throughout the 20th century and into the 21
st
, a positive attitude has been
rare in science and technology. Why? There are so many toxic products
poisoning our health and environment that it seems logical to concentrate
attention on toxicity. t seems only reasonable to deal with the negative effects
of products. This negative approach has had a potent effect on the overall
negative discussion of hygienic properties of materials and products.
Unfortunately, very little if any attention is paid to the possibility of constructive
R&D into new methods to evaluate the coplex - positive, neutral and
negative - effects of man-made products, materials or food (Angst 1988) on
16
5ntroduction
health and the environment. This present mindset of $%ality testing and
standardization is detrimental to the identification and mainstreaming of
ecologically more progressive materials.
The priary quantities that have been assessed for many centuries are still
used to compare materials and products. The processes of standardization
have been initiated and influenced predominantly by research into high-tech,
metal, inorganic and synthetic composite materials. Therefore the primary
technical properties still play too strong a role in the comparison of materials
and products.
Unfortunately, the low value assigned eco-properties in quality testing and
standardization does not correspond to their actual significance. The ratio of
the weight of eco-properties to purely technical properties should increase. To
that end, however, it is necessary to $%antify and standardize the
characteristics of EQ in the form of a new, relatively independent group of
material-engineering properties, which could be used by engineers, planners
and other professionals in a manner similar to the present use of primary
mechanical, physical, chemical and other technical properties. Only in this
way will technicians stop creating environmental problems that must be
solved ex post, under threat of damage to public, environmental or health.
The present method of testing health effects and related standardization does
not promote the production and use of ecologically more progressive
materials, because only toxic effects, representing only a part of overall EQ,
are measured (see Table 1, chapters 4 and 5.5). The present state of testing
the effects of wood and wood products on health, in comparison with other
materials, results in a black and white approach: either the material is
negative !toxic# or *K !s%itable, ne%tral# according to present formal hygienic
recommendations. f the materials formally comply with hygienic
requirements, then no hygienic differences between them are noted, so that,
for example, hygienically OK building materials such as plastics, iron-
reinforced concrete, aluminum, wood or wool are all considered formally
equal.
We have tried to create and classify a complex system to measure ecological
quality (EQ) of materials, including eco-balances and eco-properties. As with
quantifiable properties generally, these measurements will prove more useful
in the development of new products, production, and quality control than
general abstract terms alone.
The aim of this study is: to review the present state-of-the-art, to suggest
methods of quantifying and objectifying biocompatibility / habitability as
routine material-engineering characteristics of material and to indicate future
perspectives of practical and theoretical significance and use of the
biocompatibility / habitability of materials for the benefit of wood.
17
*+,PT03 1
Our focus is on the most problematic and least quantified groups of eco&
properties, on identifying new quantities / characteristics expressing
interactions with human and other living components of the environment, such
as biocompatibility / habitability and sensory properties. Ecological and
hygienic qualities of materials such as toxic properties, characteristics of
building physics and eco-balances that have already been extensively
evaluated are reviewed here briefly with reference to the specialized literature.
Knowledge of the ecological quality of materials is relatively limited at present.
Adding to this body of knowledge, creating objective methods of
measurement, and discovering and quantifying new facts on the ecological
quality, biocompatibility, habitability and eco-competitiveness of materials, is
an important challenge for research and eco-progressive branches of
industry.
18
5ntroduction
References
1
kada Y.: nterfacial biocompatibility. Chapter 3, page 35. n: Shalaby S.
W., kada Y., Langer R. and Williams J. (ed.): Polymers of biological and
biomedical significance. ACS, Washington 1994.
2
Trudeau K.: Natural Cures. Alliance Publishing Group, nc., SBN 0-
9755995-1-8. 2004. Trudeau, Kevin, Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You
To Know About, Alliance Publishing, 2005. SBN 0-9755995-1-8. 2005.
3
Mantau, U. 1992: Umweltvertrglichkeit des Holzes im Urteil der
Verbraucher. Teil 1: Ein Vergleich mit anderen Baustoffen. Holz-
Zentralblatt, 118, Nr.11, 157-158.
4
Ross, . 1986. Achieving a Competitive Edge - A U.S. Perspective. The
Conference Transcript: R&D and Technology Management: Approaches
that succeed. Sheraton Hotel. Brussels. December 1&2, 1986. The
Economist. Conference Unit, Brussels.
5
Oekobilanzen und Recyclingfragen 1992. Holz -Forschung und
-Verwertung 44, 6, 97.
19
*+,PT03 2
Potential benefit of analyzing and quantifying biocompatibility
2.1. Theoretical significance of quantifying biocompatibility0rror6 3eference
source not found
2.2. Practical significance of quantifying biocompatibility .... 0rror6 3eference
source not found
Potential benefit of analy7ing and quantifying biocompatibility
2. Potential benefit of
analyzing and quantifying
biocompatibility
Quantifying is transformation of abstract general categories or in other words
complex category quantities into (one dimensional) quantities and units. t is a
general method and trend in science and research.
Hacking
6
(2001) notes that category is used in a broad sense by linguists and
psychologists for any class with a common name, and in a stricter sense by
philosophers concerned with ultimate classes. The categories could be used
in the discovering of things as things or a way of making individual things
subjects of science
7, 8
(W. Mann 2000, MacKinnon 2001).
The quantifying of the biocopatibility !B"# of materials generally and/or
habitability !HA# of materials in a dwelling environment can therefore be
considered as an objective process that will continue in future.
Or is the interaction between materials and man phenomena characteristic
only for implants or biomedical materials as defined by conservative part of
last century medicine? s it so as define by some specialists from the area of
biomedical research that the phenomena of interaction between material and
living organism privilege of materials used in medicine? f materials are used
in one area e.g. medicine are they transformed to some other space of
materials continuum? Does any objective property of material existence
depend on particular application? What is the relation between physical,
chemical, technological, environmental and biocompatibility properties?
21
*+,PT03 2
2.1.Theoretical significance of quantifying
biocompatibility
Some priary properties such as dimensions, or strength, or some of
secondary ones, such as color or gloss, can be measured simply by
standardized or other methods and equipment. Other characteristics of a
material, especially chemical and technological properties, reveal themselves
only through the indirect processes of testing where the interactions with
soe other s%bstances are usually tested. And biological and ecological
properties reveal themselves through interactions with living organiss or
tiss%es, as a particular biological component of the environment.
Quantifying is one of the most important tools which allows the recognizing
the present edge of the scientific development: this edge is namely
characterized by the current quantifying of the generally and practically
iportant but up till the present only abstractly +nown phenomena.
t is believed that also ecological properties (EP) of materials, including
sensory properties, biocompatibility, eco-physical properties, recycling or
some other properties, will be gradually formulated as a special, relatively
independent group of properties along side the better known and commonly
used groups of physical, mechanical, and chemical properties; they will be
possible to use in a form of quantified material characteristics in material
engineering, R&D and planning of new products. So for example not only the
strength but also the -recycling ability- of the particular product after 2 or 80
years will be commonly used in the product design, in optimizing, calculating,
modeling and/or planning the composition and construction of composites or
multi-material systems.
Environental science generally prefers nat%ral aterials. But this preference
is rather abstract for technology, industry, marketing and other practical
utilization. t is the role of a specialized science about the particular material
(e.g. wood science) to develop exact measuring methods and quantitative
data on the real EQ, BC/HA, which would allow objective comparison with
other materials. n this manner wood science co%ld also contrib%te to
iproving $%ality of life
.
(Kauman 1990).
22
2.2.Practical significance of quantifying
biocompatibility
n our opinion, the research of eco-quality (EQ), biocompatibility or habitability
(BC/HA) is practically important for:
1. Objectiveness of the comparisons, design and optimizing of the
EQ of materials
2. mproving the advertisement and marketing through convincing
information influencing consumer attitudes; advertisement has a
better chance to succeed if it is based on facts, especially on EQ
10
( Mantau 1992)
3. Opening up new markets; the changes in attitudes of
consumers through better eco- and health- information will cause
a decrease in the consumption of building materials with a poorer
biocompatibility / habitability thus creating areas for products with
better biocompatibility / habitability parameters; in marketing for
product positioning strategies
4. Diagnosing the underlying factors of the market; improving the
representation of perceptions and attitudes of consumers
11
(Cottrell 1991) on EQ, biocompatibility / habitability
5. Evaluating te present and future treat of substitute materials
for wood (e.g. according to the EQ criteria used by competitors in
R&D of new products and technologies); predicting which of
competing products customers regard as potential and actual
substitutes and why
12
(Day et al, 1979)
6. Tool to generate new product ideas
!"
#Gavish, Horsky and
Srikanth 1983; Shooker and Srinivasan 1974); looking for new
ways to improve wood products in the biocompatibility /
habitability
7. Bringing new impulses for the restoration of the environment
polluted not only through emissions but also by iron-reinforced
concrete dwellings, especially through flats of houses; impulses
for renovation of houses from the 1950s, 60s and 70s through
an increasing awareness of eco- and health- conscious building
and living
23
*+,PT03 2
8. mproving the education of potential users and non-users,
decision-makers, home builders, owners on objectified EQ,
biocompatibility / habitability of materials and products (durch die
zunehmende Sensibilisierung fuer ein umwelt- und
gesudheitsbewustes Bauen und Wohnen)
9. filling up te information vacuum in quantitative data about
positive ecological effects of natural materials such as wood and
wood products; competing branches, together with ecologists and
even with some forest professionals base their activity more on
prejudices and politics than on objective knowledge, and connect
wood utilization with forest damage in both temperate and tropical
types of forests. Simultaneously with the studies of positive
effects of forest product branches on CO2 balances, the research
of eco- balances and eco- properties must be intensified.
10. Answering basic questions concerning EQ of wood and wood
products:
s wood really so much better as other competing materials as
indicate the psychometric preferences (see Chapter 5.2)?
Can the conclusions on EQ of wood be used for wood
composites and products?
What is the effect of various technological processes on the
EQ, biocompatibility / habitability and sensory properties of
materials and products?
Today, both companies and consumers are as environment-sensitive as they
are interest rate-sensitive or inflation-sensitive. The eco-sensitizing processes
continue. New eco-impulses and data also have economical consequences;
especially effective is the objective, empirical ecological data and
experimentally supported information about the effects of various materials on
physical or psychic health.
This study has been performed in the framework of international cooperation
between SSH Biel, Switzerland and SDVU (former the Czechoslovak now the
Slovak Forest products Research nstitute) Bratislava, Slovakia. These
institutions serve in two countries that have sufficiently different levels of
environment, economy and health, including life expectancy.
n Middle- and East- European countries the level of solving environmental
problems and restructuring the economy into a more environmentally sound
configuration are all much lower. There are many reasons for this, of course.
The environmental problems will play an important role by restoring the health
of society, the economy, and the environment. Now, the people who purchase
goods and services do not positively enough influence these processes.
24
Something can be solved by increasing the effectiveness and quality of work
of the environmental bureaucracy, through the modernization of
environmental legislation and by increasing the overall environmental
discipline. But the problem of restoring the dwelling environment is important
too. For example the relative consumption of nat%ral building materials in
relation to concrete, steel and other artificial materials in Slovakia, in this
Central-European country where the afforestation is 35%, and allowed annual
cut is 6mil.m
3
, is extremely low. More than a half of people that previously
used to live in dwellings built mostly from natural materials, wood, stone and
bricks, live and work now in blocks of flats from iron reinforced concrete,
plastics and other artificial materials.
The concrete pollution of environment could be a problem also in the most
developed countries. For example the annual cement production in
Switzerland 6million tons corresponds to 18 million tons of concrete or 3 tons
per capita, while the annual wood consumption 7 million m3 corresponds to 3
million tons or 0.5 tons per capita. n spite of that the use of wood and other
natural materials for building materials, floors, furniture and other products is
on relatively high level in comparison with other European countries.
The production and use of such building materials which people prefer
generally less (if they have a chance for choose) as iron-reinforced concrete,
is in Europe much higher than of that people consider to be "healthier" ones
(chapter 5.3).
t is not known at present in what extent represent the less preferred aterials
a real pollution for environment and danger for psychical or physical comfort,
or health.
An interesting question is what is a role the EQ of building materials plays in
the creating of the psychical, physical and social comfort or - in the words of
WHO simply - the health of people. There is a lack of systematic data,
evidences, and suitable measuring and evaluating methods to determine a
position of the aterial poll%tion (pollution of dwelling environment through the
ecologically inferior building materials) in the complex with the other
environmental factors influencing health, such as food-, air-, water-, and
earth- pollution, negative radiation or stress. t is not known at present
whether and in what extent the significantly worse dwelling environment in
one country contributes to the worse health of its inhabitants in comparison
with the better one. E.g. the life expectancy at birth for men in 1991 in
Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and sland was in the range 74 - 75.7 years, in
other most West-European countries 72 - 74 years, in Middle and East-
European countries and Turkey it was 66 - 69 and in Russia 63 - 64 years.
The differences in life expectancy at birth for women are similar but the
nominal values are generally 5 - 7 years higher. t could only be supposed
that the existing significant differences in health in individual European
countries are caused through a synthesis of social factors and environmental
factors shown above.
25
*+,PT03 2
Both the poorer and better should study the phenomena for benefit of both, for
the benefit of better environment, health and prosperity of eco-progressive
branches.
Because a lack of knowledge they are mostly believes and subjective
preferences, together with existing production capacities and economy that
control the material composition of dwelling environment.
nternational cooperation can be useful in exchanging experience, allowing
scientists to compare the data on people living in various material dwelling
environment; this could bring help to less developed countries; and it could
also bring better possibilities for comparisons, necessary for objectifying of
BC/HA;.
Spending money on ecological research has some disadvantages perhaps;
for example it must not always bring instant financial gratification or short term
effects. But in return, we can enjoy the hope of a healthier world, while
continuing to increase our own living standards, prosperity and
competitiveness.
This study corresponds to the strategy of research proposed in the area of
ecological quality (EQ) of environmentally and bio-progressive materials and
man-made products: Worldwide Research Strategies in An Era of Ecological
Concern, presented and discussed at the 42nd Forest Products Research
Society Annual Meeting, in the top level of the Meeting "Worldwide Research
Strategies, Qubeck, Canada 1988 (Katuscak 1988).
The revitalization processes need new impulses as well as long-term
perspectives. Objective data can play a role by comparing as objectively as
possible the effects of various competing materials and products on complex
psychic, physical and social health, comfort or well - being and the
environment. More persuasive education and advertisement should be based
on such data.
t is necessary to support research on the EQ, BC, and HA of wood in
comparison with other materials, including physiological, psychometric and
physical experiments.
People are increasingly health sensitive.
People are increasingly environmentally and bio compatibility of all man-
made products sensitive.
Both green sentiment, and knowledge based on quantitative empirical data
among consumers, non-consumers, environmental bureaucracy, government
and other decision-makers can give new inspiration, impulses and orientation
to the building industry and to all industries and services related to the
26
creation and restoration of the health dwelling environment. (W. Mann 2000,
MacKinnon 2001).
27
*+,PT03 2
References
28
,./P01R "
#efinition of t$e properties re%iewed
3.1. Need for a universal biocompatibility language . 0rror6 3eference source
not found
3.2. Definitions ............................................. 0rror6 3eference source not found
*+,PT03 3
. !efinition of t"e properties
re#iewed
3.1.Need for a uniersal biocompatibility language
Students of history, and probably not only they, agree that human progress
was slow until language developed; then the experience acquired by one
person could be imparted to others. t produces sufficient positive synergism
for all human activities. The dependence of the development rate on the
existence of language is of general validity for all human activities
14
(McAdam
1981).
The specialists in traditional biomedical are developing biocompatible
products for sick people. They are working and thinking of health as the
absence of sickness. They understand the biocompatibility and the
biocompatible materials are items only of biomedical significance only for ill
people and pharmaceutical corporations and doctors of traditional 20
th
century
west medicine dealing in 99 % with illness and sickness. They think the
biocompatible materials can be applied
1. to the permanent replacement of defective organs and tissues,
2. temporary support of defective or normal organs,
3. storage or purification of blood and
4. control of drug delivery
5. cosmetic surgery and
6. other functions for ill or sick people.
All the bioedical devices are intended for ill or sic+ people
15
(kada 1994).
The fundamental reason of this attitude and paradigm of the 20
th
century west
medicine is its concentration on sickness and sick people. The healthy people
are not the priority until they get sick. The apparently naturally the priority of
the traditional 20
th
century west medicine is to help to sick people. To solve
results not the causes. The reason is missing education and knowledge on
real reasons of sickness. And economical reasons, incorrect financing and
insurance system only ill or sick people are the customers not the healthy
ones.
t is possible that the biocopatibility would be the property characteristic only
for biomedical products for ill people such as artificial plastic bones? s it a
privilege of artificial bones or other polymers of biomedical significance? Of
30
Definition of the properties revie2ed
course not, it is a property of materials of biological significance and all other
materials and productsError: Reference source not found ( kada et al. 1994).
Another question is whether the objective existing property is used in a
particular application and to what extent. The question is what is the intensity
of the interactions between material and man or more generally material
organism.
s the biocompatibility a privilege of materials aimed for ill people only? s a
biocopatibility of products a privilege of sickness or intended for sick people
only? No. Has the quantity - biocompatibility only negative values like
negative part of quantity - temperature? Why? s it possible to use the
biocompatibility for healthy products and people or not? Who could allow it?
May be the pharmaceutical corporations or commissioners of authorized
organizations? Or doctors of medicine thinking in terms of the traditional 20
th
century medicine? We do not think so. What we can get from them are only
opinions.
f a standard property such as a temperature can be measured in one material
it can be measured on all materials. f a standard property like temperature
can be measured in one application of a material it can be measured in all
applications generaly. f the property can be used for ill people it can be used
for healthy people too. f the property can be used for pharmaceutical industry
it can be used for all industries. Generallisation: the existence of a standard
property is material and application independent. t is company and industry
independent. t is any formal authority independent. The property or quantity
is general phenomena existing for all materials and applications.
Up till now, an unambiguous basis upon which to build a universal language
for the biocompatibility and habitability of building materials has not existed. n
the last few years, only the language about ecological balances has been
sufficiently improved. n our opinion without a language about complex
ecological quality, biocompatibility or habitability, the development is very
slow, depending on individual intuition; when a language is founded, the
development will accelerate through positive synergism of interdisciplinary
cooperation between more branches of R&D and simultaneously support the
subjective intuition and creative force of individual professionals in this area.
The terms described below have been used or proposed as one of the
necessary steps of the creating a universal biocompatibility / habitability
language.
31
*+,PT03 3
3.2.!efinitions
Anthropomorphous
human-like, corresponding to human perception. For example: R, UV or even
visible Spectral values or the X,Y,Z data of CE are not anthropomorphous,
while CE /ab parameters, the yellowness degree according to Hoechst, or
whiteness according to Stensby, blac+ness according to the Natural Color
System, are anthropomorphous.
Aesthetic properties
sensory and physical properties of materials and objects, and
anthropomorphous complexes, responsible for positive or negative aesthetic
perceptions and evaluations of observer
16, 17
(Faulkner 1972; Winter 1986).
Biocompatibility #BC$
of materials and products with living organisms, man, animals and plants
expresses interactions of the material with living organisms. n general it
expresses the direct or indirect interactions of the material with living
organisms. These interactions can arise either by direct contact of the living
body/ tissue of the organism with the material or indirectly thro%gh air, ass
or energetic fields.
Semantically bio&copatibility of a aterial evokes a clear image of certain
effects and a certain measure of agree ability between the two objects -
material and biological object. But it does not contain information on how far
or how close the two objects are; the word copatibility does not contain
distance between the considered objects. t does not carry any information
about the direction of the effects, about the d%ration of the interactions,
whether these interactions are positive, neutral or negative ones. Therefore
we think that biocompatibility of materials can be used as the general
category for expressing any interactions between material and biological
objects. A special case of bio-compatibility is habitability or dwelling ability of
materials and products.
Biocompatibility #BC$ of materials and products "ith living organisms,
such as humans, animals and plants
Generally, this term expresses interactions of material with living organisms.
"opatibility in general means agreeability, cooperation, harmony, unanimity,
equanimity (Vertaeglichkeit, Vereinbarkeit); copatible & getting along well
32
together, going well together, complementing each other. B" of materials is
an interdisciplinary area of material engineering, medicine and ecology.
Biocopatibility is relevant or irrelevant to the phenomena in question and
they achieve particular values for a specific function.
Biocopatibility as a $%antity is neither good nor bad, just as temperature,
time, dimension or other priary quantities are neither good nor bad. They
are relevant or irrelevant to the phenomena in question and they achieve
particular values for a specific function. Examples: temperature is a useful and
relevant quantity for expressing conditions in a refrigerator or on the sun, but
nobody can say that a higher temperature is better than a lower one; it is quite
good to have -10 degree of Celsius in the refrigerator but it would be a
catastrophe to have it on the sun. Still, in both cases the temperature is
relevant for the objectively quantifying, understanding, and communicating
about the performance of both systems.
Biocompatibility of materials
Category/ properties describing the behavior of material in relation to the bio-
system, human body or other living organism.
Biocompatibility of biomedical materials
at the beginning and at the simplest level, this term was used to indicate a
total absence of interaction between material and tissue (total inertness of
material as the highest aim of its biocompatibility). B" of biomedical materials
has been redefined in recent years (Williams 1978) as the "ability of material
to perform with an appropriate host (organism) response in specific
application". After some modification, this definition can be used also for
further materials; of greater relevance than inertness (see above) is that the
material and the organism/tissue should interact in the most appropriate way
to ensure health. t is concerned with all aspects of the interaction that occur
but focuses on the development of the response of the organism. This
response of the organism, being the reaction of the organism to the material,
controls the performance of the organism and is subjective to a certain extent,
but it is simultaneously controlled by the characteristics of the material and
especially its sensory, physical, chemical, hygienic and further properties and
stability.
The biocompatibility tests predict how the body will react to product contact.
Biocompatibility is the ability of a material to perform with an appropriate host
response in a specific application
18
. (Williams 1999) The critique against this
definition usually boils down to the fact that it is not possible to make a single
test that determines whether a material is biocompatible or not. ndeed, since
the immune response and repair functions in the body are so complicated it
would seem odd that one can make one test to determine the biocompatibility
of any given material. At present they are usually performed under the SO
33
*+,PT03 3
Biocompatibility Guideline, including cytotoxicity, mutagenicity and
pyrogenicity. Sometimes one hears of biocompatibility testing that is
comprised of a large battery of in vitro test that is used in accordance with SO
10993 to determine if a certain material (or rather biomedical product) is
biocompatible. These test do not determine the biocompatibility of a material,
but they comprise an important step towards the animal testing and finally
clinical trials that will determine the biocompatility of the material in a given
application, and thus biomedical product. n short: there is no such thing as a
universally biocompatible material but there are degrees of biocompatibility
19
(Williams 2003).
Biodegradability
Biodegradability is a property expressing the measure of the materials or
product ability to be degraded by biological factors. Biodegradable product is
being able to be broken down by natural processes, into more basic
components. Products are usually broken down by bacteria, fungi or other
simple organisms. By this definition, most chemicals are biodegradable; the
only thing differing would be the ao%nt of tie it takes to break down. A
piece of biomass based material will break down rather quickly, whereas a
piece of plastic will take decades and beyond.
Rate of breakdown may not be as important as what the product breaks down
into. The ideal final products of any complex product of carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen would be carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). A majority of
products are made mostly of these three elements. The previously mentioned
piece of bread is made mostly of these, and after breaking down from
complex sugars to simpler sugars, will eventually degrade to CO2 and H2O.
This process would be accelerated if we ate the bread and our body would
break it down and use it as energy, until only CO2 and H2O are left. n a
perfect would all products would break down to CO2 and H2O. t gets more
complicated with different chemicals. The banned pesticide DDT, is
hazardous and toxic in its own right. t does biodegrade, rather slowly. The
problem is that its breakdown products of DDD and DDE are even more toxic
and dangerous than the original DDT Error: Reference source not found
(Bianucci)
The main (active) cleaning chemical is a nonylphenolethoxylate (NPE), made
solely of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. This class of chemicals are
considered suspicious because they are possible endocrine disruptors. This
means they may mimic the endocrine hormones and may cause havoc with a
female's reproductive system. NPE's do biodegrade to a benzene ring type
structure and other simpler structures. This biodegrading may or may not lead
to a less hazardous chemical, but still hazardous
20
(Bianucci). Although it is
biodegradable, this product is by no means environmentally friendly.
0enewability is higher quality than the biodegradability. f a material is
biodegradable it does mean that it is renewable. For example natural polymer
34
cell%lose is renewable by nature while the nature can make from it cellulose
again through photosynthesis; Synthetic polymer such as polyvinyl alcohol
can be biodegradable but the nature can not made from it the polyvinyl
alcohol. t is recommended to design it exactly biodegradable but not
renewable.
Compatibility
in general means agree ability, congruability, co-operation, harmony,
unanimity, equinimity (Vertaeglichkeit, Vereinbarkeit); copatible & getting
along well together, going well together, complementing each other.
Characteristic feature
is the feature invariant on the feature variability in the frame of one class by
recognition in h%ano odo or machine recognition
21
(Katuscak, Hruz 1986).
For example a characteristic feature of a letter is its center of gravity, while it
is independent or very low dependent on the type of machine or hand writing,
and its co-ordinate are quite characteristic/different e.g. for letter O and L and
can be therefore used for the recognition of the two letters.
C%E means The Commission nternationale de l`Eclairage; the commission
coordinating works on the quantifying & standardization of phenomena
connected with light and h%ano odo or machine vision (e.g. color, gloss,
pattern recognition).
Classification of materials in relation to their BC/&A'
natural
mineral
biological, plant biomaterials, animal or human biomaterials
synthetic/artificial
identical with natural (e.g. ascorbic acid, vitamin C)
similar to natural, or easily biodegradable
xenobiotic (the biodegradation is difficult)
biomedical biomaterials for medicine, e.g. implants.
Biological material
is a material coming from plants or animals.
Biomaterial
35
*+,PT03 3
in general, is a substance which is able to substitute for an original living part
of the body is called a "biomaterial". A synonymous term is "biomedical
material". A comprehensive definition of this term was articulated in 1982 at
the NH Consensus Development Conference
22
(Galletti and Boretos 1983) on
the Clinical Application of Biomaterials as follows: "any substances, other than
a drug, or combination of substances, synthetic or natural in origin, which can
be used for any period of time, as a whole or a part of a system, which treats,
augments or replaces any tissue, organ or function of the body". At the
European Society for Biomaterials Consensus Conference held in Chester,
UK, in 1986, there was significant disagreement with this definition and the
following new simple definition was agreed on: "Biomaterial - a non-viable
material used in a medical device intended to interact with biological
systems"
23
(Williams 1987). These definitions imply or include the word
"material", which indicates a substance, generally of solid consistency, useful
for manufacturing an object.
Complex Quality #Q$
The complex quality of material or product has the following groups of criteria:
technical (TQ), economical (EcQ), aesthetical (AQ), and ecological and/or
environmental (EQ). Complex quality consists of the technical, economical,
aesthetical and ecological or biological and environmental partial qualities.
&"elling Ability or (abitability #&A/(A$
For special case of the bio-compatibility of the materials and products in the
dwelling environent the terms dwelling ability (DA)
24, 25
(Takemura, Sato and
Tsuzuki 1986; Watanabe 2000) or habitability
12,13, 14, 1.,
(Brauer and Davis 1977;
Celentano, Amorelli, and Freeman 1963; Fraser 1968; Jones 1973) has been
used.
Ecological )uality #EQ$ of materials/processes
is a complex of the categories, properties, and data expressing the
interactions of the materials (here wood and the compared materials) or
processes, with man and other living components of the environment, for the
evaluation of the environmental dimensions of materials, products and
processes.
36
Figure 12 T"e classification of ecological quality $%&'. T"e relations between eco(
balances) eco(properties and eco(profiles.
The E5 of aterials expresses the part of material quality related to the
environment throughout all stages of its existence, from its origin, production,
and use, to ageing and recycling. The category of ecological $%ality !E5# of
aterials was probably for the first time used and formulated at the
conference: World-wide Research Strategies in Forest Products, at the 42nd
Annual Meeting of the Forest Products Research Society in Quebec
30
(Katuscak 1988). The first attempt of classification was also made here.
Simultaneously, the ecological quality should be quantified and that eco-
properties (EP) such as sensory properties, biocompatibility, eco-physical
properties, recycling or some other properties of materials will be formulated
gradually as a special group of properties in addition to the previously better-
known and more commonly used groups of physical, mechanical, and
chemical properties. During the last 5 years, substantial systematic work has
been done on the quantifying of ecological quality, but mainly in the field of
eco-balances. Much less systematically, work has been done in the field
which we call eco-properties of materials. Although the actuality/relevancy of
the question of the eco&$%ality ("oekologische Qualitt") has been accepted,
the EQ is mainly or only understood as eco-balances
31
(*e+obilanzen 1992).
Eco*balances
are the data expressing the consumption of energy and raw-materials, air-,
water-, and earth-pollution and effects on the CO
2
-balance, throughout the
whole life-cycle of a material/product
32, 33, 34, 35, 36
(BUS 1984; Hanger 1988;
Habersatter and Widmer 1991; Meier et al, 1991; Holenstein 1991).
37
*+,PT03 3
Ecological properties #EP$ of materials
are the quantities expressing quantitatively partial interactions of the particular
material with men and other living components (M/O interactions) of the
environment, including hygienic and toxicological properties and
biocompatibility/habitability, biophysical, sensory and recycling properties.
One of the first steps of scientific work on the quantifying of new phenomena
is classification. n the Table 1 we propose a variant of the classification of
eco-properties.
As the first group of EP we suggest sensory properties because the first
detection of a materials and its EP goes through sensors of living organism.
As the second group of EP we suggest biocompatibility / habitability (BC/HA)
as the properties expressing results of M/O interactions. They should express
effects of materials on psychical or physical comfort or health through any
methods or using any partial quantities. The third group is primary properties
related to health effects. The fourth group of EP expresses recycling ability of
material.
38
0able 1 Classification of ecological properties $%P' and biocompatibility of materials
.ensory
properties
!io8compatibility(
+abitability )!*(+,-
or
D2elling ,bility
)!*(D,-
0co8physical
properties
3ene2ability and
3ecycling
properties
Categories or
quantities of
materials or
products
detectable
and
evaluated by
sensors of
human or
other living
organism
Categorial quantities of
materials or products
expressing organism
materials interactions
through the
anthropomorphous
complexes of
biological, sensory,
psychometric,
psychophysical or
physical properties and
information
Complexes of physical
properties of materials or
products correlating
withand objectively
expressing the eco-
quality (E!,
biocompatibility("C!
#habitability ("C#$%!& 'or
the sa(e of simplicity the
prefix eco- or bio- is not
repeated in the following
eco-related properties
)roperties
expressing the
renewability by
nature ("C#*n!
degradability
("C#d! and ability
of materials or
products to be
recycled("C#*! by
man
#isual
color
te*ture
#isual
roug"ness
ot"er optical
properties
$e.g.'
"ygienic
to*ic
allergic
to*ic(allergic
ot"ers
bio(t"ermal
comfort
discomfort
conducti#ity
ot"ers
renewability and
biodegradability
t"roug" fungi
in eart"
in vivo in "ig"er
organisms
tactile
e.g. tactile
roug"ness
biocompatibility $e.g. of
biomedical mat.'
bio(optical ageing properties
p"oto(induced
weat"ering
odor)
olfactory
"abitability $e.g. of
materials+products in
interiors'
bio(electrical mec"anical and
c"emical
degradability
aest"etic animal+plants
compatibility
bio(structural re(use ability
ot"ers $degree of '
natural c"aracter
bio(c"emical) bio(
p"ysicoc"emical
combustion+
pyrolytic(ability)
to*icity of t"e
products
39
*+,PT03 3
The aim of this alternative classification is not to attain total accuracy, but to
serve as a creative ip%lse and help in the search for new methods of
quantifying of those said properties which have not yet been quantified.
Eco*profile
of material/product is a complex of quantified and non-quantified eco-balance
data and bio-compatibility or eco-properties. The quantified data should be
preferred and as far as possible, related to one weight unit of the material (kg)
for the sake of creating maximally compatible databases about various
materials; only in interpretative later stages in various functional applications
can the kg data be easily recalculated to the units of areaError: Reference
source not found (BUS 1984) or volumes of products or to one alternative
product. When the basic kilogram eco-profiles are to be applied to flat
products as paper, foils or textiles, which basic function is to cover, at
otherwise comparable functional qualities, some area, it is rational to
recalculate the basic eco-profiles to area units. At the comparisons of
products - of otherwise comparable technical quality - e.g. the four various
milk packaging made from glass, aluminum, paper and plastics, or when
comparing alternative windows made from various materials, the eco-profile
must be related to the product itself. This is easily made from the kilogram
fundamental profiles of particular materials according to their weight portion in
the packaging or the windowError: Reference source not found (Habersatter
and Widmer 1991). The early definitions of eco-profile came from the
definition of ecology itself (BUS 1984) as the science about the relationships
of living organisms and the environment; but if one comes from this definition,
it is not possible to omit the most important effects on health or interactions
with an and other organisms (*e+oprofil 1990) during all stages of the
complex material/product cycle
37
(Schwarz 1991) and not only the pollution of
the air, water and soil through emissions from the production of a particular
material or product. f one comes to rely on the definition of ecology, one must
consider, in the eco-profile of the material/product, the pollutions and the
effects on mans health and other living organisms during utilization.
(abitability
Biocopatibility (BC) of material expresses the direct or indirect
interactions of the material with living organisms. These interactions can arise
either by direct contact of any part of the organism with the material or
indirectly thro%gh air, ass or energy fields. For the special case of the
interactions of the materials used in the constr%ction of hoes (construction
and siding materials, floors, beds, chairs and other parts of furniture, etc.) and
humans, the term Habitability (HA) has sometimes been usedError:
Reference source not found
, Error: Reference source not found, Error: Reference source not found, Error:
(Brauer and Davis 1977; Celentano, Amorelli, and Freeman
1963; Fraser 1968; Jones 1973) or dwelling ability (DA)Error: Reference
source not found
, Error: Reference source not found
(Takemura, Sato and Tsuzuki 1986;
40
Watanabe 2000). The habitability - category or quantity expressing positive or
negative interactions of materials, products or systems with the organisms
living in habitat or dwelling environment.
The habitability quantifying has got sence only after the basic qualitative
requirements have been fullfilled, as shown in the Table 2.
0able 2, -abitability basic requirements C"ec.list. T"e t"ings t"at can affect
"abitability. /0 Ci#il Code 11231.1 and -ealt" and 0afety Code 114225..
1lectrical
6all switc"es 7all
wor.89
:ig"t fi*tures 7all
wor.89
%*terior lig"ts wor.
For your e*terior
doors
For stairways
For garage+par.ing
For common
wal.ways
%lectrical outlets 7all
wor.89
Power 0table 7or
goes out89
;o s"oc.s from any
part
<FI 7"a#e reset
button9 plugs
=round .itc"en sin.
=round bat"room
sin.
Fans all wor.ing
ceiling 7eg) bat"room9
"eater 7eg) bat"room9
abo#e sto#e
0witc"+plug Co#er
plates
;one missing or
bro.en
0mo.e alarms wor.
properly
Plumbing
-ot and cold water
supplied
-ot water "eated
enoug"
=dequate water
pressure
For bot" "ot and
cold8
To all faucets8
To was"ing
mac"ines8
;o bursts
Clean water
Free of rust)
discoloration
>dor free
;o bad taste 7eg)
sewage9
=dequate drainage
;o bac.ups into
sin.+tub
Fast drainage
in all sin.s
in s"ower+bat"tub
<arbage disposal
flows
?at"tub drain closes
fully
0in. stoppers close
fully
Toilets
fill and flus" quic.ly
3indows
=dequate number of
windows
;o crac.s or bro.en
glass
;o gaps in panes or
windows
6eat"er sealing 7no
drafts9
6indows t"at open
>pen easily and
don@t stic.
0tay open as needed
Close completely
and latc"
<round floor
windows loc.
=ll "a#e window
screens
;o "oles or tears
Frames unbent)
unbro.en
#oors
0olid in frame 7not
loose9
=ll open wit"out
stic.ing
=ll easily close
securely
=ll "a#e wor.ing
.nobs
=ll "a#e wor.ing
4tructure
Ceilings all secure
;o "oles) fla.ing)
looseness
;o lea.s) stains from
lea.s
;ot collapsing or soft
6alls all secure
;o "oles or gaps to
outside
;o wea.) damp or
soft spots
Protected surface
near water
0"ower area
waterproofed
=dequate "eat
insulation
Paint is not fla.ing or
peeling) and
is not lead(based
0tairways and rails
secure
%art"qua.e
retrofitting done
;o roof lea.s from
rain
6eat"er(sealed walls
7ie) dry9
0ealed underground
walls
/nflooded basement
areas
41
*+,PT03 3
!oorbell wor.s well
0ecurity system
wor.s well
.eating+/ir
,onditioning
<as+%lectric room
"eater
%*ists and wor.s
T"ermostat wor.s
properly
Pro#ides adequate
"eat
Pilot stays lit
!oes not produce
odor
>t"er "eaters
"eat lamps 7eg)
bat"room9
wall "eaters
7electrical9
=ir Conditioning
%*ists and wor.s
=dequately cools all
rooms
Aa.es a loud noise)
etc.
/ppliances
Refrigerator wor.s
properly
0to#e+>#en wor.s
properly
6as"er+!ryer wor.
properly) etc.
;o bac.ups)
o#erflows
Flus"ing mec"anism
wor.s
!on@t lea. at all
From water line to
wall
=t t"e base on t"e
floor
From crac.s or Boints
Faucets on sin.s and
tub
firmly placed and
unbro.en
wor. easily on and
off
Completely stop 7no
drips9
:ea.y plumbing
Faucets don@t lea.
w"en used 7from
stem9
>nto or under
counter
!rains don@t lea.
under sin.
!is"was"er doesn@t
lea.
Clot"es was"er
doesn@t lea.
-oses ("ot and cold
inta.e
!rainage "ose etc.
latc"es
%*terior doors "a#e
deadbolts
6eat"er stripping 7no
drafts9
T"res""old is solid)
unbro.en
;o bro.en glass
7e*terior9
0liding glass doors
0lide wit"out effort
Close and loc.
securely
;o tears or "oles in
screen
0creen door secure
in trac.
0creen door latc"es
closed
;o crac.s or bro.en
glass
0creen doors on
%*teriors
Properly mounted
Closing de#ice wor.s
well
Frame unbent and
unbro.en
;o "oles or tears in
screen
>pens and closes
properly
Flooring
;o unco#ered "oles
in floors
;o floor separating
from wall
;o wea. or loose
floorboard) etc.
,ommon /reas
6or.ing security
gates) etc.
Clean swimming pool
=dequate e*terior
lig"ting
6or.ing intercom
system
6al.ways wit" trip
"azards
6or.ing) lit laundry
room
=dequate tras"
bins+pic.up
;o tras"+debris+Bun.
5uisances
.ealt$, Infestations
of mice) rats)
coc.roac"es) ants)
spiders) termites)
bees) wasps)
"ornets) flies)
pigeons) mosquitos)
etc.
Aold) mildew)
mus"rooms in any
interior part of t"e
unit
/nsanitary water)
sewage
;o*ious fumes from
sewer) c"emicals)
paints) neig"bors
,rime, C!rug
traffic.ingC and Cgang
acti#ityC are
nuisances
=ssault) rape)
molestation robbery)
burglary) prostitution)
etc. are arguably
nuisance) etc.
42
We consider the BC to have a more general meaning than the HA: BC
concerns all materials coming in contact with living organisms, such as
biomedical materials, upholstery and clothing textiles, plastics, building
materials, etc., while HA specifically concerns materials in environments
inhabited by human beings.
We propose to consider the habitability (HA) or dwelling ability as partial
quantities of bio-compatibility (BC), eco-properties (EP) and eco-quality (EQ in
Figure 1 and Table 1), and the EQ is a part of a complex technical,
economical, aesthetical and ecological quality (Q) (See the "oplex
5%ality. Habitability is a special case of bio-compatibility in a material dwelling
environment. The objects could be either immovable such as buildings or
movable such as cars, ships or space crafts. The habitability quantify the
interactions between construction, insulation, siding, flooring, decorative,
tangible or distant materials or products such as floors, furniture, electronics
and other equipment, etc. and man or living organism.
The relation between BC and HA seems to be similar to that between, for
example, mechanical properties and strength, or between optical properties
and color. Semantically, the biocopatibility of a aterial evokes a clear
image of certain effects and a certain measure of agreeability between the
material object on the one hand, and the biological one on the other. But it
does not contain information on the distance between the two objects.
Similarly, it does not imply any information about the direction of the effects,
the d%ration of the interactions, or whether these interactions are positive,
neutral or negative. Therefore, we think that biocopatibility of materials
can be used as the general category for expressing any interactions between
material and biological objects. Habitability, then, is a term subordinated to
biocompatibility. The fact that the term biocompatibility has been used in the
literature, especially in the medical area, does not prohibit the proposed
general definition, as the appropriate term for medical applications is
biocompatibility of biomaterials or biocompatibility of biomedical materials..
From the methodological, experimental and instrumental point of view, it is
rational to analyze biocopatibility and habitability of materials in their mutual
connection. The BC of other groups of materials, e.g. of biomedical or textile
materials, can serve as the source of methodical and experimental
approaches for the HA of building and other interior materials and products. n
the following text, we use the symbol BC/HA for the biocompatibility or
habitability or dwelling ability of materials in the environment.
The BC and HA are both secondary properties
38, 39
(Galileo Galilei 1623;
Russell 1910; Massof and Bird 1978) and a part of the complex ecological
quality of materials.
43
*+,PT03 3
(ygienic and toxicological properties
of materials express content and/or emission of harmful substances (such as
formaldehyde, organic solvents, dioxin, vinyl chloride, chlorine containing low-
molecular and macromolecular substances), expressed e.g. in micrograms
per weight or volume unit of the material, or emission rate (ppm, mg/m
3
).
These characteristics express negative effects/properties of materials and
products. n Table 1, the hygienic properties are understood as a part of the
complex biocopatibility and habitability (HA) or dwelling ability of
material. n comparison with the other groups of eco-properties/
biocompatibility / habitability (Table 1), this is already the best quantified
group of properties. n the proposals of further experimental work, we suggest
that for the testing of the parts of biocompatibility / habitability other than the
hygienic, biocompatibility / habitability properties should be measured on such
materials which already passed through official hygienic tests and
requirements. The literature about the hygienic properties of wood, wood
products and other building materials, about the allergic, toxic and allergic-
toxic effects of individual harmful substances is rich, containing dynamically
developed systems of data, standards, recommendations, laws and
regulations, on national and international levelsError: Reference source not
found
, 40, 41
(see literature review about hygienic properties of building
materials in e.g. Schwarz 1991, toxic and allergic properties of woods Hausen
1981, or of the gases from liquidation of some treated wood products of
Hirada et al, 1992).
+aterial
is the word indicating a substance, generally of solid consistency, useful for
manufacturing an object. The substance or matter of which anything is made
or may be made. Pertaining to the matter, as opposed to the form, of a thing.
,atural material
A material having its origin in nature, without meaningful changes of its
composition through man-made materials or chemicals.
Psychometric properties
are the results of evaluating the material/product through psychometric
methods, as opposed to psycho-physical ones, which are concerned with the
scaling of stimuli of unknown physical dimensionality according to the
reactions that these stimuli produce on human subjects. The typical example
is sorting ten photographs of human female faces according to perceived
feminine beauty. The beauty depends on multidimensional aspects of the
44
stimuli, and an independent physical specification of the photographic images
is not possible.
Psycho*physical properties
are the results of psycho-physical measurements in which a single physical
dimension (such as light intensity, lightness) is manipulated and can be
independently measured and both measurements can be compared and
correlated.
-ene"ability
Renewability is a category expressing the ability of materials or products to be
recycled in nature. The renewability is also the multidimensional quantity
useful for assessments of materials and products to be reused by nature.
Renewable is biomass. Partially renewable could be the composite products
made from biomass and synthetic plastics. Renewability is a quality superior
to recyclability or biodegradability. f a product is biodegradable
-ecycling properties
express the degradability and ability of materials or products to be re-used
and recycled . From the point of view of the methods of quantifying and
measurement the most important are: degradation/stability (bio-, photo-,
weather-, chemically- and mechanically- induced/performed degradation) and
related kinetic parameters, re-use abilities and toxicity of degradation
products, e.g. from pyrolysis or combustion.
.ensory properties
of materials are secondary physical properties, which quantitatively express
color, texture, and other optical properties, as well as aesthetic, tactile, odor,
acoustic and other properties which can be sensed, perceived and evaluated
through the sensors of living beings.
Living organism is in permanent interactions with material environment. t
reacts to the external sti%li from its material environment. The quality and
intensity of the stimuli acting of a material onto human sensors depends on
the sensory properties of the material. The sensory properties co-estimate the
quality and intensity of the stimuli of the material environment on human
organism. These stimuli are either %nder&threshold ones, which the organism
perceives but does no react to and threshold or over-threshold to which the
organism reacts.
45
*+,PT03 3
.timul
Stimulus (plural: stimuli) may refer to: A stimulus is anything that may have an
impact on a system; an input to the system. Stimulus in physiology, is
something external that elicits or influences a physiological or psychological
activity or response. n psychology, the stimulus refer to anything effectively
impinging upon any of the sensory apparatuses of a living organism, including
physical phenomena both internal and external to the body. Stimulation, the
action of various agents (stimuli) on muscles, nerves, or a sensory end organ.
Although related, the word's meaning is distinct from that of "stimulant."
The res%lt of the sti%li of an material environment on an organism are
effects, They can be divided to:
fysiological (they do not disturb its internal environment and
hoeostasis, or the dynamic equilibrium of the relative stable, internal
environment; they do not damage the organism)
pathological (they change sufficiently the stability of the internal
environment; they damage the organism).
The reaction of living organism to the stimuli from a material
environment is:
a%toatic control (of internal environment, in certain range without
endangering the organism)
adaptation (adjustment to the new conditions)
illness,.
The sensory properties of materials are known mostly generally and
described by words. On the other hand, some technical parameters
semantically close to a sensory property in question are used for the
description of a material by technicians
42, 43, 44, 45, 46
(Kollmann 1936, Bosshard
1984, Kaufman 1988, Hoadley 1990, Marchand 1991). Gradually, new
sensory properties better corresponding with human ways of perception and
evaluation are being studied, characterized and quantified (also see chapters
4.4.1. and 5.3.).
.ynthetic material
6an&ade or artificial material. A material made by man, usually through
chemical process, synthesis or modification. (see also the definition:
"Classification of aterials,,,").
46
References
47
,./P01R '
(eneralization and researc$ of biocompatibility of materials and products
.1. !iocompatibility generally ................... 0rror6 3eference source not found
.2. !iocompatibility and biofunctionality of biomaterials in medicine .. 0rror6
3eference source not found
3.2.1. ?iofunctionality #ersus biocompatibility of biomedical materials %rror,
3.2.2. Interfacial processes and properties%rror, Reference source not found
3.2.. %*amples of t"e e*perimental met"ods for measuring ?C of
biomaterials ...................................................... %rror, Reference source not found
.3. !iocompatibility of te$tiles used in upholstery and clothing ........... 0rror6
3eference source not found
.. !iocompatibility and habitability of building& furniture& automotive and
other materials and products ........................... 0rror6 3eference source not found
3.3.1. 0ensory properties ......................... %rror, Reference source not found
3.3.2. To*icity) biocompatibility and "abitability %rror, Reference source not
found
3.3. %co(p"ysical properties ...................... %rror, Reference source not found
3.3.3 Renewability and recycling properties of materials and products ... %rror,
9enerali7ation and research of biocompatibility of materials: products
3. <eneralization and researc"
of biocompatibility of
materials and products
".1.Biocompatibility generally
What is biocompatibility generalization? Can the biocompatibility become a
standard property of materials and products like temperature, optical
properties or flammability? s it possible to quantify the biocompatibility of all
materials as a contin%% - all materials? Like temperature, or any other
physical or chemical property?
6aterials and products
4timulus
from material en%ironment
flows of substance and energy
Psyc$ical
effects
P$ysical
effects
4ocial
effects
Psyc$ical
comfort
P$ysical
comfort
4ocial
comfort
7 .ealt$
of li%ing organism and li%ing system
This picture shows the continuous flows of stimuli from materials and products
influencing health. A stimulus is anything that may have an impact on
a system.
Materials and products from the material and energy environment represent
continuos stimulus for living organism or a living systems. A part of the energy
flow, and of the mass flow of elementary particles, atoms and molecules, air,
gases, volatile organic compound (VOC), etc. can not be detected by sensors
of a living organisms. Another part of these stimulus could be sensed. A part
of the continuos stimulus flows can be been perceived thrgough visual, tactile,
olfactory, listnening and other sensors.
49
*+,PT03
The both tangible and intangible stimulus effect continuously psychical,
physical and/or social comfort, which means health. This process continues
every second, 24 hours a day, the whole life of any living organism.
Each living organism or living system interacts with these mass and energy
currents continuosly.
The contin%o%s interactions of organisms with materials and environment has
the following consequences following main products of these interations are
for certain important:
Homeosthasis, adaptation, improving comfort and increase of
immunity of organism, immunized organizm
mpairment the psychical, or physical or social comfort or wellness
llness, sickness or death of the living organism or system
Unconscious changes of the material and energy environment, the
mass flow of elementary particles, atoms and molecules, air, gases,
volatile organic compound (VOC), e.g. increasing the oxygen, carbon
dioxide, water and organic toxines concentrations in surrounding or
global environment
Conscious positive changes of the dwelling environment
Conscious negative changes of the dwelling environment.
According the worldwide research strategies conference organized by Forest
Products Research Society by the end of eighties of last century along with
traditional physical, chemical properties a new group of properties will be
developed expressing interactions between materials and living systems
47
(Katuscak 1988). This group of health-related properties of materials and
products can be named eco-properties (ecological properties, eco-properties,
eco properties), or bio-compatibility
48
(Katuscak 2001). n this book we call the
the health-related properties "biocompatibility, while under the human health
we understand according to WHO mental, physical and social comfort. n the
sake of consistence under the biocompatibility or health-related properties
should be understood all properties of materials influencing the health; n the
case of man - the psychological or physical or social comfort of man.
Or are such continual models useful only for characterizing of individual
groups of materials such as inorganics, organics, concretes, lignocellulosics,
and plastics? The quantification of the biocompatibility of materials is a
relatively new area of science. t is an interdisciplinary area between material
science and engineering on the one side, and biology or medicine on the
other, using methods and approaches from chemistry, physics, biology,
mathematics, etc.
49
(Katuscak 1990).
50
Biocompatibility is a complex property expressing interactions between living
system and all man-made and natural products
50
(kada 1994) . From this
point of view it is useful in all areas of people activity, science education and
industry namely textile, building and architecture, automotive, food and
agriculture, natural and synthetic materials, organic, inorganic and metal
materials, biomass and forest products, design, informatics, communication,
electro engineering, , transport and energy.
There are following main types of materials and products from the point of
view of their effects on health:
Biomaterials, or biomedical materials (Mm)
Textiles, upholstery textiles or clothing textiles (Mt)
Materials and products of dwelling environment such as building and
automotive materials (Mi).
Best elaborated is the biocompatibility in the first area of biomaterials. Here
the contact between the material and living organism (Mm/O) is the closest;
the effect of the biomaterial on health is immediate. We consider it very
important to analyze this area, especially the methodological approaches and
methods of objectifying. t also can be useful to avoid less successful or
unsuccessful ways and failures e.g. of such tested/elaborated methods of
biocompatibility measurements which are not used in practice or which do not
work properly. An important source of knowledge can be experimental
techniques, instruments and practical use of the methods for BC
measurements.
The area of hygienic or physiological -hygienic properties and health effects of
textiles is also relatively well elaborated. The upholstery textiles, clothing
textiles and textiles in medicine create a micro climate on the surface of the
body. The reasons for analysis of the knowledge and methodology of
objectifying of BC/HA/ hygienic quality and effects of upholstery and clothing
textiles on health are the same as biomedical biomaterials. The contact and
interactions between the suit textile materials (Mt) and body (Mt/O) are not as
immediate as those by biomaterials inside of the body, but generally higher
than by building or interior materials.
The objectifying and measurement of the biocompatibility / habitability of the
third group of the building materials and other materials in stabile and mobile
interiors is the least elaborated area. The interactions Mi/O are generally not
as intensive as those of Mm or Mt. On the other hand, these effects are
generally longer, both if considered as the percentage of short periods of time
(days, months) or years, decades or centuries. The interactions Mm/O are
often very short, e.g. by the contact of blood with the Mm of the extracorporeal
devices to the vascular system during the surgical intervention time, or in the
case of Mm/O of the materials of drug delivery membranes used for controlled
release of the pharmaceuticals.
51
*+,PT03
The interactions between textiles and organism Mt/O generally last for days or
weeks; after such period the material is usually regenerated by washing or
cleaning when the foreign substances including toxic or bio-active ones are
extracted through water or organic solvent solutions. The interactions
between the building or interior materials and the organism Mi/O generally last
for a great part of the day, for years, or for one or several generations.
Biocompatibility is vital not only for medical devices
51
(Shalaby 1994) but for
all products.
t is accepted that biocompatibility is a property of material expressing
interactions between material and organism or body or body fluids.
The performance of materials is controlled by two sets of characteristics:
Bio&f%nctionality of aterials
Bio&copatibility of aterials,
Functionality of material or product is its ability to serve in a given application
and to fulfill the specific application related requirements. Bio-functionality
determines the ability of the material or product to perform the appropriate
and specified function. Examples: textiles, furniture, building and automotive
materials, carriers of information, packaging, construction, decorative and
insulation materials.
Bio-functionality may be considered in relation to a set of properties which
allow a device to perform a function. n order to specify the parameters of bio-
functionality, it is necessary to describe the reasons for using materials and
the functions required of the product. t is difficult to succinctly define the
reasons for using materials, since they vary widely from one application to
another.
n relation to the organism surface the materials may either be implanted
wholly or partially within the body (biomedical biomaterials) or placed within a
body cavity (e.g., a denture, intrauterine device or contact lens) or placed
external to the body and influence the mental, physical or social wellbeing
from outside (textiles, building, automotive and other materials and products).
Biocompatibility of materials versus cause of illness and disease
People usually do not make a distinction between illness and disease. These
two terms seem to mean essentially the same thing and are often used
interchangeably. However, it is important to define illness and disease
differently when considering causes worldwide and some non-western cultural
traditions. Disease is an objectively measurable pathological condition of the
body. Tooth decay, measles, or a broken bone is examples. n contrast,
52
illness is a feeling of not being normal and healthy. llness may, in fact, be due
to a disease.
Are the medical devices and biomaterials cause of illness? Are the doctors or
biomedical applications of biomaterials the primary cause of illness? No. The
medicine is focused to illness and to healing of ill people. The doctors of
medicine and traditional biocompatibility engineers are focused to disease
and to sick people.
Most of the illness is certainly not caused by medicine. The worsening of
health of healthy people could be most probable impaired by other factors
than by application of biomaterials with low biocompatibility. n other words
the biocopatibility of bioedical aterials is not iportant ca%se of illness
and disease at all.
Causes of illness and disease
The naturalistic explanation assumes that illness is due to impersonal,
mechanistic causes in nature that can be potentially understood and cured by
the application of the scientific method of discovery. Typical causes of illness
accepted in naturalistic medical systems include: organic breakdown or
deterioration (e.g., tooth decay, heart failure, senility), obstruction (e.g., kidney
stones, arterial blockage due to plaque build-up), injury (e.g., broken bones,
bullet wounds), imbalance (e.g., abnormal white blood cell count, too little
estrogen or testosterone), malnutrition (e.g., too much or too little food, not
enough proteins, vitamins, or minerals), parasites (e.g., bacteria, viruses,
amoebas, worms).
The material environment, dwelling environment and man-made products are
the important factors of health and causes of illness and disease.
All man-made products are made from materials, using materials or devices.
Worldwide, the largest industry on earth is building construction. Even in
North America, the construction industry is double the size of the auto
industry. Over the past several years there has been a growing awareness of
the need for health, bio compatibility or humanity issues to reverse the
destructive trends of modern industrialization and embrace a more holistic,
harmonious and sustainable legacy for future generations. Comprehensive
and focused body of knowledge that examines the delicate balance between
human health and the built environment is called Bau-Biologie (Building
Biology). n recent years building industry and material engineering have
participated in the design and construction of breathing, low toxic and fully
non-toxic buildings, bio compatible materials and buildings.
Understanding toxicity of building, textile, automotive and other materials,
devices and other products is step number one in understanding and
minimizing negative and positive effects of the man-made products on body
and health.
53
*+,PT03
The understanding complex - negative, neutral and positive - biocompatibility
of materials used in automotive, building, textile and other industries is of
much greater importance while it enables positive approach to research,
design, planning and improving quality of products in terms of improving
health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social comfort (World
Heath Organization).
The same development from minimizing negative effects to understanding
and evaluation of complex negative, neutral and positive effects has been
characteristic for the biomedical applications of biocompatibility evaluation.
".2.Biocompatibility and biofunctionality of
biomaterials in medicine
Biocompatibility is vital for medical devicesError: Reference source not found
(Shalaby 1994). f a material is used that is not biocompatible in this area
there may be complications such as:
Extended chronic inflammation at the contact point or where
leachates interact with the body. Generation of materials that are toxic
to cells (cytotoxicity).
Cell disruption. Skin irritation
Restenosis (narrowing of blood vessels after treatment)
Thrombosis (formation of blood clots)
Corrosion of an implant (if used).
According to kadaError: Reference source not found (1994) the minimum
requirements for biomaterials non-toxicity examples include: non-pyrogenic,
non-hemolytic, non-inflammatory (chronic), non-tumorigenic, non-allergenic.
t is accepted that biocompatibility is a property of material expressing
interactions between material and organism or body or body fluids. n general,
a substance constituting an object able to substitute for an original living part
of the body is called a "biomaterial".
54
When a part of a machine breaks, wears, or becomes useless, recourse is
generally made to a new substitutive piece capable of restoring the original
function; this concept can be also extended to the human body. n this case,
however, it is important to be morally aware that this body belongs to a human
being and is not merely a special kind of device. For this reason, the
guidelines involved in organ substitution must be extremely clear, and must
take into account an awareness of the different aspects which are bound with
the functional tasks. The performance of biomaterials is controlled by two sets
of characteristics:
Biofunctionality of biomaterials
Biocompatibility of biomaterials
".2.1. Biofunctionality versus biocompatibility
of biomedical materials
Functionality of material or product is ability to serve in a given application and
to fulfill the specific application related requirements. Biofunctionality
determines the ability of the device to perform the appropriate and specified
function. Examples:
Organ and tissue replacement
Tissue reconstruction
nternal organ support
Disposable medical devices
Drug delivery.
Biofunctionality may be considered in relation to a set of properties which
allow a device to perform a function. n order to specify the parameters of
biofunctionality, it is necessary to describe the reasons for using biomaterials
and the functions required of the devices. t is difficult to succinctly define the
reasons for using biomaterials, since they vary widely from one application to
another. Certain basic underlying conditions that warrant treatment using a
procedure involving biomaterials may, however, be identified. These materials
may either be implanted wholly within the body; implanted partially in the body
but with penetration of an epithelial surface (e.g., the skin) so that part of the
device is external to the body; placed within a body cavity but not beneath an
epithelial surface (e.g., a denture, intrauterine device or contact lens); or
placed external to the body with some method of accessing the internal
tissues, as in extracorporeal devices connected to the vascular system.
55
*+,PT03
There may be several ways in which the materials and the devices can meet
the required objectives. t is obvious that there will not be one universally
acceptable material, or one multipurpose material, not even a small group of
such materials. Thus a catalogue or encyclopedia of medical and dental
materials, based upon functional requirements is likely to be extensive,
covering a wide range of materials made available by the materials science
professions (Williams, 1990).
Table 3 indicates the range of types of bio-medical materials currently in use,
aiming to provide the properties dictated by various functional requirements or
intended performance.
Biocompatibility determines the compatibility of the material with the body.
Biofunctionality refers to the ability of device to continue to perform its original
intended function, effectively and for as long as necessary, in or on the body.
n an oversimplification these two terms they can be considered quite
separately, but in practice, and as it is becoming increasingly obvious with the
more advanced applications, they are very much related.
There has been much controversy and confusion over the meaning of
biocompatibility. At the simplest level, it could be argued that biocompatibility
means a total absence of interaction between material and organism or
tissue. The extension of the list of material types given in Table 3 to a list of
specific materials currently used is indeed largely based on the perceived
need to utilize materials that, in addition to performing the required function,
are totally inert within the body and thereby cause no ill effects within the
tissue.
There can be no doubt that this approach has worked reasonably well in
many circumstances, but it is an approach that is increasingly being
challenged and it is unlikely to lead to sophisticated multifunctional, long term
implants.
The concept that the more inert the material, the more tolerant will the body
be to that material implies that the body effectively ignores the material, which
is then passively tolerated rather than actively incorporated.
No device placed within the body can be considered as truly incorporated if it
is ignored and long-term performance and stability usually requires the
intimate acceptance. Moreover, since there is no such thing as absolute
inertness in the very hostile physiological environment, even the goal of
benign tolerance is of questionable value. Of greater relevance, therefore, is
that the material and the organism/tissue should interact in the most
appropriate way to maximize "the effective incorporation of the material into
the relevant tissues" and to "ensure stability".
56
For this reason, biocopatibility has been redefined in recent years
52
(Williams, 1978) as "the ability of material to perform with an appropriate host
response in specific application".
0able ", <roups of materials used in medical and dental applications based on
biofunctionality
<roup of material Performance
pure metals electrical conducti#ity
aest"etics $in dentistry'
anti(bacterial acti#ity
structural D ort"opaedics
structural D dental
casing+"ermetically sealed
alloys structural D ort"opaedics
articulating surfaces
structural D dental
"eart #al#es
electrical conducti#ity
inert ceramics articulating surfaces
structural D dental
bioacti#e ceramics and glass structural D ort"opaedics
carbons tissue regeneration
t"ermoplastics control of blood flow
57
*+,PT03
articulating surfaces
minor structural
lig"t transmission
drug deli#ery membranes
electrical insulation
tissue regeneration
elastomers space filling
control of blood flow
"eart #al#es
composites structural (.dental
structural D ort"opaedics
tissue regeneration
biologically(deri#ed materials tissue regeneration
control of blood flow
space filling
58
This response concerns with all aspects of the interaction that occur, but
focuses on the development of the response of the organism/tissues. This
host response, being the reaction of the tissues to the implant, controls the
performance of the patient following placement of the implant. t is, however,
itself controlled by the characteristics of the material and especially its
chemical stability in the body.
Two characteristics, the susceptibility of the material to degradation and the
effect such degradation has on the tissue, are the important, central features
of biocompatibility of biomaterials. Because the processes and characteristics
of the degradation are of great importance for biomaterials, they were studied
extensively as an important part of the biocompatibility of materials with
organisms, mainly corrosion of metals
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
(Marek 1990; Williams
1985;

Sundgren et al, 1986; Thomsen et al, 1986; Clark and Williams 1982;
Tengvall et al, 1989), hydrolysis of polymers
60,61
(Williams 1982; Sawhney and
Hubel 1990) and biodegradation
62
(Smith et al, 1987).
".2.2. #nterfacial processes and properties
As soon as a material comes in contact with a living body an interface is
created, and interactions occur between the foreign material and the living
body.
According to kadaError: Reference source not found (1994) the interactions
between living system and biomaterial include:
Foreign body reactions of living system to biomaterial
Bio-adhesion between living system and biomaterial
Physical and chemical damages of living system caused by
biomaterial.
The most dominant part of the tissue at this interface being the fluid phase.
The fluid phase will essentially be that of blood and the initial event which
takes place here will be the adsorption of proteins from the blood onto the
surface. According to Brash
63
(1981) at least three different driving forces are
involved:
First, thermodynamically, either enthalpy or entropy changes may be
sufficiently great to provide a negative free energy change for adsorption of
proteins onto a surface under physiological conditions.
Secondly, the ambivalent polar 7 non&polar characteristics of proteins favor a
concentration of these molecules at interfaces and
59
*+,PT03
Thirdly, proteins are usually only sparingly soluble and adsorption increases
as solubility decreases.
The type of binding mechanism depends on the nature of the surfaces in
question. A great deal of work has been performed on the characterization of
biomaterial surface in this respect in recent years, with the group of Ratner
paying particular attention to polymer s%rfaces, for example
64
(Ratner et al.
1987) and the group of Kasemo on metal surfaces
65
(Lausmaa et al, 1990).
".2.3. $%amples of the e%perimental methods
for measuring B& of biomaterials
1. Tested material is implanted into the model surgical wound
66, 67
(Williams 1989, 1990). The parameters characterizing the changes in the
healing process are measured in comparison with the healing without material
(e.g. time of prolongation of healing process). The principle of this method and
of Williams model is that in order to implant a material in the tissue, some
surgical intervention is required. This surgical procedure will itself result in a
wound healing process, even if a material is never placed in the site. The
tissue response to the material can therefore be seen as a modification, or
prolongation, of the wound healing process. When a material comes into
contact with an organism or tissue, a response of the organism takes place. A
biological effect can in fact be observed (e.g. with cells springing up,
capillaries growing across a collagenic-fibrina wound, cells on the surface of
the material enhancing degradation, and so on). Such a biological response
constitutes the so-called "systemic biological effect" (SBE) - a biophysico-
chemical parameter proportional to three functions:
SBE * f
1
f
2
f
3
where the function f
1
depends on the rate of interfacial interactions; f
2
depends on "biodiffusion", that is, the rate and echaniss of transportation
of reaction and7or exchange prod%cts; the function f
3
depends on
biosti%lability, that is, the biological activity and capability of cell activation.
2. "ell c%lt%ring has proved to be a useful and precise instrument for
detecting biocompatibility. As a rule, in fact, the n%ber of cells produced is
measured. Normally, the tests are carried out on samples of discoidal shape
steeped in a proper solution populated by the cells whose histocompatibility
with the examined materials is the object of the investigation. The culture is
kept at 37.5
o
C in an atmospheric environment of humidified air containing 5%
CO
2
, with a solution pH buffered at 7.4. The conditions just described are
called biological standard conditions (BSC). The cells ordinarily used are
taken from catalogued colonies belonging to murine or human subjects. The
cell lines most frequently utilized are: CCL-1, CCL-76, murine fibroblasts L-
60
929, human epithelial cells taken from either the gingival skin or the
epithelium, and human gingival fibroblasts, though other cell lines can be
used if necessary
68, 69
(Northrup et al. 1980; Oyama and Eagle, 1956).
3. Among the most widespread techniques is the one based on
radiotracers. The curves of cell growth kinetics can be created by utilizing the
data of radiant emission relative to time 0. From the regression curves, whose
basic trend is assumed to follow the exponential model
y = e
-at
where: t = time length of the test; y = dose intensity,
it is possible to work out the slope coefficient "a" in a semi-logarithmic
scale. This coefficient can be consequently utilized as an indicator of the
biocopatibility of the examined material (a > 0 means poor compatibility,
whereas a < 0 means good compatibility)
70, 71, 72, 73, 74
. (Schmalz 1980; Richter
et al. 1977; Spanberg 1979; King et al. 1979; Williams and Williams, 1988).
4. A sensitive and easily reproducible technique was devised by
75
Karwath et al. (1987) for assessing the compatibility of materials with blood.
".3.Biocompatibility of te%tiles used in upholstery
and clothing
This is also a much better (and for a longer period of time) elaborated area
than that concerning building and interior materials. Better elaborated are
physiologic-hygienical properties of clothing materials
76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81
(Delljovska
et al. 1984; Erhart and Zangerle 1988; Weder 1987; Umbach 1988; Mecheels
1971; Haase and Loebel 1977). This area has an aim similar to ours: to find
correlations between the objectively measurable physical properties of the
material/product and its comfort, and to define the comfort properties
82
(Elefante and Giammanco 1986). The comfort is tightly connected with
hygiene and health, according to the definition of health by the World Health
Organization (WHO).
".".Biocompatibility and habitability of building'
furniture' automotie and other materials and
products
Well-being or user acceptance can be experimentally assessed by
psychometric testing methods while physical measurements can be used
simultaneously to measure the effects of materials and technology variables
on bio-compatibility, consumer acceptance and well-being. The method can
61
*+,PT03
lead to multidimensional models thus improving knowledge of bio-
compatibility.
Quantifying and generalization of bio-compatibility can be done through a
continuing process of correlations of humans acceptance and well-being to
the physical properties of materials and products and to compare the sensory
aspects of products. User acceptance and well&being or psychical, physical
and social cofort or health can be experimentally assessed by psychoetric
eas%reent ethods while physical eas%reents can be used to measure
the effects of materials and technology variables on bio-compatibility and
consumer acceptance and well-being. E.g. correlating the reading experience
with the physical and material properties of carriers of information can lead to
a better understanding of human perceptions, preferences, and acceptance
ratings of conventional and new materials and products. The results of these
studies would allow us to propose modifications in the sensory characteristics
- visual, auditory-tactile, olfactory - of the materials to make them more
acceptable to users.
n this review, the same classification has been used as proposed in Table 1
by the definitions of categories of eco-quality (EQ), biocompatibility (BC) and
habitability of materials (HA):
sensory properties
biocompatibility/habitability
eco-physical and other primary properties
recycling properties.
The term bio-compatibility in f%rnit%re has been generaly connected with use
of natural contruction and decorative materials that are generaly considered
as bio&copatible or eco&copatible. According to Pettenella (2003), of the
Department for the Territory and Agro-forest Systems of the University of
Padova
83
(Anon. 2003) in the past we used to think that natural material e.g.
wood would have been substituted by other materials. But it held on.
Recycling is not always eco-compatible. Something that is often neglected
when talking about the compatibility of wooden furniture is the issue of paints
and glues. But these are the objects of fundamental choices: Even a piece of
furniture made with a natural material certified wood may lose its
biocompatibility if it is finished with chemical paints. Materials for paints are
obtained from oil and fossils. And oil is not biocopatible. Choices in this
respect should focus on natural paints, especially vegetal ones, since mineral
ones are not particularly suitable for furniture. Vegetal paints comply with all
biocompatibility and renewability requirements. The other paints deprive wood
of its biocopatible nature. Paints should not only be non-toxic and harmless;
if we only consider that aspect, we deprive wood of its biocompatible nature.
62
n other words, the production of truly ecological furniture requires
consideration of the intrinsic risk posed by such substances, and products
should be found that may ensure environmental sustainability.
63
*+,PT03
".".1. (ensory properties
The reasons why it is proposed to start with sensory properties in the study of
the biocompatibility and habitability of material (see Table 1) are as follows:
the optical/visual, tactile, odor, aesthetic and other sensory
information play an important role for the assessment of the EQ, BC,
and HA in the ar+et
the senses are the first element of the observation in cognitive
processes, inclusive of the BC quantifying process.
The most important of the sensory properties for hoo sapiens are those from
color visionError: Reference source not found (Massof 1978) the optical
properties, mainly color. The other optical properties are:
total color difference (E) and
partial differences in lightness (L, Y), hue (H) and chroma (C),
gloss (s) and
gloss differences (s),
transparency (T),
opacity,
whiteness,
texture,
color uniformity (egalita) / homogeneity, variability of color and
the variability of the all other optical properties shown above.
Color information on "ood and other materials, This is the most important
and simultaneously the best quantified group of sensory properties. The main
part of human information with a decisive role in people decisions comes from
color vision or simply vision. All the recognizable places or just recognizable
points have some color properties/parameters; these points and certain color
64
differences between them %st be recognized through the eye first. Only then
are visible/recognizable the other features such as form, texture, structure,
aesthetic or ecological features; only in such cases where some color
differences exist even on the physically uni - color objects must this condition
be fulfilled through a generation of color differences e.g. through light and
shadows.
The only physical characteristic of an objects color is the spectral reflectance.
According to some authors, the dimensionality of the spectral reflectance
curves of naturally occurring materials is from five to seven
84, 85
(Maristany,
Brunner, Butler and Funck 1991). According to Sulivan
86
1967, wood color is
basically two-dimensional within the standard CE color space. SulivanError:
Reference source not found derived the reason for this hypothesis from early
observations that differences in hue appear to be relatively small, but those in
brightness and saturation much larger. This observation led Beckwith to
suggest that some other measure might be more appropriate for
characterizing wood colorError: Reference source not found ( Brunner et al.
1990).
The success of quantifying of color hinges on whether any sizeable range of
data (surface spectral reflectance) can be described with a small number of
parameters (e.g. about three). The information represented by some
signal/complex of characteristic parameters should theoretically carry only the
useful content and so represent only the relevant message of our particular
interest. The other not necessary or not required part is noise
87, Error: Reference source
not foundError: Reference source not found
(Katuscak and Tokosova 1987, Katuscak, Werner
and Koeditz1988).
Human color vision (the trichromatic visual system) is approximately color
constant across certain ranges of illumination. Computational models of color
vision demonstrate that it is possible to achieve perfect color constancy for
various light conditions using 3 or 4 parameters. The color constancy, the
constancy of color estimates with changes in ambient lighting, has been
explained by certain modification or "filtering" properties of the shapes of the
spectral-sensitivity curves of photoreceptors.
The psycho&physically derived systems, more or less anthropomorphous, for
characterizing color have been traditionally 3 dimensional. The experimental
laws of colorimetry are assumed in the trichroatic generalization . This
states that over a wide range of conditions of observation, many color stimuli
can be matched in color completely by additive mixtures of three fixed primary
stimuli whose radiant powers have been suitably adjusted. Any set that is
such that none of the primary stimuli can be color matched by a mixture of the
other two may be used. The stronger form of trichromatic generalization is
described by Grassman's laws of additive color mixture. But some of
considerations are ignored in the trichromatic generalization: (a) observational
conditions, (b) effects of different previous exposures of the eyes to light and
(c) subjective differences made by different observers. Therefore these
65
*+,PT03
factors have to be standardized. The "8E "olorietric Syste comprises the
essential standards of measurements.
n the area of spoken or quantified communication on color (architects,
scientists, producers, consumers), the principle of 3-stimular color vision is
used; the sort of three parameters used in the communication can be
different. A human observer is able to perceive color in the various forms in
which the color information exists on its way through the transformation zones
from the surface of retina to the brain, e.g. on the three following zones/levels:
(1) R, G, B (red, green, blue components on the primary level of
absorption/detection of the color light through the three photosensitive color
pigments in the human retina), (2) through the three Gering's opposite pairs:
red- green, yellow - blue, black - white, or (3) on the most abstract level of the
system eye - brain in the form of hue, value and chroma. n all these cases, it
is possible to express color by a combination of three vectors. According to
the Gering theory the color has been expressed by six primary colors but
simultaneously it is supposed that in human color vision and perception, red
and green, and blue and yellow sensations are mutually exclusive (for a given
point in time and space). Therefore we again have three vectors as building
blocks of the color vision of a color. Likewise, the visual experience of change
or motion can be reduced to descriptions of temporal variations in three such
mutually independent vectorsError: Reference source not found
(Massof1978).
Color in a particular application or in practical life is more complex, for
example: "color of wood" or "color of that red piece of paper" or "color
differences between two materials". The diensionality (the number of
parameters required for the characterization) of color in a particular
application (e.g. of the color of surfaces of various materials) can be
increased or decreased not only through the lighting conditions but also by
other various factors.
An example of factors increasing the dimensionality is the complexity of the
particular color phenomena to be described, e.g. "color of wood" is more
complex than the color of a %nicolor homogeneous material (e.g. monocolor
plastic or metal surfaces) or of one theoretically homogeneous color point;
wood does not exist and can not therefore be measured as such, as material,
but only as a particular sample of one subset, board, tree, specie, family etc.
Moreover, each sample of wood is a %lticolored object.
On the other hand, the minimum number of the required color parameters (the
dimensionality of color) can be decreased by mutual internal correlations
existing in particular measured phenomena (e.g. between trichromatic color
parameters).
Another example of the dimensionality (minimum number of necessary
parameters/ vectors) : f for the description of the color of one color point three
parameters are necessary, for the overall (total) color difference between any
66
two colors only one parameter suffices; therefore the dimensionality of the
phenomena total color difference E is one.
/actile properties, Probably in second place on the importance scale, would
be the tactile properties, which are, according to Galileo Galilei (1623), most
close between man and the material world, "the sense of touch, being more
material than the other senses and being produced by the mass of the
material itself, seems to correspond to the element of earth". Tactile
properties play an increasingly important role including evaluation of man-
made products e.g. building materials, panels, forest products based on wood
or cellulose fibres - pulp and paper products mainly tissue, polygraphic and
hygienic papers
88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93
(Sadoh, Nakayma and Ohira 1983, Yasuda,
Sadoh and Nakato 1987, Ogakawa and Okayama 1986, Hirata, Nakato and
Sadoh 1983, Takemura, Kurai and Hideo 1988, Shida, Shibusawa and
Hukushima 1991).
There exist no tactile properties which would be used for all materials and
applications of man-made products. No tactile properties generalization has
been made, as by other physical primary (length) or secondary (color)
properties which relevancy is material independent and application
independent. There exist no standard tactile bio-compatibility properties of
products that could be used for the development, engineering, optimizing, the
production and quality control of man-made products on regular basis. The
traditional physical, chemical and economic parameters are used for the
production management but not the health related tactile bio&copatibility
parameters. Therefore the technical quality and the economic quality of the
products will be better than their tactile bio-compatibility and interactions with
living organisms. These living organisms man-made product interactions are
taken into account intuitively which is acceptable in craftsmen production but
insufficient on industrial scale production.
0dor or olfactory properties in relation to the bio-compatibility or
habitability of natural and man-made materials are important in the following
areas:
odor is a quality having influence on user acceptance and well-being
or psychical, physical and social comfort or health
odor in some cases could indicate toxic gases or volatile organic
compound
odor is a quality having influence on the evaluation of aesthetic
properties of materials and products
it has been proved experimentally that various materials/products can
be distinguished by humans through their odor properties
94
(Hlmller
1993)
67
*+,PT03
odor is an important, although not always reliable factor, for detecting
the bad air quality in a dwelling environment (serving as a detector for
the feedback by intuitive control of the airing rooms) and for detecting
dangerous concentrations of some toxic chemicals (formaldehyde,
styrene, halogens, solvents, etc.)
odor has been used for masking negative odor features or fortifying
the pleasant ones through industrial fragrances; a high degree of a
nat%ral character in this area has a highly positive meaning; here
industries other than woodworking seem to have more initiative and
they often use features of forest products (odor, texture) to improve
the sensory attractiveness of their products a source of information to
identify some wood speciesError: Reference source not found
(Hoadley 1990).
The important component of a biocompatibility

is evaluation of volatile organic
compounds (VOC). The VOC can be healthy, unpleasant or toxic. They can
have both positive and negative effect on %ser acceptance and well&being or
psychical, physical and social cofort or health.
A little is known on quantification of these odor or olfactory properties. One
way of the quantifying of odor or olfactory properties could be through finger-
print-like techniques combining mass spectrometry with gas chromatography
(GCMS-with pattern recognition).
The natural cellulose bio-materials has been achieving the highest
environmental and hygienic quality and assessment (Figure 7) in comparison
with other man-made materials, which promotes its usage as a comparative
bio-based material for environmental and hygienic evaluation of the building
materials.
Our results has shown that some natural materials can serve as comparative
bio-standard for in assessment bio-compatibility of other composite and man-
made materials emmission properties and effects on health. As a suitable tool
for the interpreting the interactions between material and man through air and
VOC can systems of VOC limits developed by specialized authorities. The
relative ratios of the limits for the different limits can serve as information on
their relative toxicity or safety. The natural bio-materials used by people for
ages are deeply bellow the limits of interest of the doctors or authorities
dealing with toxicology, eco-toxicology or sickness. The study of the VOC and
of the recommended VOC limits continues, e.g. the U.S. Occupational Safety
& Health Administration uses the Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL), the
American Conference of Governmental ndustrial Hygienists (ACGH)
recommends the Threshold Limit Values and the EC Environment nstitute
recommends the Lowest Concentration of nterests (LC). However the
interpretation of the measured VOC/TVOC emissions data has not been
solved properly.
68
The nat%ral materials are healthier than synthetic and cheicalsError9
0eference so%rce not fo%nd
, 95
(Schwarz 1991, Beler 1995). t is generally
accepted that synthetic VOC can impair air quality and negatively affect
health. The other extreme long term living in the sterile environment with
zero emissions (VOC = 0) is not healthy either. Positive effects of the natural
VOC like -pinene (1), -pinene (2), nonanal (3), decanal (4), camphene, (5)
and other VOC have been demonstrated. soprene, monoterpenes and
sesquiterpenes and other biogenic VOC emitted by plants exceeds at a global
scale that of anthropogenic components released by man-made activities.
Chromatograms of VOC released from selected natural materials - woods
obtained by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GCMS) analyses
are shown in Figure 2 and 3. The highest concentration 612.5 g. m
-3
and
emission factor values 137 g.m
-2
.h
-1
were found in the case of pine
96
(Bartekova 2002).

5 1# 15 2# 25 3#
1######
2######
3######
4######
5######
"######
2######
Time-->
Abundance
12.35 1'."5
12.'1
19.'2
21."2
22.95
1
3
4
2
$
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
%ime&&'
$bundanc
e
17.6
2
19.0
6
19.7
0
20.1
6
20.3
8
20.6
8
21.6
1
24.5
0
(
!
)
B
5 10 15 20 25
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
900000
%ime&&
'
$bundanc
e
4.85
5.29
6.85
11.31
13.17
17.60
19.37
19.78
20.13
21.59
22.55
22.92
*
"
+
,
69
*+,PT03
Figure 2& , C"romatogram from <C(A0 analysis of selected wood .inds,
=' pine) ?' spruce) C' oa..) (pinene $1') (pinene $2') nonanal $') decanal $3')
camp"ene $E') F(met"yl(2(met"ylene(bicyclo 7.1.19 "eptane $F') 2)2)2(
trimet"yldecane $4'.
70
$bundanc
e
-
"
*
E
.
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
10000
0
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
900000
%ime&&'
11.2
9
12.2
7
13.14
15.87
18.65
20.12
21.58
Figure ", C"romatogram from <C(A0 analysis of selected wood .inds,
!' maple and %' beec"G T"e most important #olatile organic compounds detected,
nonanal $') decanal $3') 2)2(dimet"yl"e*ane $H') 2)(di"ydro(3(met"ylfuran $2'.
t is obvious that the all concentration values "T:*" (mg. m
-3
) (Figure 4) from
softwood species spruce and pine are 5-7-times higher than those obtained
from broad-leaved species oak, beech, locust, maple or mahogany samples.
1
2
14 1
6
1
8
2
0
2
2
10000
0
20000
0
30000
0
40000
0
50000
0
60000
0
70000
0
90000
0
%ime&&'
$bundanc
e
11.25
12.2
3
13.11
15.83
17.5
5
19.7
4
20.1
1
21.5
6
22.5
1
22.89
24.10
"
*
D
71
*+,PT03
0able ', T"e most significant I>C released from nati#e wood after 42 "ours following
t"e unpac.ing t"e sample $t
+
' and a#erage concentration #alues C
,-C
$mg. m
(
'.
.ample
The most abundant ;<* and
average values of their concentration ,
89,
:mg. m
;"
<
Pine (pinene $5)25E'G nonanal $5)5E1'G decanal $5)53F'G (pinene $5)53E'
0pruce (pinene $5)12'G F(met"yl(2(met"ylene(bicyclo 7.1.19 "eptane
$5)52'G camp"ene $5)51H'
?eec"
2)(di"ydro(3(met"ylfuran $5)523'G 2)2(dimet"yl "e*ane $5)515'G
nonanal $5)552'G decanal $5)552'
>a. 2)2)2(trimetyldecane $5)55H'G decanal $5)55F'G nonanal $5)55E'
Aaple decanal $5)51F'G nonanal $5)515'
:ocust decanal $5)512'
Aa"ogany nonane $5)55H'G !(limonene $5)55E'
Critical evaluation according to the American Conference of Governmental
ndustrial Hygienists (ACGH ) is the following: According to the ACGH the
total volatile organic compounds or the summ of the emissions of all individual
compound (TVOC) Threshold Limit Values after 31 ho%rs has to be 5 mg. m
-
3
. The corresponding concentrations of VOC in the air ("T:*") values (mg. m
-3
)
measured after 72 hours are as follows: pine 0,443 mg. m
-3
, spruce 0,423
mg. m
-3
, oak 0,090 mg. m
-3
, beech 0,059 mg. m
-3
, maple 0,061 mg. m
-3
, locust
0,03 mg. m
-3
and mahogany 0,030 mg. m
-3
. The "T:*" values are 11 to 166
times lower than the ACGH threshold limit value for the healthy building
material. The ACGH Threshold Limit Values after 14 days are to be "T:*"
0,2 mg. m
-3
. The corresponding "T:*" after 28 days calculated from the
kinetic VOC emissions measurements for the highest emitting pine wood is
"T:*" = 0,00496 mg. m
-3
which is 40 times lower than the ACGH limit.
72
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
3ine
$pruce
4a,
+aple
Beech
5ocust
+ahoany
Figure ', =#erage #alues of concentration of t"e total #olatile organic compounds
C
.,-C
$mg. m
(
' in t"e air emitted from wood samples after 42 "ours from samples
unpac.ing $t
+
'
Critical evaluation of the natural wood VOC emissions according to the lowest
concentration of interest (LC) which do not cause damaging impact on
humans

is expressed on Figure 5. The LC for both - and -pinene is 1 mg.
m
-3
, for nonanal and decanal it is 0,4 mg. m
-3
.
t can be seen that the natural VOC emission from native wood is of some
orders lower than the ACGH and LC limits for the healthy materials and it is
even decreasing in time. t can be supposed that such natural dwelling
environment
is healthy for the human beings,
it fulfils the strict limits, and
it is far enough from the sterile zero VOC environment
it contains natural VOC emissions high enough to train human
immunity system.
73
*+,PT03
Figure ), =#erage #alues of t"e most abundant substances in I>C emissions from
pine wood sample e*pressed as J to t"e :CI #alue ( t"e %uropean Committee
%n#ironment Institute@s t"e :owest Concentration of Interest criteria for "ealt"y
materia.
Our measurements have shown that the native cellulose bio-materials - wood
species used by people all over the world for thousands of years,
accomplishes both the VOC toxicological criterions of American Conference
of Governmental ndustrial Hygienists and the European Committee
Environment nstitutes the Lowest Concentration of nterest criteria for
healthy material. The sterile environment with zero VOC is not bio-compatible,
not suitable for long term living and can not be realised in real life. The natural
bio-compatible material has been therefore recommended as a suitable
comparative material for the interpretation of the results of the odor or
olfactory measurements, VOC measurements and correlations of both
methods. This is suitable way of searching for bondaries of healthy limits or
healthy world. The natural materials verified by many generations of people
as healthy could serve as theoretical goal limit for development and optimizing
of new materials and products with the best bio-compatibility.
nspite of some measurement possibilities no standard odor or olfactory bio&
copatibility properties of products could be used as progressive or project
parameters (PP) for the continuous development of products. No olfactory
bio-compatibility can be used for engineering, optimizing, the production and
quality control of man-made products on regular basis. The traditional
physical, chemical and economic parameters are used for the production
management but not the health related olfactory bio&copatibility parameters.
Therefore the technical quality and the economic quality of the products will
prevail their health quality and quality of interactions with living systems. Also
these part of health quality - living organis ; an&ade prod%ct interactions
is taken into account intuitively which is acceptable in craftsmen production
but insufficient on industrial scale production of millions ton of products.
0
20
4
0
6
0
80
100
?d-pinene ?-pinene nonanal decanal formaldehyde
%
LC
74
".".2. To%icity' biocompatibility and
habitability
Health can be defined in many ways, and very probably two limits exist as far
as the complexity of the definition is concerned: either health is the absence
of illness or - according to WHO - health is physical, psychic and social
comfort
97
(Rughoeft 1992).
What is the relation between biocompatibility / habitability and toxicity?
Generally speaking toxic material can not have good BC/HA, or in other words
without non-toxicity can not exist good biocompatibility or habitability of
material. From this general point of view we understand the toxicity and other
basic hygienic requirements as a part of BC/HA. On the other hand the
toxicity is already much better quantified than other hypothetical parts of the
BC/HA.
Therefore we propose that the classical toxicity and other already officially
standardized characteristic could be separated from the other part of the
BC/HA, thus creating the biocompatibility / habitability in a more narrow, more
specific meaning. The reasons for this are:
simplification and specialization of further works,
the toxicity is caused by the foreign substances and not by
substratum of the dwelling material itself,
the hygienic recommendations express the dangerous and critical
concentration of other chemicals (formaldehyde, solvents) then that of
material substratum itself.
The factors influencing the biocompatibility / habitability of materials, other
than toxicity and thermal properties / comfort, are known in mostly abstract
terms. According to RughoeftError: Reference source not found (1992) the
following factors are important for health in a flat: sound protection , sunshine
, daily light , temperature , the quality of the air in the room and the absence
of poisons or dwelling toxic substances, and possibly electric and other
energy currents and fields.
The results achieved on the biocompatibility / habitability of wood are
presented in chapter 5.
According to Blume 2002, NASA also needs a standard means to describe
Habitability. The quantity BC/HA:
Enable more informed decisions & tradeoffs
Design better habitats and missions
75
*+,PT03
Reduce riskncrease output of mission.
The habitability factors considered are as follows:
Architecture
Environment
Dining
Hygiene
Sleep
Recreation
Privacy
Exercise
Communication
Mobility
Housekeeping
Medical support.
Habitability ndex (Celentano 1963) is but one means of addressing
this need.
There is consensus on gross relative differences in habitability (Figure 6), but
not on finer distinctions. Some fundamental questions have been answered
partially e.g. on the habitability factors for the design of office environments.
Figure 6, Intuiti#e decisions between t"e least and most "abitable obBects
2H
$?lume
2552'
Some of the habitability questions have been studied in extree conditions
e.g. on the habitability in long duration space missions
99
(Jones 1973), relation
definition of habitability and a habitability data baseError: Reference source
76
not found (Brauer and Davis, 1977), the intangibles of habitability during long
duration space missions
100
(Fraser, T. M., 1968), human engineering and
habitability in the international space station
101
(Novak 2000). May be these
results could have some meaning for daily life and for the better design of
biocompatible products for billions of ordinary healthy people.
But the quantifying of BC/HA is still at the beginning stage of research in
comparison with knowledge on primary and secondary quantities and
properties of materials and products includig e.g. buildings, cars, ships, space
stations and planatary bases. Therefore exact biocompatibility /habitability
(BC/DA) data and other means of addressing this need are worthy of research
and development pursuit.
".".3$co)physical properties
A number of studies exist on simplified dwelling ability or habitability reduced
to a pair of quantities: room temperature and relative humidity or thermal
comfort/discomfort
102, 103, 104
(Fanger 1973, Frank 1986, Teischinger 1987,
Rybar 1976, SO 7726, SO 7730).
The relations between other physical properties of materials and their
biocompatibility / habitability are not so clear.
The optical and some other sensory properties have been described briefly in
chapter 4.4.1. Some other examples are shown in chapter 5.2.
"."."*ene+ability and recycling properties of
materials and products
They express the degradability and ability of materials or products to be
recycled in nature or by man. They include biodegradability, ageing
properties, mechanical and chemical degradability, re-use ability, combustion/
pyrolytical ability and the toxicity of the products of combustion or pyrolysis.
The recycling properties must be estimated through model recycling process.
Such way of measurement is usual for example by all chemical properties.
The recycling properties do not describe the recycling process itself but the
material or a product property
105, Error: Reference source not found, Error: Reference source not found, 106
(Nozawa and Satonaka 1981, Buehler 1991, Hirata et. al 1992, Komora and
Cepec 1992) . The recycling characteristics are partially common for eco-
balances and eco-properties of materials and products. The difference lies in
that the eco-balances utilize recycling data together with other stages of
production and utilization and integer the data on recycling into consumption
of energy, materials, and volumes of air or water connected with all cycles of
life of the material or product; on the other hand the recycling properties as an
integrate part of eco-properties of some material exist only when the material
77
*+,PT03
exists (similarly as for example specific weight or bending strength of certain
type of material).
78
References
79
,./P01R )
*uantifying of t$e biocompatibility+ $abitability
#.1. 'uantifying of the biocompatibility ( habitability )!*(+,- and related
properties of materials generally. .trategy ........ 0rror6 3eference source not found
#.2. 0$amples of the quantifying of properties similar and related to the
biocompatibility ( habitability ............................... 0rror6 3eference source not found
#.3. 'uantifying of the biocompatibility and habitability )!*(+,- of materials
based on present 1no2ledge ............................... 0rror6 3eference source not found
#.. Prognosis .................................................. 0rror6 3eference source not found
#.#. 3esearch and development needs and proposal ... 0rror6 3eference source
not found
E.E.1 Aar.et sur#eys ........................................... %rror, Reference source not found
E.E. !e#eloping diagram + algorit"m of t"e transformation of abstract general
p"enomena $%
s
' into quantities $%
o
' ................... %rror, Reference source not found
References .............................................................. 1rror2 Reference source not found
'uantifying of the biocompatibility( habitability
E. &uantifying of t"e
biocompatibility+ "abitability
This chapter deals with biocompatibility of natural and man-made materials, with
special focus on the dwelling environment.
,.1.-uantifying of the biocompatibility . habitability
/B&.H01 and related properties of materials
generally. (trategy
As we have said in chapter 4.4, well-being and user acceptance can be
experimentally assessed by psychometric testing methods, while physical
measurements can be used simultaneously to assess the effects of materials and
technological variables on biocompatibility, consumer acceptance and well-being.
This method can lead to multidimensional models/ thus improving knowledge
concerning te biocompatibility of materials and models0
Quantifying biocompatibility and/or habitability (BC/HA) is a complex problem. At
present it is not even known how much of the BC/HA phenomena can be
quantified. Whether the BC/HA can be described as one continuum for all
materials, for example, in dependence on the distance of the evaluated material
from the surface of the organism and relative interface-specific surface, or if it is
possible to quantify them separately for individual sorts/groups/functions of
materials is also unknown to date.
n our opinion, the first step in the attempt to quantify biocompatibility/habitability
of wood, building and other dwelling materials should be a classification of the
related categories and properties
107
(Katusck S. 1994). We present such
attempt in chapter 3, on Figure 1 and in Table 1.
The second step is review of literature with analysis of the known observations
and of successful approaches. This is presented in chapters 4 and 5; the
approaches that succeed have been analyzed in chapter 5.2. in the form of
examples of the quantifying of the properties similar and related to the BC/HA
phenomena.
The third step is creating suitable ethodology, developing diagrams in a form of
general algorithm with general procedures allowing effective co-ordination and
simultaneously allowing and/or initiating creative individual approaches of
research partners; the research should lead to bringing new theoretically and
81
*+,PT03 1
practically interesting data and improving methods on evaluation of the BC/HA.
An attempt is presented in chapter 5.5.
The forth step is experimental research concentrated to the M/O (material /
organism) interactions and their quantifying.
The role of the degree 7 eas%re of the contact between the aterial and the
living organis, The biocompatibility (BC) generally expresses interactions of the
material localized inside or outside the body of the living organism, while the
habitability (HA) expresses the indirect effects of materials/objects in the dwelling
environment on the living organism. The interaction material/living organism can
be either direct or indirect.
The most intensive direct interactions occur with bioedical materials used for
implants. The next group represents materials coming in contact with the surface
of the living organism !%pholstery and clothing textiles#, The next group
represents materials in the dwelling environment used in a greater average
statistical distance from the surface of man: building materials, furniture
materials. The smaller the distance and the greater the interface specific surface
material/living tissues or the surface of the body, the closer the contact and the
greater the possible interactions, the greater the possible effects of the properties
of the material on the health of the living organism. So the variables which could
be useful in quantifying of the BC of the materials with different functions are the
average distance and the area of the interface surface material/living body. Some
chemical, biological and ecological properties require more sophisticated or more
complicated procedures, but there are also a number of relatively simple tests
that are useful in practice.
biocopatibility 7 habitability deterinants, As it can be seen from the literature
on BC of various types of materials, there are some parameters which are
commonly important for the BC: there are namely: nat%ral character; physico-
chemical and other primary properties influencing the (M/O) processes on the
interfaces M/H
2
O/O and M/air/O; content and emission of toxic, allergic or
otherwise harmful substances; factors influencing energetic interactions (e.g.
between material and organism through electromagnetic fields (M/EM/O), or
effects of ionising energy and/or radioactivity).
82
,.2.$%amples of the quantifying of properties
similar and related to the biocompatibility .
habitability
Categories or general phenomena are quantified into quantities and/or sets of
quantities. The quantities are expressed in units or they are used in the form of
relative indices. Such quantified phenomena should serve man in improving
knowledge, making decisions and predicting. As distinct from abstract
phenoena or words, the $%antities or data can be compared, followed in time
sequences, stored, used for building data bases and expert systems, visualized
in the form of graphic presentation or images, or used for more effective learning
or advertising or for creating market or R&D strategies, planning or making
individual decisions.
When analyzing the processes of the quantifying of the quantities which are
already well known from the past, one can distinguish some characteristic stages
of the $%antifying process. These principal steps of quantifying are similar
whether the quantifying concerns priary or secondary properties
108, 109, 110
(Galileo Galilei 1623; Russell 1910; Massof and Bird 1978). These principal
steps have been proposed in the next chapters in a form of the development
diagram and general algorithm. Generally speaking, if one reaches the best
possible practical understandability and /or practical usability, then the aim of the
objectifying is to reach the best possible fittings of the results of such objectified
and standardized measurement with the related physiological, psychometric
results or the decisions of observers.
For this reason, a form of highly reliable representation of the psychometric or
physiological results - a standard observer or a standardized behavior /response
of the organism (whether it is named by these terms or not) is required. Then the
most characteristic feat%res (see also the definition in chapter 3.2.) of the
produced secondary quantities, methods and data are such which are
anthropoorpho%s or which correlate in some extent with the related
physiological or psychometric tests. Such objectified quantities fulfill the fact that
human beings do not exist for the quantities and data, but it is the data that
should serve man; so the quantities and methods are humanized and not vice
versa,
n the following examples, the quantifying of the previously abstract phenomena
into exact and instrumentally measurable quantities are presented.
The following examples show some possibilities in and various approaches to the
quantifying process. Examples were chosen so as to demonstrate our ideas and
83
*+,PT03 1
approach to the potential general procedures/ algorithms of the biocompatibility /
habitability (BC/HA) and overall EQ quantifying.
84
0$ample 16 'uantifying of the color from spectral data
Spectra or reflectance are purely physical parameters. They are exact but they
do not correspond to the human way of perception, understanding of the color of
objects and communication about color. For example, when you ask 1,000 or any
number of artists, painters or even non-professionals, they will all agree with
relatively great accuracy and relatively low variability on the average/middle grey,
between black and white but this will not correspond absolutely to the average
reflectance R=50% (R=0% for black, R=100% for white). Moreover, the objective
signal of a visible spectral curve (absorbance or reflectance) does not exist at all
in the human way of sensing, perception and communication. Therefore for the
objectifying and support of human language about color, the colorimetry had to
be created as an anthropomorphic instrument. This was done through extensive
work coordinated by the CE (Chapter 3.2.) on the measurements of human
sensation and perception on one side and on spectral physical measurements on
the other. The first step is the transformation of spectra into a minimum number
of generally independent quantities.
One can do such work using suitable algorithms of color evaluation from
reflectance spectra (Hatalova, Paulinyova and Katuscak 1981; David and
Paulinyova 1982; David, Ruzicky and Paulinyova 1983). So the trichromatic
components X,Y,Z are calculated using the sum of the products of the measured
reflectances
0 /
i
'
with the products of the standardized trichromatic
multiplicators (
i
/ 0 #
i
/ 0 , and
0 /
i
)
and the relative energies of the
standardized illuminant
0 /
i

in the 10 nm intervals in the range of the
wavelengths 380-770 nm (which is 40 products):
=
=
4#
1 i
* 0 /
i
' 0 /
i

0 /
i
(

=
=
4#
1 i
+ 0 /
i
' 0 /
i

0 /
i
#

=
=
4#
1 i
$ 0 /
i
' 0 /
i
0 /
i
)

85
*+,PT03 1
Example 2' /he )uantifying of the human*li!e color perception
The standardized colorimetric coordinates <, =, >, as the instrumentally
measured parameters derived from the spectral reflectances !0#, are primary
physical properties not proportional to human perception. Therefore, it is of
practical meaning for human communication on color vision and perception to
find such quantities which would correspond to the abstract phenomena color
similarly to the way man understands and perceives it - the quantities in
human/like or anthropoorpho%s form. From many experiments to achieve the
measured data correlating as closely as possible to average human
psychometric measurements, we show the following method and result of such
transformation:
1" 6 . 11" 6 = + L
60 6 ./ 5## 6 + * a =
60 6 ./ 2## 6 $ + , =
where
<, =, > are the coordinates as the primary instrumentally measured parameters
derived from spectral reflectances - the only physical characteristic of an object
color
& 0 . / 6
3 . 1
n
* * * = if
##225" . # .
n
* *
0& . / '2' . ' 6
n
* * * =
if * *
n
. . # ##225"
and similarly for
6 +
and
6 $
,
n n n
$ + * & &
are tristimulus values for white color.
86
Example 3' /he )uantifying of the abstract phenomena * migration of
chemical substances in "ood
During the treatment of wood with various chemicals, e.g. dyestuffs or the
chemicals for the protection of wood, the substances used move in the wood.
Then after the impregnation, they move a second time in the opposite direction,
to the surface of the wood, e.g. during drying or during ageing. This secondary
movement is called igration. Theoretically it is possible to impregnate wood
well, but during the drying or ageing all the substance can igrate back to the
surface again. t is clear that high igration has negative effect on the treatment.
Technically the process of migration stays opposite to fixation. Semantically the
word igration stays as an antonym/opposite to fixation. And on the level of
potential quantities, the degree of igration stays opposite to the degree of
fixation. The migration exerts a substantial effect on the distribution of the treating
substances in wood and on the quality of the treated material. Therefore, the
parameter characterizing the ability of the chemicals to migrate in wood is of vital
importance for the evaluation of the suitability and quality of the dyestuffs,
protection chemicals or other treating chemicals.
Now the question is how is it possible to quantify the migration phenomena. The
migration must be evaluated in the migration process. The objectifying of the
abstract phenomena igration has been performed as followsError: Reference
source not found (Katuscak 1994):
One part of the standardized sample of the tested wood species, completely
treated with the tested chemical, is covered tightly with foil; the other part is left
free during standardized drying (evaporation of the water or other impregnating
liquid), or during ageing. All the conditions are standardized in such a manner to
represent the relevant practical conditions as well as possible. After finishing the
drying/evaporating/ageing, the differences of reflectance characteristics (e.g.
color difference or difference in reflectances by the wavelengths maxima) are
measured in two places: the covered and the uncovered ones. Then the
particular color/reflectance difference is calculated and used as the characteristic
migration parameter. So in the case of chemicals absorbing the light in the visible
part of the spectra, the migration parameter has been quantified as follows:
The parameters have been measured on the two places of wood material: one
was covered and the surface of the second place was left free during the drying
of the test wood sample. The spectral/color parameters of each of the places
have been estimated. The color of one uniform/unicolor place is a 3-dimensional
property, represented as a point in a 3-dimensional orthogonal space of 3 axes,
e.g. X,Y,Z, or L*,a*,b*. The migration parameter
m
is then defined as the
distance between the two points in a color space, corresponding to the 2 colors
of the covered and non-covered part of the tested sample during the
water/solvent evaporation; according to the spatial Pythagorean theorem:
87
*+,PT03 1
2 . 1
2
6
2
6
2
6
0 /
) o ) o ) o m
, a L

+ + =
or similarly corrected parameter suitable for the objective evaluation of the
degree of migration of the chemicals on substances different in color, as for
example veneers of various woods:

/70 1##
0 /
2 . 1
2
6
2
6
2
6
(
, a L
-
%
-
%
-
%
m
m

+ +
=

where
6 6
#
6
# $
$
L L L =

6 6 6
- %
-
%
L L L =
dentically , this also holds for the differences

2
6
2
6
& , a
while L*,a*,b* are the trichromatic parameters describing color in the CELAB
system, the symbols S and ? hold for the un-dyed and dyed substratum, and
respectively @ and > mean the places of the sample either free or covered during
drying.
88
Example 4' Quantifying of the abstract phenomena * natural appearance
One of the decisive partial factors which cause a very positive biocompatibility /
habitability of wood is its nat%ral character. Materials and products having nat%ral
appearance or smell have positive impact on psychical, physical and social
communicative comfort, on health.
The factor nat%ral character - has been considered by the comparisons of the
biocompatibility / habitability of various (building) materials e.g. by
111
Scheiwiller
(1988). t is important (and considered) also during the visual and other sensory
eval%ations of materials. The question is which measurable parameters could be
used for future quantifying of this phenomena, which could serve as a measure
for the degree of natural character. The nat%ral character of the surface
appearance is also one of the characteristically important features of the E5 of
materials and products, and for looking at new methods for the objectifying and
quantifying of these properties of materials and products. The natural character
plays a decisive role in value and price evaluation on the market. Therefore the
natural or natural-like optical properties could be of interest to developers of new
products and to wood product decision makers and marketers.
One of the sources of mans recognition and evaluation is optical/visual
information. Other characteristic feat%res can be found between the
characteristics defining the anisotropy and variability of physical, chemical and
other primary properties of natural and other materials.
Wood is one of the most widely spread and important nat%ral aterials, t is
therefore probable that these and similar characteristic parameter can be used as
characteristic feat%res for the colorimetric quantitative evaluation of nat%ral or
nat%ral&li+e appearance of the material surface and for the differences/deviations
from this through various processes and ecological factors in industry or nature.
This can easily be done even without measuring the texture or structure.
This can be practically utilized as a part of the software for recognition of the
nat%ral appearance or for preparation and quality control of natural-like
decorative laminates or other synthetic surfaces or their reproductions.
Our experimental research has shown that wood, as one of the most widely
spread and important representative of the organic nat%ral aterials, has some
very interesting characteristic feat%res - color properties. We have used for
measurements the most commonly used systems CELAB and CELCH
112
(Wyszecki and Stiles 1982).
Generally, the higher the correlations between the partial color parameters, the
higher the degree of order of the individual colors/color points/e.g. just
perceivable color points. The dimensionality of wood color can be decreased in
the frame of one tristimular color system through internal relationships between
89
*+,PT03 1
the three partial color parameters (e.g. L*,a*,b*); the decrease in number of
parameters leads to simplicity. On the other hand, the mutual relationships
between the parameters of the two systems: orthogonal (L*,a*,b*) and cylindrical
(L*,C*,H) parameters can help explain other abstract phenomena such as the
rules and reasons of variability of color of wood as a nat%ral aterial and of
individual wood species.
The most meaningful rule characterizing the color of wood as material is C* =
C*
o
+ k
C
.b*; this rule expresses the decisive controlling effect of yellowness b*
(the presence of yellow substances, mostly lignin polyphenolics) for the
chroaticity C* of wood. This optical property is characteristic for all 25 wood
species studied. k with r 0.95 or r
2
92 %, while the highest coefficients of
correlation r 0.99 and r
2
98 % have been found by Aicea abies, Ain%s
strob%s, Bet%la pend%la, "arpin%s bet%l%s, "astanea sativa, ?raxin%s excelsior,
Tilia sp,, Aop%l%s sp,, and Salix sp, The correlations between the redness a* and
chromaticity C* are much less meaningful.
A meaningful relationship also exists between the lightness L* and redness a*:
the higher the portion of the substances reflecting red portion of the spectra, the
darker the wood. This relationship was found to be characteristic for all studied
softwoods with one exception Tax%s baccata.
From hardwoods this simple rule is characteristic for Tilia species, Acer
pse%doplatan%s, Salix sp, and Bet%la pend%la with very high coefficients of
correlation r 0.95 or r
2
92 %. Taking in mind this approximation, the color of
these wood species could be considered to be two - dimensional property. On
the other hand, no meaningful correlation between redness and lightness was
found in Ul%s glabra, B%glans regia and Alatan%s hispanica.
As it can be seen from the tables the wood as a nat%ral aterial has some
characteristic feat%res - color properties, e.g. C* = C*
o
+ k
C
.b*, H = H
o
+ k
H
.a*
and the related correlation coefficients.
Wood is one of the most widely spread and important nat%ral aterials, t is
therefore probable that these and similar parameter can be used as
characteristic feat%res for the quantitative evaluation of nat%ral or nat%ral&li+e
character.
90
0able ), &uantifying of t"e abstract p"enomena ( natural appearance. Aaterials and
products "a#ing natural appearance or smell "a#e positi#e impact on psyc"ical) p"ysical
and social D communicati#e comfort) on "ealt". T"e coefficients of correlation for t"e
mutual relations"ips between t"e color parameters of t"e H coniferous wood species.
%nternal Correlations Coefficients bet"een'
,o
5
ood specie 0rthogonal Color
Parameters
Cylindrical Color
Parameters
0rthogonal and
Cylindrical Color
#internal$
L6,a6,b6
#internal$ L,C,( Parameters L6,a6,b67*
8L,C,(
L*<-
>a*
L*<-
>b*
a*<-
>b*
L<->C L<->H C<->H b*<-
>C
a*<-
>H
a*<-
>C
b*<-
>H
1 Abies alba (0.90) (0.12) 0.39 0.31 0.93 (0.25) 0.98 (0.94) 0.57 (0.05)
2 /arix decid%a (0.88) (0.37) 0.58 (0.63) 0.88 (0.55) 0.94 (0.93) 0.82 (0.25)
3 Aicea abies (0.93) (0.67) 0.73 (0.72) 0.92 (0.61) 1.00 (0.97) 0.79 (0.53)
4 Ain%s cebra (0.93) (0.28) 0.17 (0.67) 0.89 (0.48) 0.88 (0.99) 0.62 (0.01)
5 Ain%s
sylvestris
(0.92) (0.37) 0.51 (0.65) 0.93 (0.69) 0.93 (0.99) 0.78 (0.39)
6 Ain%s strob%s (0.93) (0.77) 0.82 (0.84) 0.90 (0.79) 0.99 (0.98) 0.89 (0.70)
7 Ase%dots%ga
,
(0.92) (0.12) 0.16 (0.46) 0.89 (0.24) 0.93 (0.95) 0.52 0.14
8 Tax%s
baccata
(0.18) 0.65 0.38 0.47 0.58 (0.02) 0.96 (0.80) 0.61 0.25
All softwoods (0.83) (0.06) 0.22 (0.34) 0.87 (0.27) 0.94 (0.95) 0.54 0.07
The perceptions of the natural vers%r synthetic character of the materials and
products could influence psychical or mental comfort of certain living organism,
that means wellbeing or health, or the level of biological state of man.
Therefore the eas%re of nat%ral character is a part of bio-compatibility or
habitability of materials, natural and man-made products.
91
*+,PT03 1
One of the future challenges of science is scaling, quantifying and development
of measuring tools for nat%ral character evaluation of natural and man-made
pruducts.
92
0able 6, T"e correlation coefficients for t"e mutual relations"ips between t"e color
parameters of t"e 14 broadlea#ed wood species
%nternal Correlations Coefficients bet"een'
,o
5
ood
specie
0rthogonal Color
Parameters
Cylindrical Color
Parameters
0rthogonal and
Cylindrical Color
#internal$
L6,a6,b6
#internal$
L,C,(
Parameters L6,a6,b6
7*8L,C,(
L*<-
>a*
L*<-
>b*
a*<-
>b*
L<->C L<->H C<->H b*<-
>C
a*<-
>H
a*<-
>C
b*<-
>H
9 Acer
pse%dopl,
(0.97) (0.80) 0.84 (0.85) 0.94 (0.74) 1.00 (0.97) 0.89 (0.68)
10 Aln%s sp, (0.86) (0.32) 0.56 (0.48) 0.85 (0.32) 0.98 (0.89) 0.71 0.12
11 Bet%la
pend%la
(0.95) (0.42) 0.56 (0.56) 0.92 (0.32) 0.99 (0.90) 0.70 (0.15)
12 "arpin%s
bet%l%s
(0.84) (0.54) 0.53 (0.59) 0.64 (0.09) 0.99 (0.85) 0.60 (0.01)
13 "astanea
sativa
(0.64) (0.40) (0.30) (0.48) 0.22 0.66 0.99 (0.86) (0.19) 0.74
14 ?ag%s
sylvatica
(0.60) (0.15) 0.50 (0.32) 0.63 (0.35) 0.96 (0.89) 0.73 (0.06)
15 5%erc%s
rob%r
(0.77) 0.07 0.14 (0.23) 0.80 (0.27) 0.93 (0.96) 0.53 0.11
16 B%glans
regia
(0.22) 0.71 0.04 0.65 0.72 0.60 0.98 (0.63) 0.23 0.74
17 0obinia p, (0.82) 0.22 0.06 (0.01) 0.86 (0.06) 0.96 (0.97) 0.32 0.20
18 ?raxin%s e, (0.86) (0.63) 0.61 (0.72) 0.82 (0.63) 0.99 (0.97) 0.79 (0.49)
19 Alatan%s x
hisp,
(0.30) 0.70 0.72 (0.09) 0.41 (0.75) 0.95 (0.96) 0.90 (0.51)
93
*+,PT03 1
20 Air%s
co%nis
(0.72) 0.83 (0.28) (0.49) 0.91 0.39 0.85 0.78 0.26 0.82
21 Ar%n%s
avi%
(0.62) (0.14) 0.10 (0.37) 0.56 0.17 0.92 (0.95) 0.46 0.21
22 Tilia sp, (0.98) (0.22) 0.23 (0.35) 0.89 0.06 0.99 (0.89) 0.38 0.21
23 Aop%l%s sp, (0.81) (0.26) 0.38 (0.34) 0.81 (0.26) 0.99 (0.97) 0.47 (0.16)
24 Salix sp, (0.96) (0.45) 0.49 (0.52) 0.94 (0.38) 0.99 (0.97) 0.55 (0.31)
25 Ul%s
glabra
0.01 0.48 0.71 0.35 0.30 (0.50) 0.97 (0.89) 0.86 (0.32)
All
hardwoods
(0.90) (0.46) 0.65 (0.68) 0.91 (0.70) 0.96 (0.97) 0.84 (0.48)
94
0$ample #6 ,esthetics. ,nthropomorphous formula for statistic evaluation of
aesthetic preferences of color of multicolored ob=ects
When the significant majority of observers agree in their subjective evaluation of
aesthetic preference of a set of multicolored objects, (e.g. color models prepared
from a variety of paper packaging E
s
), it is possible to find an objective formula
from the instrumentally measurable optical properties
correlating well with positive or negative visual perception
and allowing the prediction of such visual evaluations with certain
accuracy and reliability.
[ ]
.
L , a
.
s s
.
s s
.
L L
f
.
i
i i i
.
i
i i
.
i
i i
.
i
i i
o
+ +
+
=
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 5# / 2
1
2
1 1
/
where
/C,aC,bC are the trichromatic parameters describing color in the CELAB system
s gloss
D the number of the parts of an object different in color
i the sequence number of one homogeneous part of the multicolor object.
Most of the real natural and man-made products could be considered and
perceived as multicolored objects.
The perceptions of the color of materials and products could influence psychical
or mental comfort of certain living organism, that means wellbeing or health, or
the level of biological state of man; therefore it is a part of biocompatibility or
habitability of materials, natural and man-made products.
95
*+,PT03 1
Example 9' /hermal comfort and discomfort
Similarly as in Example 5 one can say that when the significant majority of
observers agree in their subjective evaluation of thermal comfort/discomfort, it is
possible to find an objective formula from the instrumentally measurable thermal
properties correlating well with positive or negative perceptions and allowing the
prediction of such sensory evaluations with certain accuracy and reliability. When
the thermal conditions in a room are evaluated in practice, it is often of value to
quantify the degree of discomfort. For this purpose the PMV-index (Predicted
Mean Vote) has been derived. This index gives a subjective (objectified) thermal
reaction of a large group of subjects according to a psychophysical scale (Fanger
1973):
PMV = (0.303 e
-2.100M
+ 0.028) {58.15(M-W) - 3.05 . 10
-3
[5733 - 406.7 (M -
W) - p
a
] - 24.42 [(M - W) - 1] - 10
-3
.
M (5867 -p
a
) - 0.0814
.
M (34 - t
a
) -
3.96 . 10
-8
f
cl
[(t
cl
+ 273)
4 -
(t
r
+ 273)
4
] - f
cl
. h
c
( t
cl -
t
a
)}
where
PMV = Predicted Mean 1ote; measure of sensory thermal discomfort
M = metabolism, met (1 met = 58 W/cm
2
)
W = external work, met.; equal to zero for most metabolisms
f
cl
= the ratio of the surface area of the clothed body to the surface area of
the naked body
t
a
= air temperature, C
t
r
= mean radiant temperature, C
p
a
= water vapor pressure, Pa
h
c
= convective heat transfer coefficient, W/m
2
K
t
cl
= surface temperature of clothing, C
96
By setting PMV = 0, an equation is established (the comfort equation) which
predicts combinations of activity, clothing and environmental parameters which
will provide a thermally neutral sensation.
Comfort requirements - in this case the thermal ones - differ from person to
person. For each individual there exists an ambient temperature interval, a
cofort zone, inside which he feels reasonably comfortable (at a given activity,
clothing, air velocity, and air humidity). Within his comfort zone there exists a
narrow interval (0.5 - 2 K) in which he does not know whether he would prefer a
warmer or cooler environment. The center of this interval is defined as his
preferred temperature.
Owing to these individual differences, there will not exist for a large group of
persons (at the same clothing and activity) any interval of temperature (comfort
zone) or any single temperature at which comfort will be obtained for all persons
at the same time. But there exists an optimal temperature at which a minimum
number of persons in the group will be dissatisfied. This minimum comprises
approximately 5% of the group and any deviation from the optimal temperature
will increase the percentage of dissatisfied.
Studies have shown that the preferred temperature level as estimated by
Fanger's comfort equation
113
(Fanger 1973) is independent of age, sex,
adaptation, season and time of the day, but there may be considerable difference
from person to person.
:urther examples
There exist many similar examples of the quantifying of previously only abstractly
and generally known complex phenomena; here are some of them from the wood
science & technology area: the quantitative and objective evaluation of the
relations of wood to liquids with various polarity
EE(
(Katuscak, Horsky and
Zatopkova 1972), objectifying of visual evaluation of the lightfastness of materials
including wood
115,116, 117, 118
(Vaeck 1977, Kuehni 1980, Katuscak, Mahdakova and
Durisova 1986, Katuscak and Durisova 1988), wood deca
EE.
(Katuscak and
Katuscakova 1987), wood text%re
E1@
(Katuscak, Werner, Koeditz and
Baurschmidt 1988) or heterogeneity of the molecular structure (polydispersity) of
the most important polymers for the wood panels industry - urea formaldehyde
glues
121
(Katuscak 1981), etc.
All these examples show the principal possibility and ways of quantifying of
abstract phenomena - similar in complexity to the biocompatibility / habitability
phenomena - into quantities, anthropomorphous sets of quantities, data and their
better visualization. Many of the properties introduced above represent partial
features/properties of the BC/HA. The basic relations of the biocompatibility /
97
*+,PT03 1
habitability to these related sensory and physical properties of materials have
been shown in the Table 1. Quantifying of these partial properties, including their
effects on man is continuing.
For example it is well known that there exist differences in psychological effects
of optical properties e.g. color, total and partial color differences, gloss, opacity,
optical roughness and texture). But hardly anybody knows about the meaningful
physiological effects of the optical properties of materials and how these
physiological effects can be instrumentally measured and quantitatively
evaluated.
The other examples of basic meaningful properties of materials, related to BC/HA
phenomena, are the anthropomorphic surface properties, thermal behaviour at
the hand/wood interface (including the instrument simulating this interface),
sensory warmth, sensory (visual and tactile) roughness, anthropomorphic
characteristics of sorption and immobilization of air components on geometric
and internal surfaces, and correlations between sensory and physical properties
of materials and products.
,.3.-uantifying of the biocompatibility and
habitability /B&.H01 of materials based on
present 2no+ledge
To date, little research has been done related to the quantifying of the BC/HA of
wood and particular wood products.
The complex of parameters evaluates the EQ of materials/ products in three
areas:
production
utilization
elimination / liquidation.
Most important in the consumer product selection is the intended %tilizationF
during this stage arises the most extensive M/O interactions (contact between
material and organism; see also chapter 4.1.). The complex ecological quality
(EQ) of material in its %tilization stage can be defined namely through CO2 fixation
& balance characteristics, toxic-, BC/HA-, and other eco-properties
(Table 1).
The summary of comparable normalized results is presented in the Figure 7.
The most important results are those of Sato
122
(1986) et al. they are results
directly expressing health effects of the particular material in the dwelling
environment. The experiments, financed by the Japan Ministry of Education,
98
were probably the first attempts to evaluate habitability of wood, in comparison
with concrete and aluminium. This was a physiological way of quantitative
evaluation of the HA on the reproductive performance of mice. These tests were
carried out using the pedigreed standardized mice, named DDY.
The mice were fed in the feeding boxes of three different materials, wood,
reinforced concrete, and aluminium. Box size was 14.5 cm in height, 24 cm in
with and 35 cm in depth. n the wooden and concrete boxes the walls and floors
were 2 cm thick. Nine boxes, three of each material, with a pair of mice assigned,
were used. Bedding was wood chips or strips of foamed polystyrene, spread on
the box floors up to 3 to 5 cm thick. Number and date of parturition (delivery) from
each pair of mice, growth of neonatal pups, and environmental factors of
temperature and humidity were recorded during 15 months.
The neonatal pups grew well in most wooden boxes, whereas in the concrete
and aluminum boxes they frequently died and were eaten by their parents
(cannibalis), which was termed "abnoral n%rsing" (A
n
). This was used as a
property for quantitative evaluation of the HA of dwelling materials. The
percentages of A
n
of total number of parturitions for each type of materials were
3% for the wood, 31% for concrete and 30% for the aluminum.
Figure , ?iocompatibility+ "abitability $?C+!=' of 15 selected building materials. T"e
comparison of t"e .nown results.
99
*+,PT03 1
n Figure 7 we have used normalized data of A
n
related to wood, the relative HA
of wood is considered to be 100%), in such a way that the ratios to the HA values
of wood to those for the concrete and the aluminum are the same as for A
n
.
Do abnoral n%rsing was observed for wood, for the combination of wooden
boxes and the wood chips bedding. A minimal total abnormal nursing in wooden
boxes (A
n
= 3%) was observed only if the bedding used in wooden boxes was
from strips of the foamed polystyrene. The wood as only one of the materials
used, resulted in normal nursing, within the range of these experiments. Also the
total number of parturitions (DA) in wood was the best: DA = 29 for wood, DA =
20 for concrete, and DA = 19 for aluminum dwelling environments. According to
the authors the nursing might be affected by the materials used. According to the
authors the search for the reason for these differences in the habitability between
wood and other materials would be a most important future project.
The other results quantifying the biocompatibility / habitability by sensory or
physical methods are not directly related to physical health.
ScheiwillerError: Reference source not found (1988) performed a four degree
subjective evaluation by one person (author) using the following criteria:
a degree of nat%ral character, according to the degree of treatment and
amount of added foreign substances ,
biological or ecological risk (based on experience),
consumption of energy,
eco-physical properties such as electrical behavior, thermal, acoustic,
sorption, and diffusion properties,
toxic properties, and some
sensory criteria.
As the evaluation of Scheiwiller was made in few cases for different building
materials as selected on Figure 7, the evaluation has been completed using the
Scheiwillers criteria.
A similar subjective orientational comparison of effects of main building materials
on health and comfort in 3 degrees has been performed in the frame of a more
complex EQ evaluation by Krusche et al. (from: ScheiwillerError: Reference
source not found 1988).
100
The authors of this study considered together with BC the following 5 criteria,
which they found as ecologically important in comparisons of building materials:
consumption of primary energy by production (kWh/m
3
),
development of harmful substances by production,
regenerating ability,
reuse-ability,
availability in the country,
possibility of decentralized production and utilization, and
effects on health.
Katuscak
123
(1990) has performed a psychometric evaluation of preference from
the following point of view: "Which of the building materials would you prefer for
building your house, from the point of view of the subjectively supposed effects
on your health and the health of your family?" The respondents were asked not
to consider other factors, such as economic ones, mechanical properties,
maintenance, etc. The scale used for the evaluation of the preference was from 0
to 100, while 0 was the worst, and 100 the best evaluation /the most preferred
material.
Mantau
124
(1992) has made the quantifying of the EQ of building materials. He
used a method of consumer based modeling. He identified consumers'
perceptions of EQ of the seven building materials (see Figure 7) while the
evaluating mode of the observers was controlled through the following question:
"Which material would you find to be the most environmentally-friendly, in all
three stages: the production, utilization and liquidation"?
n our summary in Figure 7 we have taken into account only the results from the
second stage - utilization, because this is the most relevant stage to the
biocompatibility / habitability phenomena. We have normalized the Mantau's data
in such a way, that the data for wood were considered to be 100, and the
materials numbers were related to this one. We have taken into account the
evaluations by both groups of observers : investors and planners .
MantauError: Reference source not found has also made an evaluation of the
numbers of positive answers for one particular product in the dwelling
environment (windows) to the following general instruction: "The following
statements are related to the various materials. Please mark which materials
passed these statements":
create healthy dwelling climate
cause damage to nature
101
*+,PT03 1
have long lifetime (haben eine lange Lebensdauer)
easy maintenance (sind pflegeleicht)
good habitability (sind whnlich)
make facade beautiful (verscheinen die Fasade)
cause high energy consumption in production (verursachen hohen
Energiaufwand bei der Herrstellung)
cause air pollution in production (verursachen Luftverschmutzung bei der
Herstellung)
they are expensive (sind teuer in der Ansschaffung)
they are environmentally-friendly during liquidation (sind als Bauschutt
umweltfreundlich zu entsorgen)
no data.
The ratios of the number of the positively marked answers to statement
number 1: "create healthy dwelling climate" for coniferous woods in relation to
plastic and al%in% were: 79 : 8 : 3 for the investors and 86 : 7:3 for planners.
For statement number 5 the scores were 76 :17 : 5 for investors and 87 : 8 : 2 for
planners, respectively.
t can be seen that in the questionnaires like this, questions from various areas of
ecology and economy and from the various stages of products cycle are used
together. From the questions used the number 1., 5., and 6. are directly relevant
to the BC/HA phenomena, while question 6. is related to the habitability through
aesthetic effects.
The shown data of Hllmller 1993 has been achieved through a psychometric
evaluation of habitability (effect on comfort, wellness) of six building materials in a
two-degree scale (plus/minus). The data represent the relative percentage of plus
evaluations, from maximally possible ones, normalized on the evaluation for
wood (100%).
As it can be seen, wood has achieved the highest evaluation as a materials for
building and dwelling environment, from the point of view of general (f%nctionally
%nspecified) habitability.
:unctionality
The data in the Figure 7 concern of the general habitability or biocompatibility of
the building materials generally. f the evaluation is functionally specified, these
data could be the most close to those for living room or sleeping room. For the
areas which are more working as living in character, such as kitchens, the human
102
evaluation of the preference of materials can be sufficiently different, while it
concerns more their "working" than their "dwelling" ability.
As far as the f%nctionality of the BC/HA is concerned, this means the BC/HA
specialized according to the intended use. The functionality or the intended use
could be expressed by words (e.g. the names of particular room such as sitting
room, sleeping room, kitchen, sauna, bathroom, corridor ; or part of the room,
such as floor; or the considered main function of the product or its constructional
part), or by quantitative characteristics, such as the average time of the intended
contact with a body of living organism, average distance between material and
man (M-O), the M-O interface area, pressure and other interface characteristics.
t could be seen that the authors cited on Figure 7 have used various methods for
the evaluation of BC/HA phenomena, intuitively. t can be seen that the data
evaluated have various relation to the BC/HA of wood and other building
materials. The reasons for that are clear:
no unambiguous language exist for better communication,
there exist hygienic recommendations only for the evaluation of various
foreign harmful substances (such as formaldehyde, chlorinated phenols,
tributhyl-tin oxide, toxins), but not for the materials themselves,
no standards are agreed for the evaluation and comparisons of non-toxic
s%bstrat% of the building materials.
This reality is matched by another: When the professionals do not understand
well each other by comparisons of EQ, BC/HA of building/dwelling materials,
consumers can not believe such results at all. So at present time, there are only,
so to say the in%s and zero parts of the scales for evaluating building materials:
Either the material is harf%l, or allowed for utilization in dwellings. All the
allowed materials are officially of the same BC/HA.
This situation is a great advantage for the worse materials. But, if the differences
in the BC/HA exist and if they are meaningful, as indicate the preliminary data,
the present situation is a great non-correct drawback for ecologically better
materials. t is also clear, that the industries producing ecologically inferior
materials have absolutely no interest on initiating and sometimes even on
accepting discussions on quantifying and standardization of eco-phenomena.
The initiative and offensive function can play here the hypothetically more eco-
progressive industries, namely woodworking, mechanical but also pulp and paper
ones.
These research concerns the eco-progressivity of the prod%cts, with the aim to
evaluate, which synthetic or inorganic products, of which eco-quality, and with
what concrete consequences on health come into question as s%bstit%tes of
massive wood, wood particles or fibers. And vice versa - what positive health and
103
*+,PT03 1
eco- effects are connected with increasing the portion of wood materials on
market instead of ecologically inferior materials.
104
From the results shown above the following conclusions can be made:
Biocompatibility of non-toxic materials in the dwelling environment is one
of the insufficiently solved problems of wood-, and eco- science and
material engineering.
No standardized methods exist for the quantitative comparisons of the
BC/HA of wood with other competing building and other environmental
materials.
No such material-engineering parameters exist for the ecological
optimalization of multi-material systems such as composites or panels, or
houses from wood and other co-operating materials.
The methods intuitively used for quantifying of phenomena close to the
biocompatibility / habitability have been mostly psychometric ones.
Therefore they have only an indicative character.
The results achieved can not serve as evidence for the differences of
effects of various building materials on health. This would be possible
only in case of the existence of a relationship between the preferences
(Aa) used by individual authors and physical, psychic or social comfort or
health.
All building materials evaluated on Figure 7 are commonly used in
building industry; therefore they have passed through necessary hygienic
requirements.
n spite of the fact that according to official hygienic requirements there
exist no other quantified differences in the effects of the materials on
health of living organisms, all results indicate that such differences exist.
The best BC/HA values were achieved for wood as a material for
dwelling environment, by all authors. Wood is therefore suitable as a
standard for evaluation and comparisons of the BC/HA of various
building materials and products.
The information on the particular properties which influence the overall BC/HA
have been shown in chapter 5.2.
,.".Prognosis
105
*+,PT03 1
Categories or general phenomena are classified into quantities and/or sets of
quantities. The quantities are expressed in units or used in the form of relative
indices.
The key problem in improving the practical use of characteristics such as nat%ral
character, E5, or B"7HA, for the benefit of wood is that they are only partially
defined at present.
There is a lack of methods for their objective measurements, and of course no
standards or internationally agreed-upon methods (SO) for such coparisons of
wood with other aterials currently exist.
t is believed that this situation could be improved through studies seeking to
transform abstract terms about EQ, biocompatibility, or habitability and sensory
properties of materials into measurable quantities. This would improve
communication about and comparison of various materials and aid in the design
of new products through the development of better multi-material systems. This
will create a more useful language about eco-quality, biocompatibility and
habitability of materials. t will improve scientific, technical and practical
communication, resulting in objective communication about technical and
ecological properties of materials and products which better correspond to the
present and future era of ecological concern and to the interests of consumers, to
the benefit of ecologically more progressive materials and products. t is believed
that wood is a highly competitive material from an ecological point of view.
Therefore, wood is disadvantaged and undervalued when it is evaluated in the
international or national standardization of building materials, which is based on
primary technical parameters.
The ecologization of the standards by which building materials are evaluated
should be supported by the woodworking industry and research.
Sensory properties are assessed through psychometric methods. These could
probably only be connected with effects on health.
The only direct methods on the effects of materials on the health of man and
other living components of the environment are biological ones.
These must and will serve in the future as direct evidence and as reference data
for other psychometric/sensory or physical methods. And so, objective data on
BC/HA eventually produced through physical methods or sensory measurements
will be correlated with the standard biological methods.
The physical data on building materials from the building physics area or from
studies on habitability from the point of view of physics (Maku and Masuda 1979)
can be connected with health only intuitively or through logical considerations.
106
,.,.*esearch and deelopment needs and proposal
Depending on the region and season, human beings spend up to 80% of their
time indoors, in premises built of many kinds of materials. Other organisms may
reach even higher percentages, but currently we know little about any possible
interactions.
The science on materials deals overwhelmingly with the so-called primary
properties/ i.e. with those existing objectively, thus without an observer. The
evaluation of technical and constructive materials in technology is based mostly,
if not exclusively, on those measurable and quantifiable properties.
The standardization work, being worldwide of enormous significance for the
exchange of goods and the use of technical and constructive materials aims at
the characterization of the properties through measurable and reproducible
indicators (parameters), leaving the least uncertainty on the quality of those
materials.
The interactions between organisms and the surrounding materials enjoy
enormous attention just in the recent years. Science got not very engaged in this
field till the present times. Standardized evaluation of technical and construction
materials, although it may have enormous worldwide ramifications, remains
aimed at characterizing properties through measurable and reproducible
indicators.
To date, science lags far behind the rising popular interest in interactions
between organisms and the material world that surrounds them.
,.,.1 Mar2et sureys
Market surveys shows that this issue is of utmost importance especially for the
consumers. The secondary properties are causally certainly determined by the
primary properties, but they define the perception of technical and constructive
materials by the organisms.
According
125
to Gfeller, Katusck and Hllmller - 1994 the secondary properties
such as the biocompatibility, the comfort related and health - related problems
and properties of materials and products become increasingly important for the
manufacturers and the representative of the construction - material industry. This
has been supported by the results of the following evaluation survey among
traders and manufacturers.
107
*+,PT03 1
The 43 representatives and managers of the constructive bio-progressive natural
and bio-composite materials, components, buildings, furniture and other man-
made products industry were confronted with the following questions:
1. Have you been already asked well-being- or cofort-related
questions in the recent years? (Fig. 8a).
2. Have you already been asked the questions in your contacts with the
contractors, manufacturers, traders, planners or construction
owners? (Fig. 8b).
3. Do you think that you would be able to satisfy their inforation
re$%ireents of your communication partners in this respect - with
your current state of knowledge? (Fig. 8c).
4. Do you think that f%rther activities are necessary in connection with
the interactions between humans and constructive materials? (Fig.
8d).
The answers revealed the following pictures (Figures 8 a - d).
!0 ,omfort
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Never Seldom Regularly Often Frequently
2
r
e
3
u
e
n
c
y

#
4
5
Figure !a, Results of a sur#ey among producers) representati#es and managers) of
natural and bio(composite materials and ot"er eco(progressi#e man(made products.
1 Comfort. T"e answer to t"e question, K-a#e you been already as.ed well(being( or
comfort(related questions in t"e recent years8L
108
60 ,ontact
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Contractor Processor Trader Planner Construction
owner
2
r
e
3
u
e
n
c
y

#
4
5
Figure !b, Results of a sur#ey among producers) representati#es and managers) of
2 Contact. T"e answer to t"e question, K-a#e you already been as.ed t"e
$biocompatibility' questions in your contacts wit" t"e contractors) manufacturers) traders)
planners or construction owners8L
"0 7nformation needs
0
10
20
30
40
Not at all Unsufficient Acceptable Good
2
r
e
3
u
e
n
c
y

#
4
5
Figure !c, Results of a sur#ey among producers) representati#es and managers) of
Information needs. T"e answer to t"e question, K!o you t"in. t"at you would be able to
satisfy t"eir information requirements of your communication partners in t"is respect ( wit"
your current state of .nowledge8L
109
*+,PT03 1
*0 2uter activities
0
20
40
60
80
100
Yes No
2
r
e
3
u
e
n
c
y

#
4
5
Figure !d, Results of a sur#ey among producers) representati#es and managers) of
3 Furt"er acti#ities. T"e answer to t"e question, K!o you t"in. t"at further activities are
necessary in connection wit" t"e interactions between "umans and constructi#e
materials8L
This survey, however - does not comprise all the elements in the construction-
chain, but nevertheless it shows that the interaction (interdependency) between
the constructive material and the human is an issue repeatedly raising questions
and concerning a wide spectrum of persons involved in the construction process.
t is typical that the construction owners get increasingly interested in well-being.
The same survey showed further that the respondents were not always able to
answer the questions satisfactorily and conclusively, thus - raising a distinctive
need for additional information. This means that further examinations, research,
improving communication and education are needed.
).).2 Preliminary sensory testing of materials
Hllmller
126
C. (1993) placed man into the centre of those interactions and to
use ("interrogate") that human as a kind of ,measuring instrument". 116 persons
aged 17 - 28 of various origins (architectural draftsmen-apprentices, art-school
students, grammar-school students) were approached via questionnaires -
asking them about their feelings with 6 natural and man-made materials:
concrete, clinker, plastic, wood, metal and stone.
110
The first part of the questionnaire contained so-called ,open-ended" questions,
without any proposed answers - allowing a determination of the psychological
and cultural influences.
The other part consisted of evaluating questions with 2 to 5 multiple choice
evaluations for materials. Each of the questions depicted a certain situation and
was supposed to be answered with the senses: vision, touch, hearing and the
sense of smell or in connection with a certain activity (walking, sitting and eating)
or spatial function (bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom). Those
parameters (senses, activity or function) were examined within separate issues.
n order to verify the expressiveness and significance of the results gained in this
way, the same persons underwent also psychometrical tests. The test persons
were submitted material probes - and asked to assess them.
Apart from this examination, the 6 were evaluated also by kids aged 5-6. Those
tests were performed as a kind of game or as a dialogue. Since due to the
financial budget no child-psychologists could be engaged we had to refrain from
a further evaluation of those tests. Although the first questionnaire part (open-
ended questions) provided no choice if answers - there were certain
concordances in the answers of the individual persons.
Figure 9 is an evaluation example for the material "Stone". This material scored
33 times the property ,Nice", 33 times ,Solid", 23 times the property ,Natural" etc.
The individual evaluations of the materials by different functions were statistically
evaluated with respect to the more or less positive answers. Since a weighing of
the individual effective parameters was not objectively possible (without a
adulteration of the results), the so-called profiles were presented in verbal form.
Those evaluations are rather extensive and they show that the different materials
received (in total) a rather different evaluation. We may also state that the three
,natural" materials wood, stone and clinker generally received a more positive
evaluation then the three ,artificial" materials, i.e. concrete, metal and plastic.
The psychometrical evaluation of the materials through closed-ended questions
(offering several answers for each question) corresponds rather well with that
evaluation (see Figure 10).
The net-chart in Figure 10 corresponds with the material evaluation according to
the criteria mentioned in the legend. The higher the score, the better the
constructive material in respect of the properties provided in the legend.
Since those get not weighed, the statement needs to be relativized. E.g. the
hardness and color show a different significance depending on the application
area. But in spite of this - a qualitative cooperation is possible.
111
*+,PT03 1
Figure 9, 6"at are t"e qualities of stone concerning well(being8
0 10 20 30 40 50
8umber of term
Nice
Solidly
Natural
Eternal
Warm
Diversified
Safe
Pleasant
Cool
Noble percious
Permanent
Diverse
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
9
69
*9
)9
-9
!99
Color
Structure
Gloss
Brightness
Texture
Temperature
Hardness
Structure borne noise
After-noise
Smell
Concrete
Burnt brick
Plastic
Wood
Metal
Stone
112
Figure 1&, Psyc"rometry C"art of t"e e*amined materials. T"e MnaturalC materials wood)
stone and burnt bric. generally recei#ed a more positi#e e#aluation t"en t"e t"ree artificial
materials) i.e. concrete) metal and plastic.
By calculating an average value, we get the following order of materials: wood
(78.8), stone (63.0), clinker (54.0), metal (51.5), plastic (46.9) and concrete
(29.3). Hllmller, C. draws the following conclusions from that: The influence of
the material on the well-being in a built-up environment is quantifiable.
There exists no standard methodology for that however, but we have various
determination and quantification methods available. A comparison between the
results of the questionnaire and the psychometrical tests shows a good degree of
correlation.
,.,.3 !eeloping diagram . algorithm of the
transformation of abstract general phenomena
/$
s
1 into quantities /$
o
1
n the following developing diagram, a general set of procedures shows the
transformation of general abstract and subjective categories (E
s
) into objectified
quantities and anthropomorphous complexes of quantities (E
o
) (S. Katuscak,
Ekorex SK, Bratislava).
The FORMULATON OF A PSYCHOMETRC QUESTON OR NSTRUCTON
has, by psychometric and psycho-physical measurements, a role similar to the
selection of a mode in instrumental measurements; t switches the mode of the
human cybernetic multifunctional sensory, perceptive and evaluative system to
the mode relevant to the question/instruction. For example, the psychometric
instructions "order the samples according to their lightness- and "order the
samples according to differences in color- have a similar function to the switching
of the trichromatic colorimeter or visual spectrophotometer between the modes:
lightness !/# and color difference !GGGE#,
The CAUSAL ANALYSS OF THE PREFERENCES means analysis of the
decisions through registered free speech/discussions about the potential causes
of the individual evaluations of the observers.
The aim of the comparative children/adults-based modeling in HUMAN
SENSORY TESTS is filtration of the effects of education, advertisement and eco-
sensibility from the natural, sensory motivated perceptions of hoo sapiens,
The aim of the FORMULATON OF KEYWORDS OR KEYPHRASES is the
suggestion of the potential partial quantities on the basis of psychological and
logical analysis of the reasons of the preferences of human evaluations by
various groups: adults/children, professionals/amateurs, producers/consumers.
113
*+,PT03 1
The last step, MPROVNG THE LANGUAGE ABOUT BOCOMPATBLTY AND
HABTABLTY, concerning the need for a consistent universal language to
describe BC/HA, is discussed in full in chapter 3.1.
114
$lgoritm Ekore: ;<
=uantifying te biocompatibility and abitability #B,>H$5 of materials
and products in te dwelling environment
{OB;E?1$%7O8
$8$@A;7;
HAPO%HE;7;
EBPE?7ME8%}n:

2O?MC@$%7O8 $8D P?E2O?MC@$%78D
OF THE PROBLEM/ PHENOMENA TO BE
OBJECTFED/QUANTFED
;$MP@E;
PREPARATON
%HE P;A,HOME%?7, =CE;%7O8/

NSTRUCTON FORMULATON
P;A,HOME%?7, $8D P;A,HO&
PHA;7,$@ EBPE?7ME8%;
P;A,HOME%?7, ME$;C?EME8%
AND EVALUATON OF PREFERENCES Es
WTH STATSTCAL EVALUATON
OF THE RELABLTY AND
REPRODUCBLTY
(in case of the highly meaningful agreement of
majority)
PREFERENCES BY ANMALS (Aa)
mice or rats
rabbits
other experimental animals
HUMAN SENSORY TESTS
/PREFERENCES (Ah)
adults vs. children
professionals vs. amateurs
producers, users, non-users

,$C;$@ $8$@A;7;
OF THE PREFERENCES
PERCEPTUAL MAPPNG
consumer-based modeling
children/adults-based modeling
(see the next page)
115
*+,PT03 1
B7O@OD7,$@ EBPE?7ME8%;
2O?MC@$%7O8 O2 <EAEO?D;/
KEYPHRASES AND HYPOTHETCAL
PHYSCAL AND OTHER OBJECTVE
PROPERTES OF THE MATERALS
RELEVANT TO THESE KEY-WORDS AND
-PHRASES
OBJECTVE PHYSOLOGCAL
PARAMETERS, e.g.
mortality, abnormal nursing, cannibalism
of parents, mortality of neonatal pups
growth parameters of pups, number of
parturition(offspring) from each pair of
experimental animals
bio-physical absolute / differential data on
temperature, humidity, concentration of
gases in equilibrium / dynamic system:
organism - material; effects of individual
materials on micro- and environmental
climate around individual organisms
#B7O&5PHA;7,$@ EBPE?7ME8%;
OBFE,%71E ME$;C?EME8%;, Eo
,O??E@$%7O8; $8D MODE@; BETWEEN

SUBJECTVE AND OBJECTVE
MEASUREMENTS
CONSTRUCTNG AND TESTNG OF

$8%H?OPOMO?PHOC; B,&=C$8%7%7E;,
PARTAL AND COMPLEX FUNCTONS FOR
BC/HA
MEASUREMENT OF PHYSCAL AND

OTHER A086A0= A0*AE0T8ES OF
MATERALS HYPOTHETCALLY
0E/ATEH T* E57B"7HA, e.g.
physical p. (incl. mechanical, electrical,
acoustic, thermal p., density, resilience,
permeability, sorption p., hydrofilness,
surface energy, specific/internal surface,
interaction with electromagnetic waves and
ionization energy)
chemical/biochemical p.
structural p.
CREATNG AND MPROVNG THE LANGUAGE

FOR COMMUNCATON ABOUT BOCOMPATBLTY OR HABTABLTY (BC/HA) OF MATERALS
FOR PRODUCERS AND OTHER PROFESSONALS, USERS AND NON-USERS
2igure !!: Algorithm Ekorex
SK
. >ne of t"e possible approac"es to t"e quantifying of
t"e biocompatibility and "abitability $?C+-=' of materials in dwelling en#ironment .
116
Questions
Relevant questions and their proposals are perhaps more important than the
answers for the $%antifying of the biocopatibility 7 habitability !B"7HA#
phenoena at present. The answers serve in leading us to new questions.
n our opinion the most important relevant $%estions to be answered through
experimental work are as follows:
n case that the materials coming in direct or indirect contact with living
organisms are hygienically OK (= neutral, nontoxic, not harmful
according to the official toxicological/hygienic laws/rules/standards), are
they mutually EQUAL in their environmental effects in relation to mental
or physical health? For example: is the "non-toxic" reinforced concrete of
equal quality as "non-toxic" wood, in respect to man and his psychic and
physical health?
Are the differences "only" psychological in character?
What are the reasons for much higher mortality of experimental mice in
metal and reinforced concrete than in wood, in Takemura
127
(Takemura
et al,86) and/or SatosError: Reference source not found (Sato et al, 86)
experiments ?
f there exist the meaningful differences between materials, e.g. iron-
reinforced concrete and wood, or between the particular wood materials,
how big are they? Can the differences be quantified and HOW?
s wood really so much better as other competing materials as indicate
the psychometric preferences (see Chapter 5.2)?
Can the conclusions on EQ of wood be used for wood composites and
products?
What is the effect of various technological processes on the EQ, BC/HA
and sensoric properties of materials and products?
+ethodological principles
The following features and principles are characteristic for the research
proposed:
research strategy according to the development diagram on Figure 11
the experiments proposed in Figure 11 are supposed to be done with
officially non&toxic aterials, that is with the materials fulfilling official
117
*+,PT03 1
hygienic requirements; for the sake of simplicity, the toxicity
measurements are proposed to be performed separately
comparison of the normalized data of more authors, who had been using
various methods of the BC/HA quantifying;
utilization of wood as eco-standard for eco- and material engineering
comparisons of building materials
formulation of so called standard observer for the sensory measurements
related to the BC/HA through statistical evaluation of psychometric
measurements
co-ordination of the measurements of sense-data and physical/primary
data;
scaling through the relationships between sense-data (secondary) and
physical, chemical and other priary data
sense-data from psychoetric measurements are suggested to have the
inspirational function and cognitive function; according to the Figure 11 it
means that the sensors of the living cybernetic systems (O) can be
utilized mainly for formulating/ preformulating of questions ; but it is not
recommended to use the sense-data as arguments of virtual
physiological effects of environmental materials;
physiological experiments should support evidences
physical and other primary experiments should support obIective data on
the materials properties, potentially related to the EQ, BC/HA and/or
sensory properties; this leads to the development of objectivized
instr%ental measurement of BC/HA and sensory properties; the
information on selected partial physical properties which could influence
the overall BC/HA have been shown in chapter 5.2
correlations between sense &data and physical data, if meaningful,
should lead to the development of methods for objectified evaluation of
the BC/HA; the correlates should allow prediction of statistical averages
and variability of human evaluations and cons%er attit%des
correlations between physiological& and sense&data, if meaningful,
should allow prediction of health effects of materials and products
using the feedback from results of all types of psychometric, physiologic,
and physical experiments, to the first step - observation - (according to
Figure 11), for the formulation and preformulating of relevant questions
118
separation of the development of relevant quantities, from the
optimalization; first relevancy, then optialization
use of differential methods for increasing sensitivity of measurements;
e.g. the differences between a tested material and standard wood, or the
differences between the bio-physical properties (see Figure 11) of the
tested material and bio-physical properties of the relevant tissues of the
organism.
119
*+,PT03 1
/he role of observation and experiment in the BC/(A )uantifying
Physics and related empirical sciences are said to be empirical because they are
based upon observation and experient (cf. Figure 11). The observation and
experiment are most important tools for all scientific disciplines related to BC/HA,
for experimental psychology, biology,- and also for physics, chemistry, physical
chemistry and other disciplines dealing with the measurements of primary
properties.
What can be learned by observation and experiment e.g. in physics in relation to
sensory measurements? According to some theories, (Russell 1910, Massof and
Bird 1978, Torgerson 1958, Stevens 1960) if some obIects of empirical science
are to be verified it %st be through their relation to sense-data: they must have
some kind of correlation with sense -data, and must be verifiable through their
correlation. t is the basic presumption of observation and experiment necessary
for study of objective, subjective or objectified phenomena.
The relation between B"7HA and toxicity, Generally speaking toxic material can
not have good BC/HA, or in other words without non-toxicity can not exist good
biocompatibility or habitability of material. From this general point of view we
understand the toxicity and other basic hygienic requirements as a part of
BC/HA. On the other hand the toxicity is already much better quantified than
other hypothetical parts of the BC/HA.
The experiments proposed in Figure 11 are supposed to be done only with non&
toxic aterials (chapter 4.4.2), which means with materials fulfilling the official
hygienic requirements. The first unavoidable condition for the overall ecological
quality of materials (Table 1), and of course for their biocompatibility and good
habitability, is their non&toxicity. Generally speaking, the material for the
experiments in the research projects according to Figure 11, should be non-toxic.
An exaple for the case of particle boards, plywood, fiberboards and other glued
products based on wood, cork and other lignocellulosics
128, 129, 130
(Hespodarik et
al, 1990; Hespodarik 1989; Lbke 1990) is shown in Table 7.
120
0able , T"e present state(of(t"e(art of t"e minimalization of t"e formalde"yde emission
from composite panels. =n e*ample of t"e ac"ie#ed le#el of t"e eco(quality in former
Czec"oslo#a. 0tate Forest Products Researc" Institute) ?ratisla#a.
0mission
class
>evel of research and
reali7ation
0mission
mg(1 m
3
?unction
%1 realized by particle boards before
1225
N5.1E assuring
"ygienic
%1 realized at present by all wood
panels
N5.1E requirements
%1(0pecial elaborated) realized in selected
firms
N 5.5E reser#e for t"e
future and+or
%O> 52E comple* .now("ow on increasing
"ygienic comfort of older buildings
5.52E D 5.5E increase
of eco(
competiti#eness
The problems of assuring the legal hygienic requirements as well as further
increasing this part of the ecological quality of wood products - formaldehyde
emission - have been technologically solved, successfully proven and realized in
industry.
The firms which would like to further increase the national- and internationally-
wide competitiveness of their products, can find possibilities in the utilization of
the EQ or the eco-competitiveness, e.g. through bringing on the market
advertising and guarantees for wood panels of higher hygienic comfort than their
competitors and than it is officially required.
Another example of the relationship between toxicity and biocompatibility, in the
way it is understood here, are chemically treated wood products: one alternative -
which we consider here - is such that the quantifying and comparisons of the
BC/HA of various chemically treated products is reasonable in such cases when
the compared materials passed through all valid relevant hygienic requirements
on toxicity. According to this alternative of the BC/HA quantifying, the toxicity is
not a partial parameter of the BC/HA but it is an independent variable and/or the
unavoidable condition before the BC/HA evaluation.
/he main functions of the various types of experiments proposed in Figure
11. According to the algorithm shown above, the three main groups of
experiments have the following main cognitive functions shown in Table 8.
121
*+,PT03 1
0able !, T"e main functions of t"e #arious types of e*periments in quantifying of bio(
compatibility and "abitability
9roup of e$periments The main function of the e$periment
Psyc"ometric and
psyc"op"ysical
Identification) indicati#e
?iological %#idence on biological effect of materials or
products.
P"ysical >bBectifying of e#aluationG obBecti#e
measurements. !e#elopment of p"ysical
measuring instruments
:irst relevancy then optialization thro%gh f%nctionality of properties, Quantities
relevant and correlating with bio-compatibility or habitability phenomena can be
searched in the first step. The relevancy can be tested with objective
physiological methods and psychometric measurements of preferences.
Any property or complex of properties of material or a product can correlate with
biocompatibility. t can be either relevant to a BC/HA phenomena or not.
Than the optimalization can be made for a particular function/ utilization of the
material in question as a second step: estimating ranges of values of the
particular relevant quantity optimal for health or comfort of a living organism. The
tested new partial property of bio-compatibility can gain good/bad, specific values
from the point of view of the considered specific function of the tested material or
product (Table 9). The separation of the 2 steps simplifies quantifying.
-elevancy
As it was shown in chapter 3.2., properties are neither good nor bad; they are
relevant or irrelevant, they correspond to the phenomena in question or they do
not.
n the first stage of quantifying biocompatibility or habitability of a material or
product, it is reasonable to attempt to define a quantity relevant to particular
phenomena, while simply ignoring whether the values are good or bad, negative,
neutral or positive.
122
n searching for relevancy, negative and positive data are equally important. f a
property is relevant to a phenomenon in question, it can be %sef%l for better
communication about the phenomenon, for predictions, modeling, storing the
data, or building databases and expert systems.
123
*+,PT03 1
0able 9, 0implification of t"e biocompatibility quantifying
30>0;,N*@
T< !5<*<AP,T5!5>5T@
<PT5A5B5N9

0earc"ing for relevancy or if possible also
for proportionality wit" ?C+-=
0earc"ing for t"e optimal range of #alues
for t"e rele#ant ?C+-= property
corresponding to its intended function
In t"e first stage of quantifying
biocompatibility or "abitability of a material
or product define a quantity rele#ant to
particular p"enomena) w"ile simply
ignoring w"et"er t"e #alues are good or
bad) negati#e) neutral or positi#e
T"e optimalization can be made for a
particular function or utilization of t"e
material or a product in question as a
second step. %stimating ranges of #alues
of t"e particular rele#ant quantity optimal
for "ealt" or comfort of a li#ing organism.
For example, a quantitative property expressing biocompatibility, or color
difference, or thermal comfort or discomfort can gain negative, zero or positive
values.
When searching for relevancy it is not even important whether some group of
observers (e.g. the observers from Southern countries) prefer stone as a building
material to wood, and the other group (in a Northern country) prefers wood. The
same quantity BC/HA could be optimal in one country, and less so in another.
Some people prefer temperatures of +10 C, and others -10 C, but the quantity
relevant to both measurements remains the same - the teperat%re. mportant
are only the relevancy, variability and reproducibility of measurements of the
property in question. Terms like bad or good, worse or better, suitable/unsuitable,
pleasant or unpleasant can only indicate some val%es of the relevant property
correlating with bio-compatibility in a partic%lar application7f%nction.
Examples of the experimental research
The quantifying of the effects of nontoxic materials on air quality. The effects of
adsorption of VOC by tested materials on indoor air quality (AQ). Testing of
emission properties using GCMS and test chambers.
Dynamic and equilibrium measurements in material-organism systems.
Experiments in the model dwelling spaces equipped with tested materials with
standardized cyclic airing and in the hermetically sealed ones. The effect on
124
health of living organism. Do non-toxic building materials effect the chemical
composition of air in a room and AQ? Comparative evaluation of non- toxic
building materials according to VOC absorption and health effects.
Effect of building materials on selected physiological functions. dentification of
differences of materials modification on physiological functions.
Testing of effects of non-toxic building materials on animals, in animal exposure
box. The standardized boxes can be modified/ developed for non-toxic materials
testing be used: hermetic/ aired in controlled way
131
(see e.g.Hirata et al. 1992).
They must be more sensitive than for testing of toxic gases, e.g. in accordance to
Japanese Ministry of Construction NotificationError: Reference source not found
1231 (Hirada et al. 1992).
Psychometric and sensory evaluation of habitability of the most important groups
of building materials and products. Testing of effects of non-toxic building
materials on animals, in animal exposure box. The standardized boxes will be
modified / developped for non-toxic materials testing be used: hermetic/ aired in
controlled wayError: Reference source not found (see e.g.Hirata et al. 1992).
They must be more sensitive than for testing of toxic gases, e.g. in accordance to
Japanese Ministry of Construction NotificationError: Reference source not found
1231 (Hirata et al. 1992).
125
*+,PT03 1
References
126
F. Conclusions
The aim of this book was to review the present state-of-the-art and to propose
further ways of quantifying biocompatibility and habitability (BC/HA) of
materials in a dwelling environment, and to show future perspectives of
practical application of the BC/HA of materials, for the benefit of healthier,
more eco-progressive materials and well-being. Special attention has been
paid to the comparative evaluation of non-toxic materials and products.
The study draws the following conclusions:
Biocompatibility of non-toxic materials in the dwelling environment is one of
the least often addressed problems of eco-science and material engineering.
Biocompatibility and habitability of materials should be quantified, categorized,
and understood as are other primary and secondary properties of materials,
and the biocompatibility of biomaterials in biomedical applications and
devices.
Preliminary results indicate that the BC/HA represent a potential group of
material properties in which natural materials achieve best performance and
rating values and can serve as comparative standards and inspiration for
further development of healthy products.
We have tried to create and classify a complex system of eco-quality (EQ) of
materials consisting of eco-balances and eco-properties or biocompatibility.
The objective, empirical data about the effects of various materials on
physical or psychic health may also have economic consequences, as they
can act as new eco-impulses for industry and market. Both green sentiment,
and knowledge among consumers, the environmental bureaucracy,
government and other decision-makers increasingly based on quantitative
empirical data can add new impulses/ orientation to the eco- and health-
oriented building industry, and to all industries and services related to the
creation and restoration of the dwelling environment.
Although the psychoetric ethods used for the quantifying of the BC/HA are
mainly suggestive in character; new physiological methods should support
evidence and physical experiments should allow the development of new
objective instrumental measurements of BC/HA based on the relevant
physical properties of materials.
*+,PT03 9
All authors to date have noted that wood as a material for the dwelling
environment has consistently achieved the best values in the comparison of
materials related to biocompatibility or habitability. Wood therefore seems
suitable as a standard for comparative evaluations of the BC/HA of various
building materials.
The following steps of BC/HA quantification have been proposed:
Classification of categories and properties related to biocompatibility.
A proposal of classification taxonomy has been presented in this
book.
Analysis of the known observations (chapters 4 and 5) and
approaches successful in the past.
Creating methodology, algorithm and procedures allowing effective
coordination and positive synergism of individual research
approaches. Trying to optimize the unity in diversity and diversity in
unity of biocompatibility research.
Experimental research and quantifying of material - organism
interactions in the environment.
Further research on the biocompatibility of natural and man-made materials
and products is necessary. t can bring important knowledge and data with
scientific and economic power, with a positive influence on the marketing of
new products. The power of objective classification and quantification of
biocompatibility could work to the benefit of healthy materials, products,
industries, dwelling environment and human health and well-being...
f we better understand biocompatibility and know how to measure the
interactions between products and living organisms we can use this
knowledge to design better products.
This will improve communication, comparisons of various materials,
marketing, and will aid in the production of new products through the
development of better multi-material systems. This will also improve language
about eco-quality, biocompatibility and habitability of materials. t will improve
scientific, technical and practical communication. This will correct the balance
in the ongoing discussion of the technical and ecological properties of
materials and products, which will better address present needs and the
future era of ecological concern.
t is better to design and optimize the biocompatibility of products than to
correct problems caused by incompatible products ex post or to wait and see
how living systems are jeopardized and damaged by man-made products,
materials, processes and systems.
Inde*
3-dimensional orthogonal
space....................................87
abnormal nursing..........99, 100
abstract general phenomena
(Es).....................................113
Acer pseudoplatanus............90
adsorption...............59, 60, 124
advertisement..........23, 26, 113
Aesthetic properties..............32
anisotropy.............................89
anthropomorphous. .32, 65, 83,
86, 97, 113
Anthropomorphous..........32, 95
Betula pendula......................90
Bio-functionality.....................52
bio-incompatible....................16
bio-systems...........................14
biocompatibility....4, 6, 7, 8, 12,
13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22,
23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38,
39, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62,
64, 68, 75, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84,
89, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 105,
106, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122,
124, 127, 128, 137, 139
Biocompatibility of biomedical
materials...............................33
Biocompatibility of materials13,
33, 52
biocompatible 8, 12, 30, 33, 54,
62, 77
Biodegradability....................34
biodegradability...............34, 45
biodiffusion............................60
biofunctionality..........54, 55, 59
Biological material.................35
biological standard conditions
..............................................60
biomaterial...13, 36, 51, 54, 59,
60
biomaterials. 14, 35, 43, 51, 52,
53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 127, 137
biomedical.. .14, 19, 21, 30, 33,
34, 35, 36, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 82, 127, 137, 139
5nde$
biomedical devices................30
biostimulability,......................60
Building Biology..............14, 53
carbon dioxide.................34, 50
Carpinus betulus...................90
Castanea sativa....................90
CAUSAL ANALYSS OF THE
PREFERENCES.................113
Cell culturing.........................60
cellulose..............12, 35, 68, 74
Characteristic feature............35
characteristic features.. .83, 89,
90
chromaticity C.......................90
CE................32, 35, 65, 66, 85
CELAB system...............88, 95
classification. .6, 37, 38, 40, 62,
81, 128
CO2 balances.......................24
collagenic-fibrina...................60
color egality...........................64
Color information...................64
color of wood...................66, 90
colorimetric coordinates X, Y, Z
..............................................86
Colorimetric System..............66
colorimetry......................65, 85
Comfort requirements...........97
Compatibility..........8, 12, 32, 35
Complex Quality..............36, 43
consumption of energy. .15, 37,
77, 100
control of drug delivery..........30
cosmetic surgery...................30
creative impulse....................40
cytotoxicity......................34, 54
degree of tolerance...............12
deterioration....................14, 53
Diagnosing............................23
diagram/ algorithm..............113
dimensionality.....44, 65, 66, 89
disease................13, 14, 52, 53
dwelling ability.. .32, 36, 40, 43,
44, 77, 137, 143
eco- properties......................24
eco-balances15, 17, 18, 37, 77,
127
Eco-balances........................37
eco-compatible......................62
eco-impulses.................24, 127
Eco-profile.............................40
eco-progressivity.................103
eco-properties. . .13, 17, 18, 37,
38, 40, 43, 44, 50, 77, 98, 127
eco-quality...16, 23, 37, 43, 62,
103, 106, 121, 127, 128
eco-related..........................6, 7
ecological....6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17,
18, 22, 24, 26, 31, 36, 37, 39,
43, 50, 63, 65, 82, 89, 98, 100,
105, 106, 120, 121, 128, 138
ecological properties. 6, 22, 39,
50, 82, 106, 128
Ecological properties.............38
ecological quality15, 16, 17, 18,
26, 31, 37, 43, 98, 120, 121
Ecological quality..................36
ecology..............16, 33, 40, 102
economical......7, 24, 30, 36, 43
education.....15, 24, 26, 30, 51,
113
emmission properties............68
engineering. . .7, 14, 17, 22, 33,
50, 51, 53, 67, 74, 77, 105,
118, 127
enthalpy................................59
entropy..................................59
environment 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 36,
37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 49,
50, 51, 53, 56, 60, 68, 69, 73,
74, 81, 82, 97, 98, 101, 102,
105, 106, 113, 116, 127, 128
environmental....14, 15, 16, 17,
21, 24, 25, 26, 36, 63, 68, 97,
99, 105, 117, 118, 127
Environmental science..........22
Evaluating the present and
future threat...........................23
ex post...6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 128
ex post treatment..................13
Examples of the expertimental
research..............................124
filling up the information
vacuum.................................24
First relevancy.....................122
Forest....6, 24, 26, 37, 50, 121,
138, 143
formaldehyde. . . .44, 68, 75, 97,
103, 121, 143
5nde$
FORMULATON OF A
PSYCHOMETRC
QUESTON/NSTRUCTON113
FORMULATON OF
KEYWORDS/ KEYPHRASES
............................................113
Fraxinus excelsior.................90
free energy............................59
functionality...........52, 103, 122
Functionality....................52, 55
gas chromatography.......68, 69
habitability 6, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24,
31, 32, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 51,
61, 62, 64, 67, 75, 76, 77, 81,
82, 83, 84, 89, 97, 98, 99, 100,
101, 102, 105, 106, 116, 117,
120, 122, 125, 127, 128, 138,
142
health. . . .6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30,
33, 38, 40, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54,
61, 62, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 82,
89, 91, 98, 100, 101, 103, 105,
106, 117, 118, 122, 124, 125,
127, 128
homo sapiens................64, 113
HUMAN SENSORY TESTS113
humano modo.......................35
Hygienic................................44
illness....13, 14, 15, 30, 46, 52,
53, 75
imbalance........................14, 53
MPROVNG THE LANGUAGE
ABOUT BC/HA....................114
injury...............................14, 53
nterfacial processes.............59
internationally agreed-upon
methods..............................106
ionising energy......................82
Juglans regia.........................90
life cycle assessment............15
lightness (L)........................113
lignin.....................................90
lignocellulosics........16, 50, 120
living organisms. . . .6, 8, 12, 13,
14, 15, 22, 32, 40, 43, 49, 67,
105, 117, 128
malnutrition.....................14, 53
man-made products. .6, 14, 15,
16, 53, 67, 74, 128
Market surveys....................107
mass spectrometry..........68, 69
Material.................................44
material pollution...................25
migration parameter..............87
multicolored objects..............95
mutagenicity..........................34
natural appearance.........89, 91
natural character 15, 68, 82, 89,
100, 106
Natural material.....................44
natural materials16, 22, 24, 25,
68, 69, 74, 89, 90, 127
natural-like......................89, 90
neutral. . .16, 17, 32, 43, 54, 97,
117, 122, 124
new impulses..........23, 26, 127
new product ideas.................23
non-toxic......12, 13, 14, 53, 62,
103, 105, 117, 120, 125, 127
non-toxic wool.......................12
nonylphenolethoxylate..........34
Objectiveness.......................23
obstruction......................14, 53
odor...............45, 64, 67, 68, 74
Oekobilanzen....15, 19, 37, 138
olfactory properties..........67, 68
Opening up new markets......23
optical/visual...................64, 89
parasites.........................14, 53
photoreceptors......................65
photosynthesis......................35
physical measurements 45, 61,
62, 81, 85, 113
physiologic-hygienical
properties..............................61
phytochemicals.....................16
Picea abies...........................90
Pinus strobus........................90
Platanus hispanica................90
polar/non-polar characteristics
..............................................59
polyphenolics........................90
polyvinyl alcohol....................35
primary properties. . .22, 38, 62,
82, 89, 107, 120
primary quantities............17, 33
product positioning................23
Psychical...............................49
Psycho-physical properties. . .45
psycho-physically..................65
5nde$
psychometric measurement
methods................................62
Psychometric properties........44
pyrogenicity...........................34
Pythagorean theorem............87
quality testing........................17
quantify....17, 43, 49, 81, 87, 96
quantifying...17, 18, 21, 22, 23,
33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45, 64,
65, 68, 77, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87,
89, 97, 98, 100, 101, 103, 105,
116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122,
124, 127, 128
Quantifying. .22, 62, 81, 85, 89,
91, 98
quantities (Eo......................113
quantity - temperature...........31
radioactivity...........................82
radiotracers...........................61
recycling ability................22, 38
recycling properties.. .38, 62, 77
reflectances...............85, 86, 87
Renewability..............34, 45, 77
representation.................23, 83
secondary properties.....43, 83,
107, 127
sensory criteria....................100
sensory evaluations........89, 96
sensory properties...13, 18, 22,
24, 37, 38, 45, 46, 62, 64, 77,
106, 118
Sensory properties. .45, 64, 106
social comfort....15, 25, 50, 54,
62, 67, 68, 75, 105
spectral-sensitivity curves.....65
standard property............31, 49
standardization17, 35, 103, 106
sterility...................................12
Stimul....................................46
suitable. .17, 25, 62, 68, 74, 81,
85, 88, 105, 124, 128
surface spectral reflectances 65
Synthetic material.................46
Synthetic polymer.................35
Tactile properties..................67
Taxus baccata.......................90
textiles. 6, 40, 43, 51, 52, 61, 82
The main functions of the
various types of experiments
....................................121, 122
Thermal comfort and discomfort
..............................................96
tissues.. .22, 30, 55, 56, 59, 82,
119
toxic properties..............18, 100
toxicity 6, 12, 13, 16, 45, 53, 54,
68, 75, 77, 118, 120, 121, 143
toxicological.......38, 44, 74, 117
trichromatic generalisation....65
trichromatic visual system.....65
tristimulus..............................86
Ulmus glabra.........................90
unicolor...........................66, 87
vice versa......................83, 103
volatile organic compound. .49,
50, 67
volatile organic compounds.68,
72, 141
whiteness........................32, 64
word compatibility.................32
xenobiotic..............................35
yellowness......................32, 90
6
Hacking, . (1999), The Social "onstr%ction of JhatK Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
7
Mann, W. R. (2000), The Discovery of Things: Aristotle's Categories and their Context. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
8
MacKinnon E. (2001): The language of classical physics. http://philsci-
archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000606/00/LCP2.doc.
9
Kauman, W. G. 1990: Wood science improves quality of life. Wood Sci. Technol. 24: 1-16.
10
Mantau, U. 1992: Umweltvertrglichkeit des Holzes im Urteil der Verbraucher. Teil 1: Ein Vergleich mit
anderen Baustoffen. Holz-Zentralblatt, 118, Nr.11, 157-158.
11
Cottrell, S. J. R. 1991: Customer Satisfaction Measures. Conference: Sustaining Total Quality. 13-14 March
1991, SAS Royal Hotel, Amsterdam. The Conference Board Europe, Amsterdam.
12
Day, G.S., Shooker, A.D. and Skrivastava, R.K. 1979: Customer oriented approaches to identifying product-
markets. J. of Marketing 43, 4, 8-19.
13
Gavish, B., Horsky, D. and Srikanth, K. 1983: An approach to the optimal positioning of a new product.
Management Sci. 29, 11, 1277-1297.
14
MacAdam, D.L. 1981. Color Measurement. Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, New York..
15
kada Y.: nterfacial biocompatibility. Chapter 3, page 35. n: Shalaby S. W., kada Y., Langer R. and
Williams J. (ed.): Polymers of biological and biomedical significance. ACS, Washington 1994.
16
Faulkner, W. 1972: Architecture and Color. Wiley and Sons, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto.
17
Winter, H. 1986: Zum Wandel der Schoenheitsvorstellungen im modernen Staedtebau: Die Bedeutung
psychologischer Theorien fuer das architektonische Denken. Diss. ETH, Nr. 8180, Zrich.
18
Williams, D.F.1999: The Williams dictionary of Biomaterials, DF Williams, 1999, SBN 0-85323-921-5.
19
Williams D.: Revisiting the definition of biocompatibility, Medical Device Technology 14(8) October 2003.
20
Bianucci M.: What is biodegradable. http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/organicsol.htm.
21
(Katuscak, Hruz 1986).
22
Galletti, P.M. and Boretos, J.W.(1983) Report on the Consensus Development Conference on Clinical
Applications of biomaterials, 1-3 November 1982, B,Bioed,6at,0es,,E3/539-55.
23
Williams, D.F.(ed.)(1987): Definitions in Biomaterials, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.6-7.
24
Takemura, T., Sato, K. and Tsuzuki K. 1986. An attempt to evaluate dwelling ability of wood based on the
reproductive performance of mice. Mokkuzai Gakkaishi 32, 9 752-753.
25
Watanabe H. 2000: ndoor Radon Concentration. Dwelling Ability. Environmental Dynamic Analysis.
http://read.jst.go.jp/ddbs/plsql;
26
Braunere, R. L. and T.A. Davis, Development of an Objective Definitionof Habitability and a Habitability Data
Base, Special Report D-79 (U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory [CERL] June 1977).
27
Celentano, J. T.,Amorelli, D., and Freeman, G. G. (1963). Establishing a Habitability ndex for Space
Stations andPlanataryBases. Proceedings of the AAA/ASMA Manned Space Lab Conference, 63:139.
28
Fraser, T. M. (1968). The intangibles of habitability during long duration space missions (NASA CR 1084).
Albuquerque, NM: Lovelace Foundation.
29
Jones, W. L. (1973). Habitability in Long Duration Space Missions. Environmental Biology and
Medicine,Vol2.Lozar, C.C., Establishing Habitability Factors for the Design of Office Environments, (U.S. Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory [CERL] June 1978).
30
Katuscak, S. 1988: Forest products research strategies in an era of ecological concern. Conference:
Worldwide Research Strategies in Forest Product. FPRS 42nd Annual Meeting, Quebeck City, Hilton
nternational, June 19-23.
31
Oekobilanzen und Recyclingfragen 1992. Holz -Forschung und -Verwertung 44, 6, 97.
32
BUS 1984: Oekobilanze von Packstoffen. Zusammenfassender Uebersichtbericht des Bundesamtes fuer
Umweltschutz (BUS). BUS, Bern, April 1984.
33
Hanger, M. 1988: Basisdaten zur Oekobilanz von Holz. 20. Fortbildunskurs der SAH, 9./10. November 1988,
SAH und LGNUM Zuerich.
34
Habersatter, K. and Widmer, F. 1991: Oekobilanz von Packstoffen. Stand 1990. Bundesamt fuer Umwelt,
Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern.
35
Meier, K. and Widmer, H. 1991: Oekobilanzen - Grundlage fuer umweltgerechtes Bauen. Unterlagen zum
Seminar: Holz als Bau- und Brennstoff. Eine oekologische Bewertung. Bundesamt fuer Konjukturfragen, Bern,
Januar 1991.
36
Holenstein, B. 1991: Energie aus Heizoel oder aus Holz. Automatische Holzschnizel- und oelfeuerungen im
Vergleich. Bundesamt fuer Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft und Schweizerische Vereinigung fuer Holzenergie,
Bern 1991.
37
Schwarz, J. 1991: Oekologie im Bau. Entscheidungen zur Beurteilung und Auswahl von Baumaterialien.
Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart.
38
Galileo Galilei 1623 : l Saggitore. The translation by A.C. Danto: 8ntrod%ction to "onteporary "ivilization in
the Jest, 2nd ed.; New York, Columbia University Press, 1954.
39
Massof, R.W., and Bird, J.F. 1978: A general zone theory of color and brightness vision. . Basic formulation.
J.Opt.Soc.Am. 68, 11, 1465-1471.
40
Hausen, B.H. 1981: Woods njurios to Human Health. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York
41
Hirada, Y., Nakato, K. and Sadoh, T. 1983: Thermal properties and sensory warmth of wood surfaces.
Mokuzai Gakkaishi 29, 3, 205-212.
42
Kollmann, F. 1936: Technologie des Holzes. Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin
43
Bosshard, H. H. 1984: Holzkunde. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Boston, Stuttgart.
44
Kaufmann, H.: Eigenschaften des Schweizer Holzes: Aesthetische Untersuchungen. Schlussbericht NFP-
12-Projekt 4.052-0.87.12 (Fichtenholz) des Schweizerischen Nationalfonds.
45
Hoadley, B.R. 1990: dentifying Wood. The Tauton Press, Newtown, U.S.A.
46
Marchand, G. E. 1991: Eigenschaften des Schweizer Tannenholzes. Schlussbericht NFP-12-Projekt 4.052-
0.87.12 des Schweizerischen Nationalfonds.
47
Katuscak, S., Werner, P., Koeditz, W. and Baurschmidt P. 1988: Pattern recognition by interactive optical
vision systems in wood research. n: Automatic measurement and control in woodworking industry. FAC
Proceedings Series, 1, 109-113, nternational Federation of Automatic Control 1988.
48
Katusck S. 2001: Environmentlna kvalita materilov a vrobkov. EL&T, Ekorex SK, Bratislava 2001, SBN
8-88812-18-6, www.e-wpp.com.
49
Katuscak S. 1990: Zamerne premeny optickych vlastnosti dreva. (ntentional transformation of optical
properties of wood), in Slovak, Res. Rep. SPZV V-6-9/90, SDVU Bratislava
50
kada Y.: nterfacial biocompatibility. Chapter 3, page 35. n: Shalaby S. W., kada Y., Langer R. and
Williams J. (ed.): Polymers of biological and biomedical significance. ACS, Washington 1994.
51
Shalaby S. W., kada Y., Langer R. and Williams J. (ed.): Polymers of biological and biomedical significance.
ACS, Washington 1994.
52
Williams, D.F.(ed.)(1987): Definitions in Biomaterials, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.6-7.
53
Marek, M.(1990), Corrosion of dental materials, in: Encyclopedia of Medical and Dental Materials, Williams,
D.F.(Ed.), Oxford: Pergamon, pp.121-126
54
Williams,D.F.(1985): CRC Crit. Rev. Biocompat.1, 1-30.
55
Sundgren, J.E., Bodo, P., Lundstrom, . (1986), J. Colloid nterf. Sci. 110, 9-20.
56
Thomsen, T., Bjursten, L.M., Ericson, L.E.(1986), Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 20, 173-182.
57
Thomsen, T., Bjursten, L.M., Ericson, L.E.(1986), Scand. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 20, 173-182.
58
Clark, G.C., Williams, D.F. (1982), B, Bioed, 6ater, 0es, E2, 125-134.
59
Tengvall, P., Lundstrom, ., Sjoquist, L., Elwing, H., Bjursten, C.M. (1989), Biomaterials 10, 166-175.
60
Williams, D.F. (1982): J. Mater. Sci. 17, 1233-1240.
61
Sawhney, A.S., Hubbell, J.A. (1990), J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 24, 1397-1411.
62
Smith, R., Oliver, C., Williams, D.F. (1987), J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 21, 991-1003.
63
Brash, J.L. (1981), in: 8nteractions of the Blood with Dat%ral and Artificial S%rfaces, Salzman, E.W. (ed.).
New York: Dekker, p.37
64
Ratner, B.D., Johnston, A.B., Lenk, T.J. (1987), J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 21, A1, 59-90.
65
Lausmaa, J., Kasemo, H.B., Mattson, H. (1990), Appl. Surg.Science 44, 133-146.
66
Williams, D.F. (1989): J. Biomed. Eng. 11, 185-197.
67
Williams, D.F. (1990): Encyclopedia of Medical and Dental Materials, Oxford: Pergamon
68
Northrup, S., Johnson, H., Moradiellos, D., Seagraves, P. (1980), Proc. 1st World Biomat. Congr., Baden
(Wienna), 4.11.1.
69
Oyama, V.L., Eagle, H. (1956), Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. Med. 91, 305
70
Schmalz, G. (1980) Proc. 1st World Biomat. Congr., Baden (Wienna), 4.11.5
71
Richter, K.H., Blenke, B., Deutscher, K.K., Bromer, H. (1977), Proc. of Eval. of Biomaterials, Strasburg, 26-
27 Sept.1977, Section 2.1
72
Spanberg, L. (1979), Oral Surg. 35, 389.
73
King, R.N., Andrade, J.D., Ma, S.M., Brostrom, L., de Gregonis, D.E. (1979), NSF Univ. of Washington
Workshop on nterfacial Phenomena, Seattle, Washington, 15.16.2
74
Williams D.F., Williams, R.L. (1988), in: mplant Materials in Biofunction (ed. G. de Putter, G.L. de Lange, K.
de Groot and A.J.C. Lee; Advances in Biomaterials, Vol.8, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.275-278.
75
Karwath, R., Schurer, M., Wolf, H. (1987), in Biomaterials and Clinical Applications (ed. A. Pizzoferrato, P.G.
Marchetti, A. Ravaglioli, A.J.C. Lee), (Advanes in Biomaterials Vol.7), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 557-560
76
Delljova, R.A., Afanasjevova, R.F. and Cubarovova, Z.S. 1984: Hygiena odivani. (n Czech). Nakladatelstvi
technicke literatury, SNTL, Praha.
77
Erhard, W. and Zangerle, E. 1988: Bekleidungsphysiologische Vorteile beim Einsatz von Chemiefasern in
Maschenwaren. Textilveredelung 23, 2, 53-57.
78
Weder M. 1987: Bekleidungsphysiologische Messmethoden. Textiveredelung 22, 10, 376-386.
79
Umbach, K.H. 1988: Einfluss der Textilausruestung auf die physiologischen Trageeigenschaften und den
Tragekomfort von Kleidung. Textilveredelung 23, 11, 397-406.
80
Mecheels, J. 1971: Mereni funkcniho pusobeni odevu na cloveka. (n. Czech translation), from Melliand
Textilberichte 8 and10, 972, 1215-1221. Transl. Statni vyskumny ustav textilni, Liberec Odd. VTE.
81
Haase, J. and Loebel, W. 1977: Synteticka vlakna a pohodli pri noseni textilii. (n Czech), Sbornik
vedeckeho kolokvia k 25.vyroci zalozeni FFT, Karl-Marx-Stadt, Konfekce, Statni vyskumny ustav textilni,
Liberec, Odd. VTE
82
Elefante, G. and Giammanco, F. 1988: Neues Komfort-und Qualittsniveau bei Terital-Fasern.
Chemiefasern/Textilindustrie, 38./88.Jahrgang, November 1988.
83
Anon. 2003: Ecological design, projects and certification. nternational Exhibition of Natural. Nutrition,
Health, and the Environment. Bologna Fiere, September 11/14, 2003.
http://www.anab.it/documentazione/2003_Sana-Anab/Ecological_Design_ANAB.pdf
84
Maristany, A.G., Butler, D.A., Brunner, Ch.C. and Funck, J.W. 1991: Exploiting local color information for
defect detection on douglas-fir veneer. Proc 4th nt. Conf. on Scanning Technology in Wood ndustry Oct. 28-
29., 1991, Burlinghame, California, U.S.A
85
Brunner, C.C., Shaw, G.B., Butler D.A. and Funck J.W. 1990: Using color in machine vision systems for
wood processing. Wood and Fiber Science, 22, 413-428.
86
Sulivan, J.D. 1967: Color characterization of wood. Spectrophotometry and wood color. For. Prod. J. 17, 7,
43-48.
87
Katuscak, S. and Tokosova, M. 1987: Technicke parametre reprodukovatelnych dyh. Drevo 42: 289-292.
88
Sadoh, T., Nakajima, T., and Ohira, A. 1983: Resilience of balls impacting on wood surfaces. Mokuzai
Gakkaishi 29, 1, 8-13.
89
Sadoh,T., and Nakato, K. 1987: Surface properties of wood in physical and sensory aspects. Wood
Sci.Technol. 21, 111-120.
90
Ogakawa, A. and Okayama, T. 1986: Sensory evaluation of paper and print qualities. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 8,
51-60.
91
Hirata, Y., Nakato, K. and Sadoh, T. 1983: Thermal properties and sensory warmth of wood surfaces.
Mokuzai Gakkaishi 29, 3, 205-212.
92
Takemura, T., Kurai T. and Hideo, M. 1988: Tactile roughness of planed wood in relation to its surface
roughness and growth ring structure. J. Soc. Materials Sci. Japan 37,416, 544-548.
93
Shida, S., Shibusawa T. and Hukushima Y. 1991: Utilization and evaluation o exterior wood . Sensory
warmth of the deck materials. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 37, 12 1123-1128.
94
Hllmller, C. 1993: Etude de l'interaction entre l'homme et son environnement construit, en fonction du
materiau choisi. Travail de diplome, Ecole suisse d'ingenieurs et de techniciens du bois (ESB/SSH),
Bienne/Biel
95
Beler B. et al.: Positivliste Baukologische/ baubiologische Materialempfehlungen, SB, Gerber
Btschwill, 1995
96
Bartekov A., Katusck S., Grexa O., Vojta A.: Evaluation of volatile organic compounds emissions from
recycled wood materials. 2nd nternational Conference on Polymer Modification, Degradation and Stabilisation
Modest, Budapest, 30.06.-04.07.2002, Hungary. SBN 963420 723 5.
97
Rughoeft, S. 1992: Wohnoekologie-Grundwissen. Eugen Ulmer Verlag GmbH & Co., Stuttgart.
98
Blume J.L.: Habitability MeasurementResearch & Development Needs. Habitability & Human Factors
OfficeNASA Johnson Space Center, NSBRNSBR NASA Space Human Factors EngineeringWorkshop on
Opportunities in Space Human Factors Research and Development. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX.
December 11-12, 2002.
99
Jones, W. L. (1973). Habitability in Long Duration Space Missions. Environmental Biology and
Medicine,Vol2.Lozar, C.C., Establishing Habitability Factors for the Design of Office Environments, (U.S. Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory [CERL] June 1978).
100
Fraser, T. M. (1968). The intangibles of habitability during long duration space missions (NASA CR 1084).
Albuquerque, NM: Lovelace Foundation.
101
Novak 2, J.B. (2000) Human Engineering and Habitability: The Critical Challenges for the nternational
Space Station. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. V.71(9), Section , p.A117-A121. , Novak 3 J.B.
(2000) Summary of Current ssues regarding Space Flight Habitability. Aviation, Space and Environmental
Medicine. V.71(9), Section , p.A131-A132
102
Fanger, P.O., 1973. Thermal Comfort - Analysis and Application in Environmental Engineering. McGraw-
Hill.
103
Frank, W., 1986. Die Erfassung des Raumklimas mit Hilfe richtungsempfindlicher Frigometer. Gesundheits-
ngenieur, 89.Jg., Heft 10, S. 301-308.
104
Rybr, P. 1976. Tepelnotechnick problmy stavebnych konstrukcii s pouzitim materialov na baze dreva
(Thermotechnical problems of wood structures). Alfa, Bratislava.
105
Nozawa, A. and Sastonaka, S. 1981: The evolution of hydrogene cyanide from wood treated with
diamonium phosphate during pyrolysis or combustion. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 27, 49-53.
106
Komora, F. and Cepec, P. 1992: Trends in the production and use of the chemicals for wood protection. (n
Slovak) Drevo 47, 7/8 168-169
107
Katusck S., Pajtk J. and Beseda . (1994): Classification and Knowledge Organization in the Area of
Ecological Quality of Materials. p.119-126. n: Stancikova, P., & Dahlberg, . (Eds.), Environmental
Knowledge Organization and nformation Management. NDEKS Verlag, Frankfurt, 1994
108
Galileo Galilei 1623 : l Saggitore. The translation by A.C. Danto: 8ntrod%ction to "onteporary
"ivilization in the Jest, 2nd ed.; New York, Columbia University Press, 1954.
109
Russel, B. 1910: The relation of sense-data to physics. Scientia, 1910, republished in: Mysticism and
Logic. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London, 1917.
110
Massof, R.W., and Bird, J.F. 1978: A general zone theory of color and brightness vision. . Basic
formulation. J.Opt.Soc.Am. 68, 11, 1465-1471.
111
Scheiwiller, A. 1988: Eine wertende Gegenueberstellung na oekologisch/baubiologischen Kriterien:
Baumaterialien in Vergleich. 20. Fortbildunskurs der SAH, 9./10. November 1988, SAH und LGNUM
Zuerich.
112
Wyszecki, G. and Stiles, W.S. 1982: Color Science. Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data and
Formulae. 2nd Edition; John Wiley & Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore.
113
Fanger, P.O., 1973. Thermal Comfort - Analysis and Application in Environmental Engineering.
McGraw-Hill.
114
Katuscak, S. Horsky, K. and Zatopkova, L. 1972: Wood plastic combinations. . Swelling of wood in
organic liquids. Drev. vyskum 17, 2, 111-124.
115
.Vaeck, S. V. 1977: A comparison of European and American blue lightfastness standards using visual
and instrumental methods. Annales Scientifiques Textiles Belges, 25, 1, 32-49.
116
Kuehni, R.G. 1980: Three unsolved problems of applied Color Science. American Dyestuff Reporter,
69, 28-32.
117
Katuscak, S., Mahdakova, O. and Durisova, L. 1986: Farebne zmeny prirodneho chrneneho
smrekoveho dreva pocas trojrocnej expozicie. (Color changes of natural and protected spruce wood
during 3- years exposition.) Drev. vyskum, 111, 27-41.
118
Katuscak, S. and Durisova, L. 1988: Objektivne hodnotenie svetlostalosti dreva. (Objective evaluation
of lightfastness of wood.) in Slovak, Drev. vyskum 118, 75-88.
119
Katuscak, S. and Katuscakova G. 1987: Means of objective identification of spruce wood decay,
Holzforschung 41, 5, 315-320.
120
Katuscak, S., Werner, P., Koeditz, W. and Baurschmidt P. 1988: Pattern recognition by interactive
optical vision systems in wood research. n: Automatic measurement and control in woodworking industry.
FAC Proceedings Series, 1, 109-113, nternational Federation of Automatic Control 1988.
121
Katuscak, S., Tomas, M. and Schiessl, O. 1981: Kinetics of polycindensation of urea with
formaldehyde. Molecular weight distribution, average molecular weight and polydispersity parameters.
Journal of Applied Polymer Science 26, 381-394.
122
Sato, K., et al.: Res. Report Grant. in Aid Sci. Res. Fund of the Ministry of Education, General
Research (A), No.59360020 (Rep: Yamada, T.),1986, p.151-165
123
Katuscak S. 1990: Zamerne premeny optickych vlastnosti dreva. (ntentional transformation of optical
properties of wood), in Slovak, Res. Rep. SPZV V-6-9/90, SDVU Bratislava.
124
Mantau, U. 1992: Umweltvertrglichkeit des Holzes im Urteil der Verbraucher. Teil 1: Ein Vergleich mit
anderen Baustoffen. Holz-Zentralblatt, 118, Nr.11, 157-158.
125
Gfeller B., Katusck S., Hllmller C.: Zu den Wechselwirkungen Zwischen Organismen und den in der
Umwelt Eingesetzten Materialien. Holforschung und Holzverwertung, 46, 2, 25-28, 1994.
126
Hllmller, C. 1993: Etude de l'interaction entre l'homme et son environnement construit, en fonction du
materiau choisi. Travail de diplome, Ecole suisse d'ingenieurs et de techniciens du bois (ESB/SSH),
Bienne/Biel
127
Takemura, T., Sato, K. and Tsuzuki K. 1986. An attempt to evaluate dwelling ability of wood based on
the reproductive performance of mice. Mokkuzai Gakkaishi 32, 9 752-753.
128
Hespodarik, A. et al, 1990: Minimalizacia uniku formaldehydu z velkoplosnych materialov.
(Minimalization of the formaldehyde emissions from wood panels), in Slovak. Res. Rep. No. 68/90., State
Forest Products Research nstitute, Bratislava.
129
Hespodarik, A. 1989: Minimalizacia uniku formaldehydu z velkoplosnych materialov. (Minimalisation of
the formaldehyde emissions from wood panels), in Slovak. Res. Rep. No. 116/89., State Forest Products
Research nstitute, Bratislava.
130
Lbke, H. 1990: Hygienicky nezavadne drevotrieskove dosky (The wood particle boars complying with
the hygienic requirements), in Slovak, Res. Rep. No. 66/90. State Forest Products Research nstitute,
Bratislava.
131
Hirata, T. et al. 1992: Combustion gas toxicity, hygroscopicity, and adhesive strength of plywood
treated with flame retardants. Wood Sci. Technol. 26, 461-473.

Biocompatibility and Habitability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biocompatibility and Habitability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biocompatibility

dentically , this also holds for the differences

%HE P;A,HOME%?7, =CE;%7O8/

,O??E@$%7O8; $8D MODE@; BETWEEN

CONSTRUCTNG AND TESTNG OF

MEASUREMENT OF PHYSCAL AND

CREATNG AND MPROVNG THE LANGUAGE

You might also like