Suchergebnisse

Bio-inhibition of buildings and structures is an important issue. In many cases building materials have biocides added to prevent growth of micro-organisms. Growth of microorganisms on building materials has several negative effects; (1) Aesthetic damage, e.g. fungi, algae grow on the material, resulting in early replacement and high cleaning costs, (2) Material damage, and (3) Health problems. However, current legislation forces manufacturers to reduce the biocide load, which requires manufacturers to look for alternatives or other improvements. One way is to increase the efficacy of biocides. There are several factors which rule the efficacy of a biocide in a building material. In this paper we will give a short overview of the mechanisms that lead to a decrease in efficacy of biocides. One of the mechanisms, leaching into and from the materials is researched by using leaching experiments. This because leaching of biocides into and from building materials has not been researched to a great extent. In our experiments the leaching of Propiconazole (Wocosen 50TK) has been tested in gypsum layers applied on aerated concrete. The sample was then placed into an artificial rain setup which releases the biocides. The analyses of the samples show that the biocide leaches out of the gypsum layer and simultaneously into the aerated concrete. From the results it may be concluded that a biocide will leach from a plaster into an aerated concrete wall, which opens opportunities to improve the biocide efficacy by preventing this process from occurring.

environments for public health. Certain member states of the European Union (EU) have already achieved successes in improving indoor environmental quality, such as controlling certain contaminants (e.g., environmental tobacco smoke) or developing nationwide policies that address indoor air generally. However, a common European approach to achieving healthy indoor environments is desirable for several reasons including providing a broader recognition of the problem of unhealthy indoor air, setting a policy example for all 27 EU member states, and achieving greater public health equity across the different European nations. In this article we address the question "Why is it so difficult in the EU to develop a coherent approach on indoor environment?" We identify and describe four main barriers: a) the subsidiarity principle in EU policymaking, introducing decentralization of decision making to the member states ; b) fragmentation of the topic of the indoor environment ; c) the differences in climate and governance among different member states that make a common policy difficult ; and d) economic issues. We discuss potential lessons and recommendations from EU and U.S. successes in achieving healthier indoor environments through various policy mechanisms