The cleaner, the greener? Product sustainability assessment of the biomimetic facade paint Lotusan® in comparison to the conventional facade paint Jumbosil®
The cleaner, the greener? Product sustainability assessment of the biomimetic facade paint Lotusan® in comparison to the conventional facade paint Jumbosil®
复制标题
DOI：
10.3762/bjnano.7.200
复制
发表时间：
2016-12-29
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Speck, Olga
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Antony, Florian;Griesshammer, Rainer;Speck, Olga
背景：科学家、商界领袖、政界人士和负责项目资金的人讨论了关于仿生学是否具有促进可持续发展的特定潜力的问题。本文的目的是通过介绍最著名和最成功的仿生产品之一-立面涂料乐天(R)的可持续性评估，为这场有争议的辩论做出贡献。结果：作为第一步，已经检验和验证了立面涂料乐天(R)被正确地定义为仿生产品。其次，在详细的产品可持续性评估(PROSA)过程中，对Lotusan(R)进行了评估，并与传统的外墙涂料进行了比较。为了进行比较，选择Jumbosil(R)作为市场上一种传统涂料的参考。效益分析表明，两种涂料均能很好地满足功能实用的要求。就象征性用途而言，Lotusan(R)通过在整个生命周期中保持光学质量，具有特殊的附加美学价值。在社会分析中，在最终产品的处理和处置方面，两种涂料之间没有发现实质性的差异。关于生命周期成本，Lotusan(R)是更昂贵的产品。然而，基于Lotusan(注册商标)的立面涂料的较高投资成本被较长的使用寿命所抵消，从而减少了总体材料需求和降低了劳动力成本。在生命周期影响评估方面，通过四种情景分析，可以确定两种涂料的使用寿命存在较大差异。结论：综上所述，仿生立面涂料Lotusan(R)已被确定为一种性价比高、同时节省资源的产品。根据基本的数据和假设，可以证明，基于Lotusan(注册商标)的立面绘画对环境的总体影响相对较小。总结我们的结果，可以强调的是，在可持续性方面，与Jumbosil(R)相比，Lotusan(R)是更有利的产品。
Background: The debate on the question whether biomimetics has a specific potential to contribute to sustainability is discussed among scientists, business leaders, politicians and those responsible for project funding. The objective of this paper is to contribute to this controversial debate by presenting the sustainability assessment of one of the most well-known and most successful biomimetic products: the facade paint Lotusan(R).Results: As a first step it has been examined and verified that the facade paint Lotusan(R) is correctly defined as a biomimetic product. Secondly, Lotusan(R) has been assessed and compared to a conventional facade paint within the course of a detailed product sustainability assessment (PROSA). For purposes of comparison, the facade paint Jumbosil(R) was chosen as reference for a conventional paint available on the market. The benefit analysis showed that both paints fulfil equally well the requirements of functional utility. With respect to the symbolic utility, Lotusan(R) has a particular added aesthetic value by the preservation of the optical quality over the life cycle. Within the social analysis no substantial differences between the two paints could be found regarding the handling and disposal of the final products. Regarding the life-cycle cost, Lotusan(R) is the more expensive product. However, the higher investment cost for a Lotusan(R)-based facade painting are more than compensated by the longer life time, resulting in both reduced overall material demand and lower labour cost. In terms of the life-cycle impact assessment, it can be ascertained that substantial differences between the paints arise from the respective service life, which are presented in terms of four scenario analyses.Conclusion: In summary, the biomimetic facade paint Lotusan(R) has been identified as a cost-effective and at the same time resource-saving product. Based on the underlying data and assumptions it could be demonstrated that Lotusan(R)-based facade paintings have a comparatively low overall impact on the environment. Summarizing our results, it can be emphasized that Lotusan(R) is the more favourable product compared to Jumbosil(R) according to sustainability aspects.