Biological and biomimetic materials and surfaces

• Stanislav Gorb and
• Thomas Speck

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2017, 8, 403–407, doi:10.3762/bjnano.8.42

• some biomimetic products, for example, the facade paint Lotusan® produced by Sto SEA Pte. [7] or the product Tegotop® 210 from Evonik Industries AG. The products are sold under the brand name Lotus-Effect® which has become a near synonym for functional, water-repellent surfaces in general. Without

• ] present the sustainability assessment of the facade paint Lotusan®, which is a well-known biomimetic development based on the research of Wilhelm Barthlott. The authors used criteria from the Association of German Engineers (VDI) to verify whether the product can be defined as biomimetic. Using a

• systematic comparative product sustainability assessment (PROSA), the authors demonstrated that this cost-effective and resource-saving product is indeed biomimetic. It is also shown that Lotusan® has a low environmental impact [21]. The regular solution theory was applied by Akerboom et al. to study the

The cleaner, the greener? Product sustainability assessment of the biomimetic façade paint Lotusan^® in comparison to the conventional façade paint Jumbosil^®

• Florian Antony,
• Rainer Grießhammer,
• Thomas Speck and
• Olga Speck

Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2016, 7, 2100–2115, doi:10.3762/bjnano.7.200

• Lotusan®. Results: As a first step it has been examined and verified that the façade paint Lotusan® is correctly defined as a biomimetic product. Secondly, Lotusan® has been assessed and compared to a conventional façade paint within the course of a detailed product sustainability assessment (PROSA). For

• purposes of comparison, the façade paint Jumbosil® 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® 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® is the more expensive product