I have long wondered what exactly is meant by "ecological building," "healthy building," or building biology. Sometimes I read statements saying that new houses contain numerous harmful substances and that one should pay more attention to building biology.
I have looked into this and researched, but I haven't found a clear difference between "normal construction" and construction that is considered safe from a building biology perspective. My first suspects, plastics like multilayer composite pipes or insulation materials, apparently seem to be completely fine.
Some people bring up the topic of electromagnetic pollution. Okay. This leads to the entire house being turned into a kind of electromagnetically shielded cage. Of course, it makes sense not to run cables across the bedroom or under the bed.
Now, for the first time, I noticed a point that is truly considered concerning. Apparently, standard expanding foam used in construction is far from healthy. However, there is also the opinion that all harmful substances have dissipated 48 hours after application.
It is then recommended to fill the gaps around interior doors, the front door, and window edges with materials like wood fiber, mineral wool, stone wool, or jute instead of using expanding foam. Is there any truth to that? Where else is expanding foam still used?
Do you know of any other areas that are not just subjectively but clearly part of building biology?
I have looked into this and researched, but I haven't found a clear difference between "normal construction" and construction that is considered safe from a building biology perspective. My first suspects, plastics like multilayer composite pipes or insulation materials, apparently seem to be completely fine.
Some people bring up the topic of electromagnetic pollution. Okay. This leads to the entire house being turned into a kind of electromagnetically shielded cage. Of course, it makes sense not to run cables across the bedroom or under the bed.
Now, for the first time, I noticed a point that is truly considered concerning. Apparently, standard expanding foam used in construction is far from healthy. However, there is also the opinion that all harmful substances have dissipated 48 hours after application.
It is then recommended to fill the gaps around interior doors, the front door, and window edges with materials like wood fiber, mineral wool, stone wool, or jute instead of using expanding foam. Is there any truth to that? Where else is expanding foam still used?
Do you know of any other areas that are not just subjectively but clearly part of building biology?
We had looked into it a bit… for example, perliteshingle insulation, calcium silicate blocks or bricks, facing bricks, copper pipes, clay or lime plaster, wooden windows, no reinforcement in the foundation slab (no idea if that’s possible, but it was stated in the building specification), circuit breakers for each room, concrete roof tiles or green roofs (for mono-pitched roofs), a “significant” reduction in PVC use, wooden flooring (optional)...
Bieber0815 schrieb:
One of the basic principles of building biology is the natural regulation of humidity. In my opinion, this already excludes the use of mechanical ventilation systems with heat recovery.
More information can be found on the website of the Building Biology Association (verband-baubiologie.de/baubiologie/grundregeln-der-baubiologie/).
How this is implemented in practice (which building materials, which companies) would be interesting ... ;-).According to the website, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery is not actually excluded!
Quote from the site:
9. Good air quality through natural air exchange
Regular airing by opening windows fully or cross-ventilation brings fresh oxygen into the building and reduces humidity, CO2, and other pollutants. There should always be sufficient air exchange with natural fresh air. Where manual ventilation is not possible, properly controlled ventilation systems are recommended.
Is that correct?
Maybe this helps a bit
Link deleted according to forum rules
We chose this house builder not because of “healthy building” specifically, but because we feel well taken care of by Mr. Kleinhenz and the company operates very transparently.
They draw a clear line between living space and exterior. Interior walls are free of or low in harmful substances by today’s standards, while what is used outside is up to the discretion of the homeowners.
This year, the old building will be demolished and the foundation slab poured; after winter, the house is scheduled to be erected. We actually wanted to move in this year already, but the demolition of the old buildings is proving to be quite complicated.
Link deleted according to forum rules
We chose this house builder not because of “healthy building” specifically, but because we feel well taken care of by Mr. Kleinhenz and the company operates very transparently.
They draw a clear line between living space and exterior. Interior walls are free of or low in harmful substances by today’s standards, while what is used outside is up to the discretion of the homeowners.
This year, the old building will be demolished and the foundation slab poured; after winter, the house is scheduled to be erected. We actually wanted to move in this year already, but the demolition of the old buildings is proving to be quite complicated.
BeHaElJa schrieb:
We had looked into this a bit... so perlite loose-fill insulation, calcium silicate blocks or brick, facing brick, copper pipes, clay or lime plaster, wooden windows, no reinforcement in the slab (not sure if that’s feasible, but that’s what was specified in the building scope), main switches for every room, concrete roof tiles or green roofs (for shed roofs), extensive avoidance of PVC, wood flooring (optional)... Is this the positive or negative list now?
I wouldn’t choose copper pipes, because too much copper can be harmful to humans (possibly even linked to Alzheimer’s). The common multilayer composite pipes are considered safe.
Regarding bricks, calcium silicate blocks, and aerated concrete, Bauexperte once listed what can be contained in bricks. In my view, calcium silicate blocks and aerated concrete seemed “purer.” Although you don’t have direct air contact with the blocks (or the EPS on the facade or EPS under the screed — these are practically airtight sealed).
Wood flooring is critical if lacquered or glued. Oiled and floating-installed flooring is probably less problematic. Even here, I wouldn’t say certified vinyl floors installed floating are worse.
The same applies to wooden windows—they are not inherently better than plastic windows.
That’s why my initial question: What is REALLY a health concern and what is not when building? PU foam seems to fall into the REALLY harmful category (even though not sprayed excessively and supposedly fully dissipates after a short time). The other items, in my opinion, are more about perceptions of good or bad. For example, lime plaster or clay plaster is said not to be better than gypsum plaster, and concerns about gypsum plaster may only be perceived and not scientifically proven (REA gypsum is apparently even purer than natural gypsum).
No reinforcement in the slab? Maybe if you make it one meter thick? :-D
A controlled mechanical ventilation system is certainly a huge advantage. It even filters fine dust (F7 filters—whether in rural or urban areas, a large portion of PM10 and, to my knowledge, even PM2.5 is filtered). If any substances accumulate in the house, whatever they may be (radon, formaldehyde, VOCs, CO2, humidity, etc.), they get filtered out so that no high concentrations build up indoors.
You write "REALLY" and use "should" very often. With that, you have already fully captured the problem.
There are things that, by unanimous and obvious opinion, are not good. Take asbestos, for example. Although people only learned more about it later on.
Otherwise, it is always a matter of weighing different sources. Whom do you trust more? The scientist, the seller, or your gut feeling?
Look at the EPS disposal issue that has existed since 01.10. It’s not like anyone voluntarily built with EPS if it had been clear that it would soon be classified as hazardous waste. Of course, there were and still are always people who predicted something like this would happen. But those people exist for every topic. The vast majority have been building with EPS for decades and are satisfied with it. And they will continue to be satisfied because since 2015 the criticized additive is no longer used. "Problem solved" – until next time.
There are things that, by unanimous and obvious opinion, are not good. Take asbestos, for example. Although people only learned more about it later on.
Otherwise, it is always a matter of weighing different sources. Whom do you trust more? The scientist, the seller, or your gut feeling?
Look at the EPS disposal issue that has existed since 01.10. It’s not like anyone voluntarily built with EPS if it had been clear that it would soon be classified as hazardous waste. Of course, there were and still are always people who predicted something like this would happen. But those people exist for every topic. The vast majority have been building with EPS for decades and are satisfied with it. And they will continue to be satisfied because since 2015 the criticized additive is no longer used. "Problem solved" – until next time.
Similar topics