nanotechnology and uk construction industry
TRANSCRIPT
University of Bolton The Built Environment
Department of Architectural Technology
Application of Nanotechnology and its impacts
On Building materials in the UK
Construction Industry
A thesis has been submitted
In partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Bachelor of Science
In
Architectural Technology
BY
MOHAMMED.D FATADE-O
Academic Supervisor: Nooshin Akrami
Date: April, 2014
“Nanoarchitecture will be used to create the
buildings of the future - structures will
function in symbiotic relationship to the
environment, adapting to the changing
needs of their inhabitants.”
John M. Johansen
i
ABSTRACT This study consists of quantitative and qualitative methods. Both methods were
employed for analytical purposes, thus aiding through acquisition of the architectural
knowledge demonstrated by UK students and designers, on the subject revolving
nanomaterial applications. Contextual information was obtained from primary and
secondary sources, such as, journal, articles, official websites and books. Research
data was gathered from interview and a survey completed by students and designers
from Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) and University of Bolton (UOB).
The interrogatives focused on nano-exposure, nano-awareness and nano-motivation,
respectively. Juxtaposition of the sections and their answers conveyed the assorted
responses they had from various participants. Nano-exposure and nano-awareness
accumulated poor responses as less than ten percent of both students and designers
agreed to the questions provided on the subject matter. On nano-awareness in
particular, students and designers conveyed incompetence and complete lack of
understanding. Furthermore, less than five percent of participants agreed to the
questions under nano-motivation. The survey revealed that a very small number of
students/desginers knew about nanomaterial application in architecture.
Nanomaterial applications have been increasing in several European countries such as
Germany. In the UK however, nanomaterial applications in architecture are relatively
low. The findings are expected to be of use by construction companies that are
considering adopting nanomaterial, and also new researchers who are planning to
undertake projects involving the adoption of nanomaterial in architecture.
ii
This is for my mother.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................... x
ACKNOWLEDGMENT............................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Aim ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Research Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Highlights and Limitations of Methodology...................................................................... 3
1.5 Research Expectations ................................................................................................................ 4
1.6 Chapter Structure .......................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Nanoscience and Nanotechnology......................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Nanoscience ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.2 Nanotechnology .................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Nanotechnology and Architecture (NanoArchitecture) ........................................... 15
2.3.1 Changing the way of thinking....................................................................................... 16
2.3.2 Implementing nanotechnology in buildings ......................................................... 18
2.4 NanoMaterials .............................................................................................................................. 18
2.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 19
2.4.2 Sustainable NanoArchitecture ..................................................................................... 19
2.4.2 NanoMaterial in Architecture ...................................................................................... 20
2.4.2.A Coating (Finishing materials) .................................................................................. 20
2.4.2.B Self-cleaning: Lotus-Effect: ........................................................................................ 23
2.5 Nanotechnology overview in the UK industries .......................................................... 26
2.5.1 The UK Approaches to Nanotechnology Strategy .............................................. 27
2.5.2 The UK Nanotechnology Strategies to date ........................................................... 27
2.5.3 The UK Government Spend on Nanotechnology over the last 12 years .. 27
2.5.4 The UK Educational Funding on Nanotechnology ............................................. 28
2.5.5 The Taylor Report.............................................................................................................. 29
2.6 Nanotechnology in the UK construction industry....................................................... 30
iv
2.6.1 Benefits of Nanotechnology strategies in the UK construction industry 31
2.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 3: DATA AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 33
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 33
3.1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 33
3.2 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 34
3.3 Description of Research Design ........................................................................................... 37
3.4 Description of Materials and Instruments ...................................................................... 38
3.5 Selection of Participants .......................................................................................................... 39
3.6 Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 39
3.7 Discussion of Data Processing .............................................................................................. 40
3.8 Methodological Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................. 40
3.9 Ethical Assurances ..................................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 43
4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 43
4.2 Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.1 Questionnaire Findings ................................................................................................... 46
4.2.2 Interview Finding .............................................................................................................. 74
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 75
5.1 Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................................................ 75
5.1.1 Nano-Exposure .................................................................................................................... 75
5.1.2 Nano-Awareness ................................................................................................................ 79
5.1.3 Nano-Motivation ................................................................................................................ 81
5.1.4 Frequency Histogram....................................................................................................... 85
5.2 Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................................................... 88
5.3 Results from Analysis ............................................................................................................... 88
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 89
6.1 Educational Universities – Particularly Designers ..................................................... 89
6.2 Educating the Media – Particularly Designers .............................................................. 92
6.3 So What? .......................................................................................................................................... 93
CHAPTER 7: CONCLSIONS .................................................................................................................. 94
7.1 Limitation of the study ............................................................................................................. 96
CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATION................................................................................................... 97
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................................xii BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................... xvii APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................................xxi
v
APPENDIX A Background Questionnaire ................................................................................xxi APPENDIX B Survey Instrument ............................................................................................... xxii APPENDIX C Slip Given Following the Completion of Survey .................................... xxiii APPENDIX D Research Ethics Checklist ............................................................................... xxiv
APPENDIX E Nanomaterial .......................................................................................................... xxv
APPENDIX F Current Budget for Science and Research Spending .......................... xxvi APPENDIX G Taylor Report ....................................................................................................... xxvii APPENDIX H Bolton Academic Ethical Standards ........................................................ xxviii APPENDIX I Manchester Academic Ethical Standards .................................................. xxix
APPENDIX J Disadvantages of Nanomaterial .......................................................................xxx
APPENDIX K Pictures from conducting Research ........................................................... xxxi APPENDIX L Interview manuscript ....................................................................................... xxxii APPENDIX M Calculations ........................................................................................................ xxxiii
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Nano-particles with a size of approximately 10 -9 m
Figure 2 Scale Bar
Figure 3 Carbon Nanotube structure
Figure 4 Representations of the essential features of Nanoscience Figure 5 Diagram drawn up to aid the understanding of nanotechnology
Figure 6 NanoArchitecture: Nanotechnology in buildings Figure 7 NanoArchitecture: Nanotechnology in buildings B
Figure 8 Molecular-engineered Multi-storey Apartment Building Figure 9 Molecular-engineered House for the year 2200
Figure 10 Graph that shows the percentage of surface atom as a function
of the size of a small nanoparticle Figure 11 Bulk gold and gold particles ranging from 2 to 150 nanometres
Figure 12 Diagram drawn up to aid the understating of nanotechnology Figure 13 Typical Nanocoating forms
Figure 14 Chamber where vacuum is created Figure 15 Plasma pretreatment process
Figure 16 The Monomer Figure 17 Nanocoated material
Figure 18 Coatings products with properties, specifications and usage Figure 19 Nanocoating products used in buildings
Figure 20 The lotus plant with its natural self-cleaning Figure 21 Ara Pacis Museum
Figure 22 Nanomaterial vs. Conventional material; a comparison between
nanoceramic tiles and conventional tiles Figure 23 Funding of nanotechnologies by country
Figure 24 Estimated Government funding for nanotechnology over the last
12 years Figure 25 Nanotechnology Universities funding from Research Councils
UK
Figure 26 Impact of Nanotechnology by country Figure 27 Summary of markets impacted by nanotechnology
Figure 28 Nanotechnology transforming the built environment
vii
Figure 29 Matrix showing the problems to be addressed, the potential
nano-enabled solutions, and relevant nanotechnology
developments
Figure 30 Graph showing the approximate total number of students in both the
University of Bolton and Manchester Metropolitan University Figure 31 MMU results for survey question 1
Figure 32 MMU results for survey question 2
Figure 33 MMU results for survey question 3 Figure 34 MMU results for survey question 4 Figure 35 MMU results for survey question 5 Figure 36 MMU results for survey question 6 Figure 37 MMU results for survey question 7 Figure 38 MMU results for survey question 8 Figure 39 MMU results for survey question 9 Figure 40 MMU results for survey question 10 Figure 41 MMU results for survey question 11 Figure 42 MMU results for survey question 12 Figure 43 MMU results for survey question 13 Figure 44 MMU results for survey question 14 Figure 45 MMU results for each gender category (boys) Figure 46 MMU results for each gender category (girls) Figure 47 MMU results for student’s frequency histogram
Figure 48 UOB results for survey question 1
Figure 49 UOB results for survey question 2 Figure 50 UOB results for survey question 3 Figure 51 UOB results for survey question 4 Figure 52 UOB results for survey question 5 Figure 53 UOB results for survey question 6 Figure 54 UOB results for survey question 7 Figure 55 UOB results for survey question 8 Figure 56 UOB results for survey question 9 Figure 57 UOB results for survey question 10 Figure 58 UOB results for survey question 11 Figure 59 UOB results for survey question 12 Figure 60 UOB results for survey question 13 Figure 61 UOB results for survey question 14
viii
Figure 62 UOB frequency histogram Figure 63 UOB designers results for survey question 1
Figure 64 UOB designers results for survey question 2 Figure 65 UOB designers results for survey question 3 Figure 66 UOB designers results for survey question 4 Figure 67 UOB designers results for survey question 5 Figure 68 UOB designers results for survey question 6 Figure 69 UOB designers results for survey question 7 Figure 70 UOB designers results for survey question 8 Figure 71 UOB designers results for survey question 9 Figure 72 UOB designers results for survey question 10 Figure 73 UOB designers results for survey question 10 Figure 74 UOB designers results for survey question 12 Figure 75 UOB designers results for survey question 13 Figure 76 UOB designers results for survey question 14
Figure 77 UOB designer’s frequency histogram Figure 78 MMU Nano-exposure results Figure 79 UOB Nano-exposure results Figure 80 UOB designer’s Nano-exposure results Figure 81 MMU Nano-awareness results Figure 82 UOB Nano-awareness results Figure 83 UOB Designers Nano-awareness results Figure 84 MMU Nano-motivation results Figure 85 UOB Nano-motivation results Figure 86 UOB Designer’s Nano-motivation results Figure 87 MMU results for student’s frequency histogram Figure 88 UOB results for student’s frequency histogram Figure 89 Designers students results for frequency histogram Figure 90 Nanotechnology Universities funding from Research Councils
UK Figure 91 Nano-Knowledge Figure 92 Mean score for UOB Designer’s Figure 93 Mean score for UOB Students Figure 94 Mean score for MMU Students
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Classification of nanomaterial with regards to their structural
dimensions
Table 2: Nano-exposure
Table 3: Nano-awareness
Table 4: Nano-motivation
Table 5: Nano-motivation
Table 6: Sample set used for the survey instrument and interview
(number of representatives)
Table 7: Initial chosen participants
Table 8: Results from Analysis
x
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
AHRC Arts and Humanities Research Council
APM Atomically precise machinery
BBSRC Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
CNT Carbon Nanotubes
EC European Commission
EPSRC Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
ESRC Economic and Social Research Council
FP7 Framework Programme
IRC Interdisciplinary Research Centres
MMU Manchester Metropolitan University
MRC Medical Research Council
NM Nanometres
NNI National Nanotechnology Initiative
NST Nanoscience and nanotechnology
R & D Research and Development Programme
RCUK Research Councils UK
SCI Science Citation Index
STFC Science and Technology Facilities Council
UOB University of Bolton
WOB Web of Science
xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This Dissertation is dedicated to my beloved, late Mom,
…and all my invisible helpers, watching over and helping me from above. Thank you.
I would also like to thank my supervisor, Nooshin Akrami and some of the University of
Bolton library security staff for their support in my endeavour.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
John M. Johansen
This quote reflects the potential impacts and remarkable revolution that
nanotechnology can have on future architecture and building constructions.
Nanotechnology is the science of creating any activities that exploit the unique
behaviour of materials at a scale of approximately 0.1 – 100 nm (Massawe, 2013).
Very few people, including designers are interested in nanotechnology despite its
ability to produce specific chemically stable structural materials (Leydecker, 2008).
Chemically stable structural materials are achieved by incorporating nanomaterials
(which exist in several shapes and forms such as particles, lumped, etc.) into
conventional materials, in order to produce multifunctional surface materials with
improved characteristics (Daryoush and Darvish, 2013).
In architecture, a form of nanomaterial known as nanocoating has been incorporated
into the construction of architectural material such as self-cleaning windows; a key
future prospect of architecture. Architectural materials are primarily produced using raw
materials. However, the finished products have many limitations. Fahmy (2012) has
stated that architectural materials slowly decay over time, depending on maintenance
services and environmental factors. However, due to the current dominant technology,
such as nanocoating technologies, there is a lower limit to the raw materials, which can
hamper the future growth of architectural materials (Godbole, 2007). The use of
nanotechnology in architecture will therefore allow materials to be designed with
innovative properties using extremely small building components.
Space according to Leone (2012) has always been a fundamental major constraint in
architectural design. Thus nanotechnology will allow more effective use of that space
especially with respect to building functionality and performance.
In 1945, Richard Feynman predicted that molecules can be selected and
positioned together in order to produce various substances including new
metals 50 times the strength of steels. These materials will be slender
(highly ductile, flexible) and strong, thus resulting in generational
buildings that have never been seen before.
2
The pioneers of modern architectural design plan to use nanomaterial. Thus the
transition from the traditional material to the new nanomaterial in building material will
give rise to several issues and problems related to the adverse effects. This is
particularly detrimental to human health, the environment as well as ecological, social
and economic risks (Byk 2011; Leone 2012; Cutcliffe 2012; Shatkin 2013).
Over the past years, nanomaterial applications have been increasing, in the UK
however; nanomaterial applications in architecture are relatively low. It is claimed by
MATUK official (2010) and James (2011) that the United Kingdom is yet to determine
an overall strategy for nanotechnology, resulting in no actual on-going nanotechnology
programme. For this reason, new UK adopters of nanomaterial in architecture may not
be familiar with the problems and issues encountered while transitioning to
nanomaterial from the existing material and the strategies used to resolve them
(Godbole, 2007).
1.1 Aim This paper aims to identify and analyse key issues, strategies and problems that are
associated with the adoption of nanomaterials in the UK’s construction industry.
Following this, the below objectives were defined:
1.2 Research Objectives 1. To explore what nanotechnology is and its importance in the field of
architecture.
2. Identify nanomaterials and critically discuss the impacts of implementing new
nanotechnology strategies in the UK construction industry.
3. Create a basic awareness while assessing students and future designer’s
knowledge about nanotechnology and nanomaterials.
1.3 Statement of the Problem
Very few people including designers are aware of the problems encountered when
transitioning from existing architectural materials to nanomaterials (Leydecker, 2008).
Key issues have been identified and characterised in this research study.
Qualitative and quantitative researches have been adopted in this study. Researches
were executed in the form of informal interviews and survey research/analysis. The
population used in the research comprised of representatives from two academic
institutions situated in the North West region of England named Manchester
Metropolitan University (MMU) and University of Bolton (UOB).
3
The associated research questions include:
1. The word ‘nano’ means?
2. If a nanometre were as big as a football, how big would a metre be?
3. In the next 20 years, the impact of nanomaterial on our life will?
1.4 Highlights and Limitations of Methodology
The design focused on acquiring the richest possible data related to the knowledge
strategies of nanotechnology application in architectural material. The qualitative and
quantitative researches used in this study helps avoid external influences.
The quantitative data required for this dissertation were collected from a predefined
sample set, resulting from the use of background questionnaire (Appendix A) and a
survey instrument (Appendix B). Similarly, the qualitative data were collected from a
predefined sample set however using methods such as nondirective and telephone
interviews (Farrell, 2011).
In order to address the research questions, the proposed methodology included;
a) Confirming the characteristics of the target population using background
questionnaire
b) Identifying a set consisting of people that are more likely to be familiar with
nanotechnology and architecture
c) Creating a survey instrument
d) Collecting and interpreting qualitative data via interviewing
e) Comparing and analysing data from the survey instrument and interviews, and
f) Identifying and qualitatively comparing the solutions and strategies.
The research study was limited to the adoption of nanomaterial in architecture. The
group of targeted participants in the research were limited to departments involved in
nanomaterial and architecture, that is, academic institutions involved in nanomaterial
and architecture in the North region of England. The research methodology, analysis of
data, and conclusions relied heavily on the accuracy of the input from the participants
who completed the surveys as well as the accuracy of the input from the
representatives who participated in the interview. Thus the result from these analyses
might be biased due to the way the research questions were constructed and the
participant’s individual perceptions.
4
1.5 Research Expectations
The objective of this research is to identify the key issues associated with the
implementation of nanomaterial in the UK construction industry. The key issues and
strategies identified in this research are expected to provide insights for those UK
construction companies that are considering adopting nanomaterial.
Because architectural materials are widely used by all construction industries across
different countries, the results of this research study could also be collectively and
equitably beneficial to any company potentially looking to adopt nanomaterial in
construction.
1.6 Chapter Structure
The next chapter will review relevant literature review; exploring the world of
nanotechnology and nanomaterials, hence forming the basis of this study. Chapter 3
will focus on the methods used for this study. The findings from the data analysis will
be detailed in chapter 4. Questionnaire and the findings from the interviews will be
analysed in chapter 5. Chapter 6 discusses the findings, implications and limitations of
this study and its relevance to policy and practice.
5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Nanotechnology otherwise known as nanotech is the manipulation of matter at ultra-
small scales between 0.1 and 100 nm (Fahmy, 2010). In commercial products,
nanotechnology is employed to control the properties of individual atoms and
molecules, thus, generating devices or functional systems such as computer chips,
stain-resistant textiles, fuel catalysts, cosmetics, food products, clothing, disinfectants
and many more. In addition Elvin (2007); Fahmy (2010); Leone (2012) showed that
nanotechnology is an engineering application, which offers innovative potentials in
architectural devices such as nanocoating. Nanocoatings in window designs contain
liquid repellents, which when used can repel dirt.
Despite the promising features of nanotechnology, it has however been subjected
since inception to numerous debates, particularly about its future implications (Rogers
et al., 2008; Hemeida, 2010). Academic researchers including Horton et al. (2009)
believed that nanotechnology is an enabling technology, which has the capacity of
creating new materials for extensive applications. Conversely, researchers including
Nastassja (2008); Bernhardt (2010); Siegrist (2010); Byk (2011); Lu et al. (2012);
Cutcliffe (2012); Shatkin (2013); Groves (2013) argued that nanotechnology is a
disruptive technology that could revolutionise markets, supersede existing technologies
and consequently, produce adverse effects particularly detrimental to human health,
the environment as well as ecological, social and economic risks (APPENDIX J).
Schulte (2005); Hemeida (2010) however concluded that further analysis is required to
fully identify and evaluate the potential impacts of nanotechnology to the global
economy. Thus, part of this dissertation aims to explore what nanotechnology is and its
impacts to the field of architecture material.
2.1.1 Background
For many decades, nanotechnology has been hypothesised by physicists, chemists,
engineers and biologist to be the next technology that provides many breakthroughs
due to the different range of possibilities it provides (DiNardo, 1994; Heflin, 2004;
Bhardwaj et al., 2014). In architecture, it is observed by Leydecker (2008) that these
breakthroughs in insulation, coatings, adhesives, lighting etc. are crucial factors that
often determine the final quality of a building. Arguable to improve the quality of their
buildings, the U.S. government were the first country to adopt nanotechnology. Ever
6
since then, nanotechnology has found its way up in the rank amongst technological
advances in a wide range of applications (Owens, 2003). Countries like Japan,
Germany, and France have since invested heavily in nanotechnology, however
according to MATUK official (2010) and James (2011) the UK is yet to determine an
overall strategy for nanotechnology.
7
2.2 Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Richard Feynman talk titled ‘there’s plenty of room at the bottom’ is often cited by
several academic works as the beginning of nanoscience and nanotechnology
(Schomberg, 2008; Lindsay, 2010; Forsberg, 2012; Gideon, 2014). In particular,
Lindsay’s paper had high mathematical models and concepts, using quantum
mechanics, to provide an insight into the integrated description of nanoscience.
2.2.1 Nanoscience
Lindsay stated that nanoscience deals with the science phenomena of very small
things (nanomaterials) that occur within nanometre dimension. This new burgeoning
field of science is claimed to be where atomic physics meets with the physics and
chemistry of complex structures (Lindsay, 2010). As a result of this, Adams and
Barbante (2013) paper furthermore concluded that surface physics and chemistry are
starting to dominate nanomaterial properties due to the unpredictable laws of quantum
mechanics. However, Adams and Barbante (2013) conclusion was challenged by
Cheetham et al. (2007) who argued that chemistry constitutes nanoscience and without
engaging chemical techniques it will be impossible to synthesize most of the
nanomaterials. In addition, Cheetham et al. (2007) furthermore identified that the
shoulder of nanoscience strictly lies on chemical kinetics.
Although each of these theoretical points makes an important contribution to the
description of nanoscience, the study of Arnall and Parr (2004) however resolved that
nanoscience cannot be categorised into a specific field. That is, nanoscience does not
stem from one established academic discipline. Evidence in support of this point, can
be found in several academic papers of (Fahmy, 2010; Byk, 2011; Forsberg, 2012;
Massawe, 2013; Marsh, 2014)
For this reason, it is claimed by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) that
nanoscience is a research and development programme (R and D) that functions at the
boundaries between physics, chemistry, materials science and biology. Arnall and Parr
(2004) later identified the two features of nanoscience to be:
1. Nanomaterials
2. Technology pushed (Arnall and Parr, 2004).
8
2.2.1.1 Nanomaterial According to Arnall and Parr (2004) nanoscience is primarily about making
‘nanomaterials’. Bhardwaj et al. (2014) introduced the term nanomaterial as ‘a material
with components less than 100nm in at least one dimension’. The European
Commission (EC) defines nanomaterial as “a natural, incidental or manufactured
material containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an
agglomerate and where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size
distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1 nm - 100 nm”
(Marsh, 2014). Based on the EC definition, there are two essential criteria for
nanomaterial: size and novelty (Lu et al., 2012). A recent study by Bhardwaj et al.
(2014) elaborated on Lu et al. (2012) claim. Bhardwaj et al. (2014) argued that
nanomaterial sizes and novelties could be classified into three different segments:
nanomaterials in one dimension, in two dimensions, and in three dimensions. Table 1
illustrates this:
Classification Examples
Dimension
• Three dimensions Quantum dots, particles, etc.
• Two dimensions Tubes, wires, fibres, etc.
• One dimension Coating, films, sheets, etc.
Table 1: Classification of nanomaterial with regards to their structural dimensions (Luther, 2004)
Gazso and Fries (2012) suggested that for dimensional based material like
nanomaterial, they will exhibit technologically interesting, nano-specific features such
as increased tensile strength depending on the given dimension. This is evident in the
current broadly used of nanomaterial in areas such as electronics, biomedical and chip
(Nastassja, 2008; Peter, 2010). Other applications of nanomaterials include sports
gear, sunscreens, socks and dresses (Monfort, 2010; Massawe, 2013). Nevertheless,
some academic researchers including Nastassja (2008); Peter (2010); Massawe
(2013) identified that this same features that make these materials so interesting
potentially harbour risks for the general public who handle them. Gazso and Fries
(2012) furthermore established that this is because small particle dimension, couple
with increased reactivity due to special surface features, determines their biological
activity and therefore toxicity.
9
2.2.1.1.1 Three Structure Dimensions:
• Nanoparticles (Three dimensions)
Lydecker (2008) stated that many forms of ‘nano’ particles have always existed
throughout history. The term ‘nano’ means ultra-small. To put a definition on ultra-
small, nano means things that have sizes of less than 100 nm in any given direction. In
other words, nano refers to minute particles with a size of approximately one-billionth
(10-9) of a metre.
Figure 1. Nano-particles with a size of approximately 10 -9 m (Lydecker, 2008)
A better perspective of a nanoparticle was given by nanoscientist Grossman (2012),
who described its size as hundred times thinner than human hair. The sentiment
expressed in this quotation, embodies the view that a nanoparticle cannot actually be
seen with the naked eye. It can however be seen, as depicted in Figure 2, with the use
of ‘electron or atomic force microscopy’.
Figure 2. Scale bar (Park, 2012).
Nanoparticles are therefore small forms of nano that are established of several
hundreds of atoms and can have different varieties of forms and structures such as
10
spherical, crystalline etc. (Luther, 2004). Pradeep (2007); Lydecker (2008) showed that
the appearance of nanoparticles physically changes when divided, that is, from blue to
violet. This however depends on particle size, physical and chemical compositions and
points at which breakage occurs. An example is the gold nanocoating particle, which
when used unknowingly on stained glass windows in a medieval church in Rome
changed the windows into a glowing translucent red colour. Thus, this application
became increasingly popular across the world (Pradeep, 2007; Lydecker, 2008).
Similarly, gold nanoparticles have been unknowingly used in the design of a Lycurpus
cup, which when exposed to light, changes from green to red. Such feature was later
explained by Michael Faradays’ groundwork of colloidal gold (first nano-seized object),
to what he refers to as the ‘divided state of gold’ (Pradeep, 2007).
Ever since then, the term and concept of nanoparticles, has been ‘overused’ and has
recently been ‘hyped’ up by ‘techies who cannot wait to order a wristwatch with the
entire library of congress stored inside’ (Rogers et al. 2008; Lydecker 2008). In
disagreement with Rogers et al. (2008) and Lydecker (2008) a recent study by
Massawe (2013) argued that nanoparticles have been used successfully for
remediation since they are superior in technical performance. This technical
performance has however raise issues regarding to the health impacts of
nanoparticles.
• Nanotubes (two dimensions)
Several academic researchers including Kohler and Fritzsche (2007) particularly focus
on two dimensional nanomaterials such as tubes because of their unique electrical and
mechanical properties. Carbon nanotubes (CNT) are cylindrical elongated structure
(Mangefox, 2011). CNT’s have anticipated a significant role in the context of
nanomaterials, because of its novel chemical and physical properties.
Figure 3. Carbon Nanotube structure (Mangefox, 2011).
11
• Nanofilms (one dimensions)
Fahmy (2010) stated that one-dimensional nanomaterials, such as nanofilms
have been developed and used for decades in fields such as electronic device
manufacture and engineering.
2.2.1.2 Technology Pushed Arnall and Parr (2004) secondly argued that nanoscience is generally ‘technology
pushed’. That is nanoscience is pushed on by the potential market influences of
nanotechnology (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Representations of the essential features of Nanoscience (Arnall and Parr, 2004).
‘Technology pushed’ urged on by the potential market impacts of nanotechnology, the
R and D community is achieving rapid advances in basic science and technology. This
level of scientific interest is gauged by Compano and Hullman (2002) citied in Arnall
and Parr (2004) who examine the world-wide number of publications in nanoscience
and nanotechnology (NST) in the Science Citation Index (SCI) database. It was
concluded that the average annual growth rate in the number of publications is an
‘impressive’ 27% (Arnall and Parr, 2004).
12
2.2.2 Nanotechnology
2.2.2.1 Disputes and Definitions Although nanotechnology is believed to exploit the methods derived from nanoscience
to create different products, the definition of such term however is extremely diverse
(Arnall and Parr, 2004).
Lu et al. (2012) introduced the term nanotechnology as “the manipulation of individual
atoms and molecules to build structures to complex atomic specifications.” Shatkin
(2013) opposed this view confirming that there are 28 different ‘official’ definitions of
nanotechnology. Gasman (2006) however, pointed out that nanotechnology can be
easily defined but the underlying meanings vary significantly, depending on individual.
Leydecker (2008) concluded that there is no clear definition of nanotechnology as it is
yet to be identified on an international level. Thus, meaning that nanotechnology is a
diverse application that draws from, and requires expertise in numerous scientific and
engineering fields (Rogers et al., 2008).
2.2.2.1.1 Nanotechnology Approaches Given the dispute with regards to the definition of nanotechnology, it is quite surprising
that mathematically, nanotechnology has been described as any activities at a
magnitude of between (0.1 -100 nm) or (>100 nm) (Bernhardt et al., 2010; Shea et al.,
2011; Lu et al., 2012; Kah et al., 2013; Bhardwaj et al., 2014). In particular, Uldrich and
Newberry (2003); Lu et al. (2012) papers has classified this magnitude of
nanotechnology into two separate approaches:
• Nanomeasurement (0.1 – 100 nm)
• Nanomanipulation (> 100 nm) (Newberry, 2003; Lu et al., 2012).
Figure 5. Diagram drawn up to aid the understanding of nanotechnology (Fatade-O, 2014)
Nanotechnology
Nanomeasurement (.1 – 100 nm)
Nanomanipulation (>100 nm)
Nanofabrication Self-Assembly
13
Yet, several academic researchers believed that nanomeasurement is the appropriate
comprehensive range technique for nanotechnology. Lowing et al. (2009); Oli (2010)
stated that nanotechnology is defined as the broad range techniques and materials that
allow manipulation of matter on the atomic scale to form structures having dimension
between 1-100 nm and processing novel properties. However, some researchers
disagreed with this, arguing that nanomanipulation is in fact the original meaning of
nanotechnology (Lele, 2009). At the same time many researchers concluded that the
appropriate definition of nanotechnology should accommodate both the definition (Kah
et al., 2013; Bhardwaj et al., 2014).
Nanomeasurement
Uldrich and Newberry (2003) introduced the term nanomeasurement as a branch of
nanotechnology that applies to only those things ranging in size from 0.1 nanometres
(the size of a hydrogen atom) to 100 nanometres (the size of a virus). This distinctive
size range is claimed to be coined by Taniguchi in 1974 (Mansoori et al., 2007).
Taniguchi argued that this range of nanometres covers the engineering machine tools
used in archiving ultra-precision as a result of miniaturisation in the semiconductor
processing industry. Based on this, Lele (2009) presented the term ‘structural
nanotechnology’ as a substitute for nanomeasurement because it plays a more
important role in explaining any industrial technology dealing with something less than
100 nanometres in size.
On the other hand, several academic researchers use ‘the top down approach’ to
represent ‘nanomeasurement’. Fouad (2012); Adams and Barbante (2013) stated that
the ‘top down approach’ combines both conventional and unconventional methods of
nanoscience to create nanoscale structures in a technique similar to ‘carving’. That is,
the technique of carving smaller objects from large bulk material (Qin and Riggs,
2012). This is particularly important because such technique is believed to ‘help in
doing existing things better’ (Grieger, 2012). According to Lewinski (2008), this
approach is largely driven by commercial applications. Applications of which can be
widely seen in the making of devices like chips and processors. In architecture the
application of such method is making progress, as it is expected to lead to stronger
materials (Lele, 2009).
14
Nanomanipulation
According to Uldrich and Newberry (2003) nanomanipulation is the truly exciting
branch of nanotechnology that applies to things ranging in the size of 100 nanometres
and above. This comprehensive size range was labelled ‘molecular nanotechnology’ by
Drexler in 1986. Drexler argued that this range of nanometres is based on smaller
molecules and atomically precise machinery (APM) that will guard their motion to
bound formation in order to build larger molecular objects (Drexler, 2011).
Building up on Drexler’s claim, several academic researchers use ‘the bottom up
approach’ to represent ‘nanomanipulation’. Fouad (2012); Bhardwaj (2013); Dave
(2013) stated that the ‘bottom up approach’ is a technique that involves building things
from a small scale to a larger scale. This is particularly important because it raises
hope of ‘free manufacturing’ in areas such as robots, computers etc. (Lele, 2009).
However, according to Qin and Riggs (2012), nanomanipulation does not exist yet as it
poses a different set of problems which includes the ability to be able to replicate itself.
As a result of this Lele (2009) concluded that at this stage it is not possible to
contextualise the impact of absence possibilities for their architecture utility.
Nanomanipulation is referred to as the building up of things, atom by atom, from a
small scale. The ‘tools’ to achieve this are however divided into two:
a) Nanofabrication
b) Self-assembly (Uldrich and Newberry, 2003).
Nanofabrication refers to building things up, atom by atom using man-made tools. Self-
assembly, on the other hand, is the process of atoms and molecules adhering in a self-
regulated manner, in which specific atoms and molecules bind to one another based
on their chemical properties (Uldrich and Newberry, 2003).
15
2.3 Nanotechnology and Architecture (NanoArchitecture)
Nanotechnology + Architecture = NanoArchitecture
Niroumand et al. (2013) defined nanoarchitecture as the conversion of architecture in
the nano revolution of the 21st century. As illustrated in figure 6, El-Samny (2008)
furthermore concluded that the use of nanotechnology in architecture varies from
materials to forms and design theories.
Figure 6. NanoArchitecture: Nanotechnology in buildings (El-Samny, 2008).
Following the thorough study of different literature reviews and building up on El-
Samny (2008) work on nanoarchitecture, figure 7, has been drawn up to gain further
understanding into the use of nanotechnology in architecture.
Figure 7. NanoArchitecture: Nanotechnology in buildings (Fatade-O, 2014).
Figure 7 shows a new detailed diagram portraying nanotechnology in architecture. This
new proposed diagram elaborates on El-Samny (2008) diagram shown in figure 6.
NanoArchitecture
Changing the way of thinking Implementing nanotechnology in buildings
Nanomeasurement (Tanigushi) Nanomanipulation (Drexler)
New Forms (John M. Johansen) Nanomaterials (Nanoscientist)
16
Designing nanoarchitecture can therefore be grouped into two categories as shown in
figure 6 and 7.
• Changing the way of thinking
• Implementing nanotechnology in buildings
2.3.1 Changing the way of thinking Architect John M. Johansen adopted Drexler’s theory of molecular nanotechnology
(nanomanipulation – 100nm and above) with the aim of creating unique perspectives
on how new technology can transform building form (El-Samny, 2008; Niroumand et
al., 2013).
Figure 8. Molecular-engineered Multi-storey Apartment Building (Johansen, 2011).
Building in the form of molecular nanotechnology (the
bottom up approach) as shown in figure 8, is expected
to be the future of architecture (Johansen, 2011).
Labelled the ‘new species of architecture’ by Johansen,
such building form is expected to grow from simple to
complex molecules. “Molecules, we must be reminded,
can be programmed to produce utilitarian box shelters
or houses of any frivolous style” (Johansen, 2011).
The cost of such building will be practically nothing
because the elements for the material according to
Johansen (2011) will be taken from water, air and earth,
thus resulting in no use of labour.
Growing Procedures: Day 1: Site excavation
Day 2: Placing the Vats
Day 3: Placing the code
Day 4: Molecular growth
Day 5: The superstructure
Day 6: The membranes
Day 7: Furniture grow
Day 8: Membranes respond
to surrounding changes
Day 9: Moving in!
(Johansen, 2011).
17
Figure 9. Molecular-engineered House for the year 2200 (Johansen, 2011).
Figure 9 illustrates molecular-engineered house for the year 2200 proposed by
Johansen. Such building is designed to have its shield open and close in response to
light energy, thus making building more ‘natural’ (El-Samny, 2008; Lalbakhsh and
Shirazpour, 2011). El-Samny (2008) furthermore concluded by labelling this idea of
future architecture ‘thought-provoking’.
18
2.3.2 Implementing nanotechnology in buildings
2.4 NanoMaterials Several nanoscientists on the other hand are implementing nanotechnology ranging in
size from 0.1 nm to 100 nm (nanomeasurement) in buildings through nanomaterials. At
this scale, the properties of nanomaterial are diverse as illustrated in figure 10 (Grieger
et al., 2012; Park, 2012; Nirounmand and Zain, 2013).
Figure 10. Graph that shows the percentage of surface atom as a function of the size of a small
nanoparticle (Park, 2012).
As demonstrated in figure 10, for nanometres that are small, particular ranging from
100 nm down to 0.1 nm, the percentage of atom located on their surface starts to get
bigger. That is there is more atom on the surface of the material, and as a result, they
will therefore have more significant impact on properties of any materials. Not just on
colours as illustrated in figure 12 below, but also electrical, mechanical and thermal
properties.
Figure 11. Figure 12.
Figure 11 and 12. Bulk gold and gold particles ranging from 2 to 150 nanometres (Park, 2012).
19
2.4.1 Introduction Over the past decades, the use of nanotechnology applications in new materials has
found its way amongst the top useful material made known applicable for different
industries (Massawe, 2013). In architecture, such application includes aerogel. Aerogel
are gel in which the liquid component has been replaced with gas, hence making it
light. Adding 5% of nanoparticle to an aerogel however makes a dramatic change,
resulting in a light material been suddenly able to support 2,000 times its own weight.
This has applications for situations where it is hard to treat areas where space is at
premium with critical tolerances to be achieved (Therma Official, 2014).
According to Leydecker (2008) when dealing with nanomaterials and surfaces in
architecture, two fundamental different design approaches are needed, these are
Honesty of materials – original material chosen by architect that values the
high-quality materials such as natural stone or solid wood
Fakes – fakes materials chosen for cost reasons. Architect choosing wood
veneer instead of solid wood (Leydecker, 2008).
In future a third option will be available:
Functional nanosurfaces, emancipated from the underlying material -
Chemically stable structural materials are achieved by incorporating
nanomaterials (which exist in several shapes and forms such as particles,
lumped, etc.) into conventional materials in order to produce multifunctional
surface materials with improved characteristics (Daryoush and Darvish, 2013).
2.4.2 Sustainable NanoArchitecture
El-Samny (2008) stated that the use of nanotechnology in architecture is strongly
linked to sustainability. Such use is expected to offer an innovative technological
means with which to:
• Tackle climate change
• Help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the foreseeable future (El-Samny,
2008).
20
2.4.2 NanoMaterial in Architecture The use of nanomaterial in architecture includes the following categories:
• Coatings
• Insulation
• Solar Protection
• Air-Purifying
• Fire Proof
• Structural materials
• Non-structural materials (El-Samny, 2008; Hemeida, 2010; Fahmy, 2010;
Fouad, 2012)
2.4.2.A Coating (Finishing materials) Coatings are an area of significant research in nanotechnology (Fahmy, 2010; Fouad,
2012). El-Samny (2008) defined the term coating as the thin coverings that are
deposited on a base material to enhance its surface characteristics or appearance.
Such characteristic improves the material durability. This procedure is particular
important because it enables self-healing abilities through a process called self-
assembly (Fahmy, 2010; Fouad, 2012). Self-assembly is the process of molecules
adhering in a self-regulated fashion, in which specific molecules bind to one another
based on their size, shape, composition, or chemical properties (Uldrich and Newberry,
2003).
The application of nanocoating technology provides outstanding liquid rebelling
benefits to almost any materials. This application can be in different forms as illustrated
in figure 13.
Figure 13. Typical Nanocoating forms (Fouad, 2012).
According to P2i official (2011), nanotechnology can make materials liquid repellent
through the following process illustrated in figure 14 - 17.
21
1. Products are placed in a chamber where vacuum is created
Figure 14. Chamber where vacuum is created (P2i, 2011).
2. A plasma pretreatment process activates the entire surface, ready for monomer.
Figure 15. Plasma pretreatment process (P2i, 2011).
3. The monomer provides the liquid repellent nanocoating to every exposed
component of the product.
Figure 16. The Monomer (P2i, 2011).
22
4. This invisible layer is chemically bonded to the surface of the material and
cannot be removed.
Figure 17. Nanocoated material (P2i, 2011).
Fahmy (2010); Fouad (2012) stated that in architecture nanocoating can be applied to
conventional materials in order to produce a surface of the desired protective or
functional properties. Such architectural material includes concrete, glass and steel.
Fahmy (2010) furthermore categorised different coatings products in four which is
shown in figure 18.
Figure 18. Coatings products with properties, specifications and usage (Fahmy, 2010).
23
Nanocoating architectural application:
Figure 19. Nanocoating products used in buildings (Fouad, 2012).
2.4.2.B Self-cleaning: Lotus-Effect:
• Microscopically rough, not smooth.
• Hydrophobic – water trickles off (Leydecker, 2008).
Lotus-effect is regarded as one of the best known means of designing surfaces with
nanomaterials (Leydecker, 2008; El-Samny, 2008)
Figure 20. The lotus plant with its natural self-cleaning (Leydecker, 2008; Fouad, 2012)
Self-cleaning surfaces were investigated back in the 1970s by the botanist Wilhelm
Barthlott (Fouad, 2012). He examined a self-cleaning effect that can be observed not
only in Lotus leaves but also in the European Nasturtium, the American Cabbage or
South African Myrtle Spurge (Leydecker, 2008; El-Samny, 2008). Common to them all
is that they exhibit a microscopically rough water-repellent (hydrophobic) surface,
24
which is covered with tiny knobbles or spikes so that there is little contact surface for
water to settle on (Fouad, 2012).
Artificial ‘lotus surfaces’, created with the help of nanotechnology, do not as yet have
any self-healing capabilities, but they can offer an effective means of self-cleaning
when properly applied (Leydecker, 2008; El-Samny, 2008; Fouad, 2012). The
advantages are self-evident: a cleaner appearance and considerably reduced
maintenance demands (El-samny, 2008).
An example for the use of the self-cleaning Lotus Effect applied on a building surface
for a better optimal use and low maintenance facades:
Figure 21. Ara Pacis Museum (Leydecker, 2008; Fouad, 2012)
The benefits of using the self-cleaning surface coating are:
• Outstanding adhesion, water repellent (hydrophobic) and dirt repellent.
• Water rolls off the surface forming a brushing effect (self-cleaning).
• Resistant to weathering and Ultraviolet etc. thus retaining the quality of the
surface.
• Ecologically beneficial, biologically safe, breathable with low cleaning and
maintenance.
• Strong long-life performance due to inorganic nanoparticles.
• Ideal for ceramic wall tiles, sanitary ware, baths, wash basins, commodes, and
urinals (Ansari and Ansari, 2011)
For more nanomaterial application in architecture please see (Appendix E)
25
Figure 22. Nanomaterial vs. Conventional material; a comparison between nanoceramic tiles
and conventional tiles (El, Samny, 2008)
26
2.5 Nanotechnology overview in the UK industries
Nanotechnology application is expected to transform the global industry (Falkner and
Jasper, 2012). In the UK industries however, nanotechnology strategy are yet to be
determined due to the government no-actual overall nanotechnology programme
(MATUK, 2010; Jones, 2011). Evidence in support of this can be found in the latest
nanotechnology funding results published by the Cientifica official.
Figure 23. Funding of nanotechnologies by country (Cientifica, 2010)
The latest result from the Cientifica official as shown in figure 23, puts the UK funding
of nanotechnologies activity as very low. One of the sentiment expressed in this graph,
embodies the fact that the UK lacks adequate funding for industries when it comes to
the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Despite this criticism, the current budget
for science and research spending published the following year for the period 2011 to
2015, as shown in Appendix F, reveals that there will be no future role for
nanotechnology (Jones, 2011).
27
2.5.1 The UK Approaches to Nanotechnology Strategy
Without neglecting the framework programme (FP) In the UK, the force of improving
nanotechnology has been in practice since 1998 (MATUK, 2010). This has been
measured through a series of reports and Government responses (Schulte, 2005).
Despite this, it was not until the third meeting of the Ministerial Group on
Nanotechnology it was agreed that a nanotechnology strategy should be developed for
the UK (MATUK, 2010).
2.5.2 The UK Nanotechnology Strategies to date
Alongside the Micro and Nano Technology (MNT) programme and the Seventh
Framework Programme (FP7), the UK’s nanotechnology programme is mainly
supported by the Research Councils UK (RCUK). The Research Councils UK (RCUK)
is a strategic partnership of the UK’S seven Research Councils who annually invest
around £3 billion in research (RCUK, 2012). The seven research councils are:
• Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
• Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
• Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
• Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
• Medical Research Council (MRC)
• Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
• Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) (RCUK, 2012).
2.5.3 The UK Government Spend on Nanotechnology over the last 12 years
Concluding on the total amount spent by the UK on nanotechnology over the past
twelve years will be difficult. This is because several funding has been incorporated
into various areas of the field. Such areas include science, technology and
engineering. Figure 24 illustrates the estimates amounts.
28
Figure 24. Estimated Government funding for nanotechnology over the last 12 years (MATUK, 2010)
2.5.4 The UK Educational Funding on Nanotechnology
The running of Interdisciplinary Research Centres (IRC) has resulted in several
Research Council funds for Universities around the UK.
Figure 25. Nanotechnology Universities funding from Research Councils UK (MATUK, 2010)
29
2.5.5 The Taylor Report
The Taylor report (Appendix G) aimed at the government stressed the necessary steps
required to be taken by the UK in building adequate nanotechnology strategy. Taylor
highlighted the RCUK as a partnership that has strongly contributed to the UK
nanotechnology strategy over the past years. According to MATUK official (2010), the
RCUK has invested about £253 million since 2003 into the field of nanotechnology.
Yet, nanotechnology is still slowly penetrating the UK industries as evidently shown in
figure 26 (Yeadon, 2007).
Figure 26. Impact of Nanotechnology by country (Cientifica, 2010)
As a result of this, Taylor proposed the following recommendation:
• Convince firms and investors of the need to use nanotechnology to defend and
improve their competitive position, and ease the path for companies to invest in
the area.
• Increase the number of companies developing and applying nanotechnology
and its applications.
• Ensure that industry and academia have access to the facilities needed to take
the ideas that come from research and turn them into viable technologies,
products and businesses, with excellent routes to market
• Ensure that industry has access to well train staff (Taylor, 2002).
30
2.6 Nanotechnology in the UK construction industry Yeadon (2007) stated that UK architects and building manufactures are slowly bringing
nanomaterial into the construction industry. This is evident in the position of the
construction industry as shown in Figure 27.
Figure 27. Summary of markets impacted by nanotechnology (MATUK, 2010)
Figure 27 furthermore indicates that the growth of the UK construction industry usage
of nanotechnology will not supersede other industries by 2015. Yet, many construction
practitioners according to Yeadon (2007) expect nanomaterial in the construction
industry to be the major market force in driving forward field of nanotechnology. This is
because nanotechnology is an ‘enabling technology’ that is beneficial to the
construction industry in the following ways:
31
2.6.1 Benefits of Nanotechnology strategies in the UK construction industry
The application of new nanotechnology strategies in the UK construction industry will
result in the total transformation of the built environment (Figure 28 and 29). Such
transformation can be classified into three:
• Structural Systems
• Building Envelope
• Adaptable Processes
Figure 28. Nanotechnology transforming the built environment (Arch, 2014)
In structural systems:
• Metals 50 times the strength of steel
In building envelope:
• Construction materials with smaller CO2 impact
In adaptable processes:
• Sustainable architecture
32
Figure 29. Matrix showing the problems to be addressed, the potential nano-enabled solutions,
and relevant nanotechnology developments (O’Rourke, 2010)
2.7 Conclusion The relationship between nanotechnology and architecture will lead to;
1. (Nanomeasurement) hundreds of new materials (nanomaterials),
2. (Nanomanipulation) and according to Johansen (2011) offers a new vision of
building in symbolic and metabolic balance with nature.
Precisely specifying the strategy for the adoption of nanomaterial in the UK
construction industry is further complicated because every new technology interacts
(and sometimes collides) with powerful ethical believe, government regulations,
environment, and people’s comfort level with technology.
With such technology like nanotechnology, is it rather surprising that only a few people
including designers are aware of its impacts on architecture. As a result of this the
public and designers perception on nanotechnology and nanomaterial will be
examined.
33
CHAPTER 3: DATA AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The public perception on nanotechnology and its application on architecture have
grown enormously over the past couple of years. It has become a common theme for
researchers.
3.1.1 Background
Lu et al. (2012) indicated that it is a difficult task to gauge technology, particularly when
the targeted technology is in the early stages of its development. Despite this
observation, various researches into the public perception of nanotechnology and its
application on architecture remain high in academic citations. Evidence for in support
of this claim, can be found via different approaches. Raleigh (2004) citied in
Anonymous (2005); Macoubrie (2005); Waldron et al. (2006) used “proactive citizen
conferences”, “highly structured” and “extensive front study” research respectively, to
access and shape public perceptions on nanotechnology. Lu et al. (2012) used data
and text mining analysis to extract data and key attributes on the broader societal
issues of nanotechnology from the database of the Web of Science (WOB) based on a
set of terms obtained from literature review of nanotechnology. Krabbenborg (2012)
examined policy documents on the governance of nanotechnology to access risk and
safety issues associated with nanotechnology. Farsheshi (2011) developed Cobb and
Mocoubrie (2004) questionnaire design to extract public awareness and attitudes
towards nanotechnology based on a general public survey. With reference to an
interactive process with children and adults grouped by age, Batt et al. (2008) applied a
series of one-on-one surveys to assess the conceptual understanding of the general
public in the area of nanotechnology. Other researcher such as Currall et al. (2006)
explored the use of telephone survey to perceive risks and benefits of nanotechnology
based on 503 expect responses.
34
3.2 Overview
The design for this dissertation is focused on acquiring the richest possible data in
fulfilling the third research objective. As a result, the methodology that has been
adopted for the dissertation is both qualitative and quantitative. The quantitative data
required were collected from a predefined sample set, resulting from the use of
questionnaire (Appendix A). Similarly, the qualitative data were collected from a
predefined sample using semi-structured interview (Appendix B) to support the
quantitative work (Farrell, 2011)
To address this research objective, 101 representatives were targeted. Questionnaire
from various academic researchers work were then used to gather information used for
creating the research questions. In particular Diefes-Dux et al (2007), nanotechnology
awareness survey was developed and modified.
The survey instrument (Appendix B) was then used to create a basic awareness while
assessing students and designers’ knowledge about nanotechnology and
nanomaterials.
This survey used, consists of subscales measuring nanotechnology exposure,
awareness, motivated and knowledge (Table 2 – 5) contain the items from each
subscale). Nano-awareness is made up of eight likert-scale items that measure
perceptions about awareness of applications and uses of nanotechnology. Nano-
exposure consists of six statements that assess the exposure to nanotechnology.
Nano-awareness consists of three statements that assess awareness of
nanotechnology impacts on architecture. Nano-motivation contains five statements
pertaining to assessing motivation to further study on the impacts on nanotechnology,
not necessarily in architecture. The nano-knowledge subscale contains seven multiple-
choice items which helps to raise awareness about nanotechnology. This awareness is
achieved by giving all participants the right answer following the completion of the
survey (Appendix C)
Qualitative data regarding designer’s knowledge about nanotechnology and
nanomaterials were collected through semi-structured interview. This interview is then
formally interpreted (see CHAPTER 4), and documented in the research data (see
CHAPTER 5). The questionnaire (Appendix A) was used to collect information from the
participants. Conversely, the survey and interviews were used to gather data and
information required to assess students and designers’ knowledge about
35
nanotechnology and nanomaterials. The surveys were deployed to the sample set via
one-on-one request and in-person interview.
36
Table 2: Nano-exposure
Table 3: Nano-awareness
What is your awareness of nanotechnology impacts on architecture? I can:
1. Name one way nanotechnology impact architecture
2. Give an example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
3. Give more than one example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
Table 4: Nano-motivation What is your motivation/interest in nanoarchitecture?
I plan to:
1. Read about nanoarchitecture
2. Investigate one specific area of study in which I can learn more about nanoarchitecture
3. Take a class about nanoarchitecture
4. Pursue a research opportunity in nanoarchitecture
5. Work in the field of nanoarchitecture
Table 5: Nano-motivation
What is your exposure to nanotechnology? I have:
1. Heard the term nanotechnology
2. Read (something) about nanotechnology
3. Watched a program about nanotechnology
4. Had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology
5. Participated in an activity involving nanotechnology (lab, project…)
6. Taken a class about nanotechnology
Item: Please circle the appropriate answer
1. The word ‘nano’ means 10ˉ³ 10ˉº 10−9 10ˉ6 Don’t know
2. Things on the nanometer scale include? The moon
Virus Human hair
Don’t know
Eiffel Tower
3. If a nanometre were as big as a football, how big would a metre be?
The earth
A coin Tip of ballpoint pen
The moon Tennis ball
4. Which is an instrument used to make measurements at the nanoscale?
Microscope
Ohmmeter
Don’t know
Pregnancy test
Atomic force microscope
6. The prefix ‘nano’ comes from a Greek word meaning?
Dwarf small peak Don’t know
wee
7. In the next 20 years, the impact of nanotechnology on our life will?
Improve Have no effect
Make worse
Depends on what it is used for
I don’t know
37
3.3 Description of Research Design Data was collected from both Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) and
University of Bolton (UOB), as well as interviewing one professional. MMU and the
UOB are amongst the two universities situated in the North West region of England
with over 42, 000 students.
Figure 30 – Graph showing the approximate total number of students in both the University of
Bolton and Manchester Metropolitan University (Findthebest, 2014)
The quantitative method has been adopted in order to statistically analysis the students
and designers knowledge about nanotechnology and nanomaterial. This is
accomplished by the use of descriptive statistic in summarising the data achieved
(Farrell, 2011). On the other hand, the qualitative method has been adopted in getting
a deep understanding and providing insights into the problems encountered while
transitioning to nanomaterial from the existing material and the strategies used to
resolve them. Both methods will enable the use of observations and augmented
responses from the questionnaire and semi-structured interview.
Initially, a proactive seminar application by Raleigh (2004) in conjunction with Diefes-
Dux (2007) brief learning session’s questionnaire design was chosen to conduct this
research. Both academic researchers extract information regarding nanotechnology
through the means of presentation and pre-to-post survey respectively. This process
was however later disregarded due to limited time available to complete the paper.
After reviewing several academic studies, the works of Diefes-Dux (2007); Batt et al.
38
(2008); Farsheshi (2011) were all adopted for this research paper. Firstly, Batt et al.
(2008) work applied a series of one-on-one questionnaire surveys to assess the
conceptual understanding of children and adults in the area of nanotechnology.
Secondly, the works of Diefes-Dux (2007); Farsheshi (2011) both utilises questionnaire
design to extract public awareness and attitudes towards nanotechnology. In
conclusion, the work of Diefes-Dux (2007) was mainly developed in conjunction with
the other academic researchers listed above.
3.4 Description of Materials and Instruments Questionnaire (Appendix A) was created and used to collect opinions for the research.
Furthermore the questionnaire was designed to obtain data from the research
questions related to assessing students and future designer’s knowledge about
nanotechnology and nanomaterials. The interview was mainly focused on getting
professional views on technology transition from existing material to nanomaterial.
The selected participant for the interview is an expert from the construction industry;
architectural technologist. The representative has at least ten years of experience in
architectural design. The second group of participants were from two MMU and UOB,
both of which are located in the northern region of England, as stated earlier.
The questionnaire was developed in Microsoft word using the ‘Microsoft in built table’.
Two different tabs were drawn to design the questionnaire. These questions were then
sent out to selected participants.
39
3.5 Selection of Participants
The desired target population that were identified as representatives for this research
are from academic institutions and mainly professional. The academic institutions that
were selected for this paper was done by performing background research on them.
The targeted population were students, designers (architectural technologist students)
and professionals. Two different categories were created, namely university and
individuals.
The university category consisted of representatives from two different universities that
are either interested or not interested in nanomaterial research specifically in relation to
architecture. Some of the representatives in the university were not interested in this
research because they ‘were busy’. Table 6 shows the number of representatives per
category of the finalised list.
Table 6. Sample set used for the survey instrument and interview (number of
representatives)
3.6 Procedures
The implementation of the design introduced earlier was performed as follows:
The characteristics of the target population were identified as academic institutes that
are/not involved in nanomaterial and architecture. A total of 102 representatives
including two professionals were initial chosen across the North West region of
England as described below:
Table 7. Initial chosen participants
Universities Individual
University 1 (MMU) University 2 (UOB) Professional 1
26 49 1
75 1
North West Region Universities Representatives
Greater Manchester University of Bolton 20
Manchester Metropolitan University 20
University of Salford 20
Lancashire University of central lancashire 20
Merseyside University of Liverpool 20
40
Due to time constraint during the stage of distribution and collection of data from the
specified universities (Table 7) and individuals representatives, a total of 77
participants were instead attained from two universities – MMU and UOB as well as
only one professional individual (Table 6). Following this, the separation of the data by
type was made.
Quantitative data was collected through questionnaires across two universities. This
was then interpreted by condensing the 75 number of questionnaires attained into
easily digested figures using descriptive statistics (Farrell, 2011). Following this, the
attained data from the survey were used to create frequency distributions for each
question per strategy.
On the other hand, qualitative data were collected by conducting interviews in a form of
dialog to obtain information in an informal manner. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with the professional individual. Tape recorder and written notes were used
during this interview. The interview was then properly interpreted and documented.
A total of 77 survey instruments were completed by the participants. The data collected
from the survey and interview data used to identify and analyse key issues, strategies
and problems that are associated with the adoption of nanomaterials in the UK
construction industry.
3.7 Discussion of Data Processing
Microsoft Excel has been used for summarising and analysing all of the statistical data
and creating tables. These data are divided into three categories:
a. University of Bolton students
b. University of Bolton designers
c. Manchester Metropolitan University
The survey was distributed to a set of representative at the above universities.
Description space was available for answering descriptive questions and special notes.
Although Farrell (2011) argued against the use of charts when succinct tables are
available, these research however made use of mostly graphical representation to
interpret the data leading to conclusions of data.
3.8 Methodological Assumptions and Limitations
It is assumed that the questions in the survey instrument were answered by the
participants in honesty and without bias. The findings and conclusions from the
analysis of the data collected from the survey and semi-structured interviews are only
41
as accurate as the answers provided by the participants. The number of participants
who were asked to answer the survey questions in the research was limited by time
constraints.
3.9 Ethical Assurances
Nanomaterial promised great breakthroughs in almost every material development and
at the same time could serve as a paradigm for the notion of risks to the material user
(Heselhaus, 2010).
Positive philosophers and mostly scientists think that nanomaterial will aid in resolving
many of the world’s most major problems, such as reducing the use of raw materials in
buildings (Godbole, 2007). Negative philosophers on the other hand, predicted the
adoption of nanomaterial could result in the disruption of societies and cultures and
apocalyptic destruction of the earth as depicted in Michael Crichton’s book Prey
(Crichton, 2002) citied in (Godbole, 2007).
Gordijn (2005) citied in (Godbole, 2007) defined the six steps to follow in determining
whether a research area addresses ethical desirability. These steps are:
1. Identifying the specific field in which nanotechnology is addressed. In this
paper, nanotechnology is related to architecture.
2. Identifying the objectives in which nanotechnology is addressed. The objective
of this paper is:
a. To explore what nanotechnology is and its importance in the field of
architecture.
b. Identify nanomaterials and critically discuss the impacts of implementing
new nanotechnology strategies in the UK construction industry.
c. Create a basic awareness and knowledge for students and future
designers about nanotechnology and nanomaterials.
3. Identifying whether these objectives are ethically desirable. The objectives
above are ethically desirable because the strategies discussed provide insights
to those attempting to adopt nanomaterial in the UK construction.
4. Identify whether further development in the field of research would contribute to
the realisation of those objectives. Yes it will.
5. Identify the ethical problems connected with further development of the
research.
a. Risks
b. Equity
42
c. Privacy
d. Playing God
e. Approach to nature
6. Identify whether these ethical problems were controllable. The benefits of the
research, balances any ethical problems that can be presently envisioned. The
key issues and strategies identified in the research could help guide both
leaders of existing construction organisations and new ventures that either have
currently undertaken, or plan to initiate projects involving the adoption of
nanotechnology in architecture (Godbole, 2007).
All contributing students and professionals were provided with sufficient information
regarding the proposed research to enable them to make the decision to participate, or
not, in the research activities. The information gathered using the survey instrument
was kept confidential. Although the use of the results from the research may eventually
lead to disruption in some market segments, it is also expected to benefit construction
organisations, their employees, and the ultimate users of the products. The code of
practice for Ethical Standards in Research involving Human Participants by the
University of Bolton (Appendix H) and Manchester Metropolitan University (Appendix I)
was used as a guideline for managing any ethical issues related to conducting the
research.
43
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
4.1 Overview Data was collected using questionnaire and the survey instrument via semi-structured
interview. The questionnaire was used primarily to gather information regarding
student’s and future designer’s knowledge about nanotechnology and its application in
architecture materials. Correspondingly, interview was also used to gather information
related to professional knowledge on the adoption of nanomaterial in architecture.
The next few pages provide insights into the findings of both the questionnaires and
conducted interview.
44
4.2 Findings Conducted in Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Bolton, the
summary of responses by each university are depicted graphically below.
The numbers indicate the number of university representatives for both students and
future designers. A total of 77 representatives participated in the survey and interviews.
The questionnaire and interview form were incorporated into an A5 piece of paper to
avoid an immediate ‘turn off’ by potential participants. The questionnaire was
distributed by hand to students and future designers and the responses were received
immediately. A total of 49 responses were received from the University of Bolton and
26 responses from Manchester Metropolitan University. A further interview response
was received via semi-structured interview. All the responses were gathered in a
period of one week. The rate of return was really fast as all participants had to do was
tick a box and return immediately. Although out of 100 distributed questionnaires, 75
participants responded whilst the other 35 participants were either ‘too busy with their
coursework’ or ‘couldn’t just be bothered’. These were all responses from Manchester
metropolitan university and University of Bolton students and future designers.
Summary of responses by Likert-like scaled items are shown in the table 7 to 12. The
numbers in each category portrays the total number of responses received from the
participants for that particular question.
The fourteen questions depicted by the numbers in all illustrated figures are described
below. The numbers in each category depict the total number of responses received
from the participants for each question:
1. Heard the term nanotechnology
2. Read (something) about nanotechnology
3. Watched a program about nanotechnology
4. Had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology
5. Participated in an activity involving nanotechnology (lab, project…)
6. Taken a class about nanotechnology
7. Name one way nanotechnology impact architecture
8. Give an example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
9. Give more than one example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
10. Read about nanoarchitecture
11. Investigate one specific area of study in which I can learn more about
nanoarchitecture
45
12. Take a class about nanoarchitecture
13. Pursue a research opportunity in nanoarchitecture
14. Work in the field of nanoarchitecture
In addition, figure 31 to 77 below also illustrates the results of the survey. Each figure
depicts the number of responses per question for a particular question. Each strategy
section has five entries for Strongly Agree (4), Agree (3), Neutral (0), Disagree (2), and
Strongly Disagree (1).
46
4.2.1 Questionnaire Findings Manchester Metropolitan University Survey Results - 26 Participants Table 7: Nano-exposure
What is your exposure to nanotechnology? I have:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Result Chi-square
1. Heard the term nanotechnology 13 (50%)
2. Read (something) about nanotechnology 4 (15%)
3. Watched a programme about nanotechnology 3 (11.5%)
4. Had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology
2 (7.8%)
5. Participated in an activity involving nanotechnology (lab, project…)
0 (0%)
6. Taken a class about nanotechnology 0 (0%)
Table 8: Nano-awareness What is your awareness of nanotechnology impacts
on architecture? I can:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Result Chi-square
1. Name one way nanotechnology impact architecture 0 (0%)
2. Give an example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
1 (3.8%)
3. Give more than one example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
1 (3.8%)
Table 9: Nano-motivation
What is your motivation/interest in nanoarchitecture?
I plan to:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Pre-test Chi-square
1. Read about nanoarchitecture 5 (19.2%)
2. Investigate one specific area of study in which I can learn more about nanoarchitecture
1 (3.8%)
3. Take a class about nanoarchitecture 1 (3.8%)
4. Pursue a research opportunity in nanoarchitecture 0 (0%)
5. Work in the field of nanoarchitecture 0 (0%)
Figure 31. MMU results for survey question 1.
47
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have read about nanotechnology at MMU
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have heard about nanotechnology at MMU
Figure 32. MMU results for survey question 2.
48
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Code
d Re
spon
ses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting h
igh
satis
fact
ion)
Number of Students
Graph sowing number of students admitting to have watched a programme about Nanotechnology at MMU
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology at MMU
Figure 33. MMU results for survey question 3.
Figure 34. MMU results for survey question 4.
49
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have taken a class about nanotechnology at MMU
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have participated in an activity involving nanotechnology at MMU
Figure 35. MMU results for survey question 5.
Figure 36. MMU results for survey question 6.
50
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students that can give an example of a building where naomaterial has been used at the MMU
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students that can name one way nanotechnology impact architecture at MMU
Figure 37. MMU results for survey question 7.
Figure 38. MMU results for survey question 8.
51
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students that can give more than one example of a building where nanomaterial has been used at
MMU
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have read about nanoarchitecture at MMU
Figure 39. MMU results for survey question 9.
Figure 40. MMU results for survey question 10.
52
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students that plan to investigate one specific area of study to learn more about nanoarchitecture
at MMU
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students that plan to take a class about nanoarchitecture at MMU
Figure 41. MMU results for survey question 11.
Figure 42. MMU results for survey question 12.
53
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students planning to pursue a research opportunity in nanoarchitecture at MMU
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students planning to work in the field of nanoarchitecture
Figure 43. MMU results for survey question 13.
Figure 44. MMU results for survey question 14.
54
0% 0%
11%
12%
12%
12%
0% 0% 0%
17%
0%
12%
12%
12%
Nano-survey result for the MMU boys
1.Var1a
2.Var1b
3. Var1c
4. Var1d
5. Vart1e
6. Var1f
7. Var1g
8. Var1h
9. Var1i
10. Var1j
11. Var1k
12. Var1l
13. Var1m
14. Var1n
20%
0%
13%
0% 6%
6% 6%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
Nano-survey result for the MMU Girls
1.Var1a
2.Var1b
3. Var1c
4. Var1d
5. Vart1e
6. Var1f
7. Var1g
8. Var1h
9. Var1i
10. Var1j
11. Var1k
12. Var1l
13. Var1m
14. Var1n
Figure 45 and 46 showing the MMU results for each gender category.
55
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores
Designers frequency histogram
Figure 47. MMU results for student’s frequency histogram.
56
UNIVERSITY OF BOLTON Survey Results - 34 Participants (Students from other disciplines) Table 10: Nano-exposure
What is your exposure to nanotechnology? I have:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Result Chi-square
1. Heard the term nanotechnology 21 (61.7%)
2. Read (something) about nanotechnology 14 (41.1%)
3. Watched a programme about nanotechnology 11 (32.3%)
4. Had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology
7 (20.5%)
5. Participated in an activity involving nanotechnology (lab, project…)
7 (20.5%)
6. Taken a class about nanotechnology 1 (2.9%)
Table 11: Nano-awareness
Table 12: Nano-motivation
What is your awareness of nanotechnology impacts on architecture?
I can:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Result Chi-square
1. Name one way nanotechnology impact architecture 10 (29.4%)
2. Give an example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
6 (17.6%)
3. Give more than one example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
2 (5.8%)
What is your motivation/interest in nanoarchitecture? I plan to:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Pre-test Chi-square
1. Read about nanoarchitecture 10 (29.4%)
2. Investigate one specific area of study in which I can learn more about nanoarchitecture
7 (20.5%)
3. Take a class about nanoarchitecture 7 (20.5%)
4. Pursue a research opportunity in nanoarchitecture 7 (20.5%)
5. Work in the field of nanoarchitecture 5 (14.7%)
57
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have heard about nanotechnology at the UOB
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have read about nanotechnology at the UOB
Figure 48. UOB results for survey question 1.
Figure 49. UOB results for survey question 2.
58
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have watched a programme about nanotechnology at the UOB
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology at the UOB
Figure 50. UOB results for survey question 3.
Figure 51. UOB results for survey question4.
59
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have participated in an activity involving nanotechnology at the UOB
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students admitting to have taken a class about nanotechnology at the UOB
Figure 52. UOB results for survey question 5.
Figure 53. UOB results for survey question 6
60
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students that can name one way nanotechnology impact architecture at the UOB
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students that can give an example of building where nanomaterial has been used at the UOB
Figure 54. UOB results for survey question 7.
Figure 55. UOB results for survey question 8.
61
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students that can give more than one example of building where nanomaterial has been used at the UOB
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of students planning to read about nanoarchitecure at the UOB
Figure 56. UOB results for survey question 9.
Figure 57. UOB results for survey question 10.
62
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of planning on investigating one specific area of study to helop learn more about nanoarchitecture
at the UOB
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of planning to take a class about nanoarchitecture at the UOB
Figure 58. UOB results for survey question 11.
Figure 59. UOB results for survey question12.
Figure 60. UOB results for survey question 13.
63
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of planning to pursue a research opportunity in nanoarchitecture at the UOB
Figure 61. UOB results for survey question14.
Figure 62. UOB frequency histogram.
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n
Number of Students
Graph showing the number of planning working on the field of nanoarchitecture UOB
64
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
65-69
70-74
75-79
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores
University of bolton student's frequency histogram
65
UNIVERSITY OF BOLTON - 15 Participants (Future Designers – Architectural Technologist) Table 13: Nano-exposure
Table 14: Nano-awareness What is your awareness of nanotechnology impacts on
architecture? I can:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Result Chi-square
1. Name one way nanotechnology impact architecture 1 (6.6%)
2. Give an example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
2 (13.3%)
3. Give more than one example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
1 (6.6%)
Table 15: Nano-motivation
What is your motivation/interest in nanoarchitecture? I plan to:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Pre-test Chi-square 1. Read about nanoarchitecture 4 (26.6%)
2. Investigate one specific area of study in which I can learn more about nanoarchitecture
4 (26.6%)
3. Take a class about nanoarchitecture 1 (6.6%) 4. Pursue a research opportunity in nanoarchitecture 0 (0%)
5. Work in the field of nanoarchitecture 0 (0%)
What is your exposure to nanotechnology? I have:
No. (%) of agreement (agree, strongly agree)
Result Chi-square 1. Heard the term nanotechnology 9 (60%) 2. Read (something) about nanotechnology 2 (13.3%) 3. Watched a programme about nanotechnology 2 (13.3%) 4. Had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology
0 (0%)
5. Participated in an activity involving nanotechnology (lab, project…)
3 (20%)
6. Taken a class about nanotechnology 0 (0%)
66
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who have admitted to have heard of the word nanotechnology
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who have admitted to have read something about nanotechnology
Figure 63. UOB designers results for survey question 1.
Figure 64. UOB designer’s results for survey question 2.
67
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who have watched a programme about nanotechnology
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who have had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology
Figure 65. UOB designer’s results for survey question 3.
Figure 66. UOB designer’s results for survey question 4.
68
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who have participated in an activity involving nanotechnology
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who have taken a class about nanotechnology
Figure 67. UOB designer’s results for survey question 5.
Figure 68. UOB designer’s results for survey question 6.
69
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who name one way nanotechnology impact architecture
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who can give an example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
Figure 69. UOB designer’s results for survey question 7.
Figure 70. UOB designer’s results for survey question 8.
70
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB who can give more than one example of a building where nanomaterial has been used
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB planning to read about nanoarchitecture
Figure 71. UOB designer’s results for survey question 9.
Figure 72. UOB designer’s results for survey question 10.
71
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB planning to investigate one specific area of study to learn more about nanoarchitecture
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB planning to take a class about nanoarchitecture
Figure 73. UOB designer’s results for survey question 11.
Figure 74. UOB designer’s results for survey question 12.
72
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB planning to pursue a research opportunity in nanoarchitecture
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Students
Graph showing designers at the UOB planning on working in the field of nanoarchitecture
Figure 75. UOB designer’s results for survey question 13.
Figure 76. UOB designer’s results for survey question 14.
Figure 77. Graph showing UOB designer’s frequency histogram.
73
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
20-2425-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-4950-54
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores
Designers frequency histogram
74
4.2.2 Interview Finding
Qualitative response from conducted semi-structured interview
The next paragraphs contain a discussion of the findings from the semi-structured
interview. This interview was conducted in a form of dialog. The advantage of this
method of interview is that the conversation flows and it takes less time.
The conducted interview was achieved using the dialog form of interview with assigned
(alias P1). The question asked was ‘what do you understand by the term
nanotechnology’?
Participant with over ten years of experience in architectural design replied with
a request, demanding to describe what the term ‘nano’ means. In the process of
defining what the term means, P1 interrupted explaining that the reason behind his
question was strictly because the term nano in nanotechnology could also have
different term in which various people know it as. That is, the term could also be
referred to as another term, yet still ‘performing the same function’.
The term nano was then defined as meaning ultra-small and can be represented with
the scale of 10-9. In relation to architecture, an example of nanotechnology can be
seen in the use of nanocoating in window, hence making it self-clean. This explanation
was given in order to comprehend the application of such technology. Further example
was given in relation to steel. The application of nanotechnology in steel makes it more
slender, flexible and 50 times the original strength of steel. P1 responded by asking if
I’m talking about working in ‘finite’ level. He furthermore asked for the properties of
nano which was also explained to him.
Following this, P1 responded that the term nano to him “it’s new” and “this might be
due to the fact that perhaps is not really common in the UK construction industry”.
Following this statement a brief history was given to P1 about countries that have
adopted nanotechnology and the position of the UK on this list. Having mentioned the
United States without finishing pronouncing the noun china, P1 immediately relates the
term ‘nano’ to the earthquake disaster in the US.
He furthermore stated that perhaps “the reason why the UK hasn’t adopted such
technology is because of the implications and risks associated to the research”. He
concluded by stating that, the so called ‘disasters’ experienced in the US could be a
result of nanomaterial classified research of which could have resulted in the cause of
such disaster due to its disruptive properties.
75
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(Hig
h sc
ore
indi
catin
g hi
gh s
atis
fact
ion
Number of Students
MMU Nano-exposure result
Series1
Series2
Series3
Series4
Series5
Series6
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS
The following few paragraphs will analyse the findings from the questionnaires and the
semi-structured interview. The analyses of the findings are sorted as per research
question. The results from the questionnaire, shows different awareness between
students and designers regarding the term nanotechnology and its application in
architecture. These differences in addition with the information collected from the
interview will be analysed.
5.1 Quantitative Analysis
5.1.1 Nano-Exposure
Figure 78. MMU Nano-exposure results
76
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(Hig
h sc
ore
indi
catin
g hi
gh s
atis
fact
ion
Number of students
UOB Nano-exposure result
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of students
UOB Designer's Nano-exposure result
Series1
Series2
Series3
Series4
Series5
Series6
Figure 79. UOB Nano-exposure results
Figure 80. UOB designer’s Nano-exposure results
77
1) Have you heard the term nanotechnology? Participants from Manchester
Metropolitan University (MMU) generally show little exposure to the term
nanotechnology as the graph illustrated in (Chapter 4) shows that only fifty percent of
the participants have heard of the term nanotechnology. In contrast, the participants
from the University of Bolton (UOB), sixty one percent of participants claimed to have
heard of the term nanotechnology. Although it should be highlighted that the number of
participants from the university of Bolton is twenty-three percent more than the
participants from Manchester Metropolitan University. Having taken this into
consideration, to therefore come into an appropriate conclusion, it will be assured
mathematically that the same number of participants was asked:
26 students undertook the questionnaire from MMU, of which 50% have heard of the
term
34 students undertook the questionnaire from UOB, of which 61% have heard of the
term
26 = x 34 = 61,
Using cross-multiplication for the above equation, x therefore = 46. That is 46%
34 - 26 = 8 (difference) 8 = x
34 = 61 Again using cross-multiplication for the above equation, x therefore = 14. That is 14%
Adding 46% + 14% = 60%,
The result confirmed that if thirty-four students were to be asked from MMU,
mathematically almost the same result would be achieved (sixty percent).
As a result of this, it can be concluded that only few students amongst the two
universities, are not familiar with the word nanotechnology. The results of the survey
therefore confirm that approximately four out of ten haven’t heard the term
nanotechnology. Finally, sixty percent of design students also claimed to have heard
the term nanotechnology.
2) Have you read (something) about nanotechnology? Fifteen percent of the
participants from MMU admitted to have read something about nanotechnology.
Participants from the UOB however, show different exposure as forty one percent of
students admitted to have read something about nanotechnology. On the other hand,
78
approximately thirteen percent of designer admitted to have read something about
nanotechnology.
3) Have you watched a programme about nanotechnology? Approximately sixteen
percent of students from MMU admitted to have watched a programme about
nanotechnology. Approximately thirty two percent students from UOB also admitted to
have watched a programme about nanotechnology. Finally approximately thirteen
percent of designer’s students admitted to have watched a programme about
nanotechnology. The percentage of students and designers to have watched a
programme about nanotechnology is really low. Again this shows the lack of
awareness evidenced in such innovative technology.
4) Have you ‘had one (or more) instructors/teachers talk about nanotechnology?
Approximately eight percent of participants from MMU admitted to the above question,
while about twenty one percent of students from UOB students also admitted to this
statement. None of the designer students however admitted to have had one or more
instructors or teachers talk about nanotechnology. The reason for the variance may be
the fact that funding for nanotechnology is limited. The outcome obtained from this
result proves that there is definitely a lack of fund in nanotechnology, as this is
reflected in the most important group category – designers.
5) Have you participated in an activity involving nanotechnology (lab, project…)? None
of the participants from MMU admitted to the above question, while approximately
twenty one percent of students from UOB also admitted to this statement. Finally
twenty percent of designer students however admitted to have participated in an
activity involving nanotechnology. This statistic will increase particularly in Manchester,
with more funding in nanotechnology.
6) Have you taken a class about nanotechnology? Similar to question five, none of
participants from MMU admitted to have taken a class about nanotechnology. About
three percent of the students from UOB however admitted to this statement. Similarly,
amongst the MMU participants, none of the designers admitted to have taken a class
about nanotechnology. Perhaps this was the worst result from the analysis so far. This
really portrays the lack of funding in nanotechnology.
79
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n
Number of students
MMU Nano-awareness result
Series1
Series2
Series3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n
Number of students
UOB Nano-awareness result
Series1
Series2
Series3
5.1.2 Nano-Awareness Figure 81. MMU Nano-awareness results
Figure 82. UOB Nano-awareness results
80
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(Hig
h sc
ore
indi
catin
g hi
gh s
atis
fact
ion
Number of students
UOB Designer's Nano-awareness result
Series1
Series2
Series3
Figure 83. UOB Designers Nano-awareness results
7) Can you name one-way nanotechnology impact architecture? None of the
participants from MMU admitted to this question. About thirty percent of students from
UOB however admitted to this statement and approximately seven percent of the
designers also admitted to be able to name one-way nanotechnology impact
architecture. The result proves that designer have little or no knowledge about the
impact of nanotechnology on architectural materials. This perhaps supports Leydecker
(2008) claim, stating that very few people including designer knows about
nanotechnology. This is however possibly due to students not keeping up with the
innovative idea nanotechnology offers,
8) Can you give example of a building where nanomaterials has been used? About four
percent of participants from MMU admitted to this question. Approximately about
eighteen percent of students from UOB agreed to this statement. Similarly, thirteen
percent of designer also admitted to be able to give an example of a building that
makes use of nanomaterial. The result also proves that designer have little or no
knowledge about the impact of nanotechnology on architectural material.
9) Can you give more than one example of a building where nanomaterials has been
used? About four percent of participants from MMU agreed to this question, while
about six percent of students from UOB also admitted to this statement. Finally about
81
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of students
MMU Nano-motivation result
Series1
Series2
Series3
Series4
Series5
seven percent of designer also admitted to be able to give more than one example of a
building where nanomaterial has been used. The result in combination with question
eight proves that both students and designer have little or no knowledge about
nanomaterial.
5.1.3 Nano-Motivation Figure 84. MMU Nano-motivation results
82
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of students
UOB Nano-motivation result
Series1
Series2
Series3
Series4
Series5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Number of students
UOB Designer's Nano-motivation result
Series1
Series2
Series3
Series4
Series5
Figure 85. UOB Nano-motivation results
Figure 86. UOB Designer’s Nano-motivation results
83
10) Do you plan to read about nanoarchitecture? Approximately nineteen percent of
participants from MMU agreed to this question. Twenty nine percent of students from
UOB students also admitted to this statement. Finally approximately twenty seven
percent of designer admitted to planning to read about nanoarchitecture. These
numbers are relatively low which shows that people are generally just not interested in
nanoarchitecture.
11) Do you plan to investigate one specific area of study whereby you can learn more
about nanoarchitecture? Approximately four percent of participants from MMU agreed
to this question. Twenty one percent of students from UOB students also agreed to this
statement. Lastly twenty seven percent of designers also admitted to plan to
investigate one specific area of study in which an individual can learn more about
nanoarchitecture. This result shows a relatively positive attitude towards
nanoarchitecture among the designers however, the statistics is still low and more
awareness should be raised on this.
12) Do you plan to take a class about nanoarchitecture? Approximately four percent of
participants from MMU agreed to this question. Twenty-one percent of students from
UOB students also agreed to this statement and finally only seven percent of designer
admitted to plan to take a class about nanoarchitecture. UOB students show the
highest enthusiasm in planning to take a class on nanoarchitecture. In contrast, MMU
students completely do not care about taking a class on nanoarchitecture. Similar to
MMU, design students also are not bothered about fbroadening their knowledge on
nanoarchitecture.
13) Do you plan to pursue a research into nanoarchitecture? None of the participants
from MMU agreed to this question. Twenty one percent of students from UOB students
however admitted to this statement. Finally, similar to MMU participants, none of the
designers admitted on planning to pursue research in nanoarchitecture. It is evident by
both MMU and designer students clearly that pursuing a research in nanoarchitecture
will not happen. Twenty one percent of the UOB students however will like to pursue
research studies into nanoarchitecture.
14) Do you plan to work in the field of nanoarchitecture? None of the participants from
MMU agreed to this question. Fifteen percent of students from UOB students however
said also agreed to this statement and lastly, zero percent of designer admitted to plan
to work in the field of nanoarchitecture. Similar to the question number thirteenth
84
answer, it is also evident by both MMU and design students that planning to work in the
field of nanoarchitecture will be impossible. Again some of the UOB students; about
fifteen percent to be precise are however willing to work in the field of nanoarchitecture.
85
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores (%)
A graph illustrating MMU student's frequency histogram
0
2
4
6
8
10
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores (%)
A graph illustrating MMU student's frequency histogram
5.1.4 Frequency Histogram Figure 87. MMU results for student’s frequency histogram
The frequency histogram illustrated above shows a high negative correlation. This
shows that the percentage score of students that took the nano-awareness test are
indirectly proportional to the frequency count. In other words, participants from the
MMU showed constant decrease about knowledge concerning nanotechnology and
nanomaterial as the population of participants increased. The graph showed that no
students scored between fifrty-five percent to one hundred percent. In other words, all
of the MMU participants have low knowledge about nanotechnology and nanomaterial.
86
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0-1920-2425-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 65-6970-7475-79
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores
A Graph illustrating UOB students frequency histogram
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0-1920-2425-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 65-6970-7475-79
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores
A Graph illustrating UOB students frequency histogram
Figure 88. UOB results for student’s frequency histogram
The frequency histogram shown above illustrates both positive and negative
correlation. That is, the number of students that participated in the survey fluctuates
against the percentage scores. The graph showed that no students scored between
eighty percent to one hundred percent. In other words, some of the participants from
the UOB showed a relatively good understaning about nanotechnology and
nanomaterial.
Figure 89. Designers students results for frequency histogram
87
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores
Designers frequency histogram
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
Freq
uenc
y co
unt
Percentage scores
Designers frequency histogram
The frequency histogram above illustrates both positive and negative correlation. The
frequency count shows the maximum number of designers representing each
percenatge score bar. The graph showed that there was no designer that scored
between fifrty five percent to one hundred percent. In other words, all of the fifteen
desgin participants have very low knowledge about nanotechnology and nanomaterial.
The hightest score as illustrated is between fifty to fifty four which is scored by only two
individuals.
88
5.2 Qualitative Analysis
Representative that was interviewed claimned the term nanotechnology to him was
‘new’. That is, he has not heard of such term before. Representativve furthermore
stated that the reason why United Kingdom has not fully adopted the use of
nanotechnology in the construction industry perharps is because of the implications
and risks associated with such technology. The participant also identified that it could
also be the fact that such technology is new and the cost associated in developing
such technology is perharps high.
5.3 Results from Analysis Table 8. Results from Analysis
Key Issues Description
Transition issues 1) Need to invest further into the field of
nanomaterial.
2) Cost of transition.
3) Health and Safety
Costs Issues 1) New equipment costs.
2) Hardware costs.
3) Labour and Training costs.
4) Maintenance costs
Application issues 1) Lack of nanomaterial expert.
2) High application risk.
Manufacturing issues 1) Industrial process for the manipulation
of molecules and atoms is not
available.
Remedial measures 1) Invest in equipment required for the
production of nanomaterials.
2) Use a team of specialists.
Educating Universities issues 1) No access to nanotechnology
facilities.
2) No awareness regarding
nanotechnology and its potential
impact.
3) No trained staff
Educating the media issues 1) Lack of sufficient podcast about
nanotechnology and its potential
impact.
89
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION
The following paragraphs and graphs will discuss the findings from both the primary
and secondary sources. The primary sources include the findings from both my
interview and questionnaire. The secondary sources on the other hand include
published academic papers that are relevant to this dissertation.
Resulting from both the primary and secondary studies, it is revealed that the
nanomaterial is not very well known. This is supported by Leydecker (2008) claim on
the fact that very few people including designers are aware of nanomaterials
(Leydecker, 2008).
6.1 Educational Universities – Particularly Designers
The bar graph illustrated above shows the number of designers who have admitted to
have heard of the word nanotechnology at the University of Bolton. The x – axis shows
the number of designers that have been questioned regarding nanotechnology. The y-
axis on the other hand shows the responses. These responses are coded, with four
indicating the high satisfactory and 1 indicating the low satisfactory.
Different trends can be seen across the fifteen individuals that filled the questionnaire,
with nine out of fifteen designers admitting to have heard the word nanotechnology.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Designers
Graph showing designers who have admitted to have heard of the word nanotechnology
Heard the term nanotechnology
90
The number of designers that have heard the word nanotechnology initially peaked at
three for the first four participants. Following this, a pattern of rise and decrease was
seen throughout the graph before finally peaking at four. To sum up, 60% of designers
have heard about nanotechnology as illustrated in the above chart.
The bar graph illustrated above shows the number of designers that have admitted to
have briefly read about nanotechnology at the University of Bolton. As shown, only two
designers out of fifteen designers claimed to have read about nanotechnology, bringing
it to a total percentage of approximately thirteen percent. Ten designers however have
not read anything to do with nanotechnology, whilst the remaining three designers are
not sure if they have or have not.
The sentiment expressed by these graphs suggests that the UK government perhaps
needs to invest more into raising awareness of nanotechnology amongst universities
student, particularly amongst designers. Although figure 90 shows that the RCUK has
already invested several millions across different universities, the need to furthermore
invest into such field is vitally important. This is important because the younger
generation needs to be aware of the potential impact of future technologies, in
particular nanotechnology.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Designers
Graph showing designers who have admitted to have read something about nanotechnology
Read (something about nanotechnology)
91
Figure 90. Nanotechnology Universities funding from Research Councils UK (MATUK, 2010)
92
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n)
Number of Designers
Graph showing designers who have watched a programme about nanotechnology
6.2 Educating the Media – Particularly Designers
The bar graph illustrated above shows the number of designers that have admitted to
have watched a programme about nanotechnology at the University of Bolton. The x –
axis shows the number of designers that have been asked during the questionnaire.
The y-axis on the other hand shows the responses. These responses are coded, with 4
indicating the highest satisfactory and 1 indicating the lowest satisfactory. Similar, the
amount of designers who have read about nanotechnology and the numbers of
designer that claimed to have watched a programme about nanotechnology as
illustrated in the graph above is two.
Taking the result from question two and three in addition with four to six as shown in
the table 13-15, the reliability of this part of the questionnaire (Nano-exposure) can be
questioned. This is because sixty percent of designers admitted to have heard the
word nanotechnology, yet this has not been reflected on the rest of the table. The
questions two to six of the nano-exposure however,should be proportional to the
answer provided for question one. Data analysis for question two and three have
suggested otherwise, and as the table 13-15 suggested, question four, five and six
have done the same.
Watched a programme about nanotechnology
93
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
((H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n)
Number of Designers
Graph showing designers nano-awareness
Series1
Series2
Series3
Series 1 – 3 on the nano-awareness graph represents nano-awareness question 1-3.
The bar graph illustrated below shows the number of designers whom have taken the
nano-awareness questionnaire at the University of Bolton. The x – axis shows the
number of designers that have been questioned as part of the research. The y-axis on
the other hand shows the responses. These responses are coded, with 4 indicating the
highest satisfactory and 1 indicating the lowest satisfactory.
The graph shows a lack of nano-awareness amongst designer. It shows that the
number of designers that are not aware of the impact of nanotechnology on
architecture is really high, with ninety percent of the participants not having a clue
about its potential impact. It can clearly be seen that there is only one designer
amongst the rest of the designers’ individuals who actually knows the impact of such
technology on the built environment.
6.3 So What? Initially it is assumed that very few people including designers’ will be aware of such
technology. As a result of this during the questionnaire and interview process, a copy
of the below diagram was given to every participant following the completion of the
survey. Figure 91. Nano-Knowledge
94
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n
Questions
Mean score for UOB Designers
CHAPTER 7: CONCLSIONS
Nanotechnology is a field that promises more for less. It is also a field that promises
bad for good. Now is this good or bad? The real question is yet to be decided, but
mostly the good is likely to win. This is partly because in architecture, nanotechnology
promises the chance of creating extraordinary materials (nanomaterial) that can be
utilise to achieve any specified building construction material. In the UK the urge to
identify a new strategy for such technology will be crucial to the future productivity of
the UK construction industry, a point that Egan (1998) specifically identified in his
report ‘Rethinking construction’. Hopefully the UK government will appreciate the
recommendations provided in the next section in order to meet up with other countries
such as the US in accomplishing the full potential nanotechnology provides to the
economy.
Concerning the research questions, it is revealed that nanotechnology and
nanomaterial awareness is still low amongst students and particularly designers. The
data collected from representatives from Manchester Metropolitan University and
University revealed that students’ and designers’ showed no understanding about
nanotechnology application in architecture. This is illustrated with the mean score for
both students and designers.
Figure 92. Mean score for UOB Designer’s
95
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sat
isfa
ctio
n
Questions
Mean Score for UOB Students
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Cod
ed R
espo
nses
(H
igh
scor
e in
dica
ting
high
sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Questions
Mean Score for MMU Students
Figure 93. Mean score for UOB Students
Figure 94. Mean score for MMU Students
96
Nanomaterial offers various solutions to the construction industry such as improving
construction materials. On the other hand, it also offers great problems to people and
the environment such as endangering human health and contributing to environmental
implications. Such technology therefore requires further examination in order to fully
identify and assess the potential impacts.
7.1 Limitation of the study
• Insufficient of time to complete the research.
97
CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATION
• More investigation and study should be conducted in order to use the
information in this dissertation.
• Further comprehensive research should be executed to identify the
improvements and future developments that can be made to the UK
construction industries in adopting both nanomeasurement and
nanomanipulation.
o The first key that should therefore be considered by any construction firm in
order to plan from the transition of traditional material to new nanomaterial
in building material are the costs. These costs include the labour costs to
build new systems, set up new equipment, and costs associated with the
provision of training. Other costs include expenses for buying new
technology and software’s, as well as costs related with changing the
existing technology.
o The second key issue that must be considered are the possible
complications that could be faced by the construction industries leaders
during the implementation of nanotechnology.
o The third key issue that should be considered is the risks associated with
such technology.
• Different strategy plan (Long or short) should be developed for both
nanomeasurement and nanomanipulation.
• For nanomeasurement, detailed investigation and analysis should be done in
the UK in order to produce more high quality nanomaterials.
• For nanomanipulation, further research should be conducted.
• Thorough investigation and analysis should be accomplished on the future
requirement for specialists in the field of nanotechnology and the construction
industry.
• Meticulous exploration and analysis should be performed to identify and clarify
the characteristics of the environmental and health risks associated to
nanomaterial applications in the UK construction industry.
• Any construction companies within the UK that are considering incorporating
nanomaterial into their project will need to create a plan to concentrate on. This
includes the provision of specialists and cost benefit related to the installation in
98
any construction project.
• And finally, awareness should be raised among the public, most importantly
designers, since such awareness would ensure further research in
nanotechnology to benefit the UK industry.
xii
REFERENCES
1. ADAMS, F.C. and BARBANTE, C. (2013) Nanoscience, nanotechnology and
spectrometry. Spectrochimica Acta Part B, 86(1), pp. 3 – 13. 2. ANONYMOUS (2005) Nanotechnology, Fuel Cells, and the Future. Global
Environmental Change Report, 17(6), pp. 1 – 4. 3. ANSARI, S.K. and ANSARI, S. (2012) Nanotechnology. European Journal of
Risk Regulation, 1(1), pp. 18 – 27. 4. ARCH. (2014) Nanotechnology. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www2.arch.uiuc.edu/elvin/nanotechnologyindex.htm. [Accessed 1 April 2014].
5. ARNALL, A. and PARR, D. (2005) Moving the nanoscience and technology (NST) debate forwards: short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution. Technology in Society, 27(1), pp. 23 – 38.
6. BATT, C.A., WALDRON, A.M. and BROADWATER, N. (2008) Numbers, scale and symbols: the public understanding of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10 (1), pp. 1141 – 1148.
7. BERNHARDT, E.S., COLMAN, P. B., HOCHELLA, F.M., CARDINALE, J.B., NISBET, M.R., RICHARDSON, J.C. and YIN, L. (2010) An Ecological Perspective on Nanomaterial Impacts in the Environment. Journal of Environmental Quality, 1(39), pp. 1954 - 1965.
8. BHARDWAJ, A. (2014) Nanotechnology in Dentistry. Journal of International Oral Health, 6(1), pp. 121 - 126.
9. BSI GROUP (2014) Nanotechnology BSI Group. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bsigroup.co.uk/en-GB/industries-and-sectors/nanotechnology/. [Accessed 01 April 2014].
10. BYK, JC. (2011) Nanomaterials and the Environmental Risk: Is there some room left for ethics and law? Journal International de Bioethique, 22(2), pp. 157 - 172.
11. CIENTIFICA PLC. (2010) Applying Advanced Materials: Nanomaterial. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.cientifica.com/. [Accessed 02 April 2014].
12. CURRALL, S.T., KING, E.B., LANE, N., MADERA, J. and TURNER, S. (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature nanotechnology, 1(1), pp. 153 – 155.
13. CUTCLIFFE, SH., PENSE, CM. and ZVALAREN, M. (2012) Framing the Discussion: Nanotechnology and the Social Construction of Technology – What STS Scholars Are Saying. Nanoethics, 1(6), pp. 81 - 99.
14. DARYOUSH, B. and DARVISH, A. (2013) A Case Study and Review of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials in Green Architecture. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 5(2), pp. 78 – 84.
15. DAVE, RS., WARDEN, PS., GANGULI, P., HOHENSHELL, JJ., LINDEFJELD, RO., THAPPETA, N., TOMALIA, DA., DAVEY, NS., DAVEY, SS. and MURPHY, BB. (2013) Nanotechnology Innovation Strategy and the Importance of Intellectual Property. The Licensing Journal, 1(1), pp. 7 - 18.
16. DI’NARDO, NJ. (1994) Nanoscale Characterisation of surfaces and interfaces. Weinheim: VCH.
xiii
17. DIEFES-DUX, H.A., DEYHOUSE, M., BENNETT, D. and IMBRIE, PK. (2007) Nanotechnology Awareness of First-Year Food and Agriculture Students following a Brief Exposure. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 36 (1), pp. 58 - 65.
18. El-SAMNY, M.F. (2008) NanoArchitecture: Nanotechnology and Architecture. Master’s Dissertation, Alexandria University.
19. ELVIN, G. (2007) The Nano Revolution. Architect May journal, 96(6), pp. 93 – 96.
20. FAHMY, M.H.M. (2010) Nanomaterials and Architecture “Sustainable NanoArchitecture”. Master’s Dissertation, Alexandria University.
21. FALKNER, R. and JASPERS, N. (2012) Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk, Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap. Global Environmental Politics, 12(1), pp. 30-55.
22. FARRELL, P. (2011) Writing a Built Environment Dissertation. Practical Guidance with Examples. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
23. FARSHESHI, P., SADRNEZHAAD, S.K., NEJAD, N.M., MAHMOODO, M. and ABADI, L.I.G. (2011) Nanotechnology in the public eye: the case of Iran. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(1), pp. 3511 – 3519.
24. FATADE-O, M.D. (2014) Application of Nanotechnology and its impacts On Building materials in the UK Construction Industry. Degree Dissertation, University of Bolton.
25. FEYNMAN, RP. (1959) Plenty of Room at the Bottom. Journal of Caltech Engineering and Science, 23 (5), pp. 22 - 36.
26. FORSBERG, E-M. (2012) Standardisation in the Field of Nanotechnology: Some Issues of Legitimacy. Science and Engineering Ethics Journal, 18(1), pp. 719 - 739.
27. FOUAD, F.F. (2012) NanoArchitecture and Sustainability. Master’s Dissertation, Alexandria University.
28. GASMAN, L. (2006) Nanotechnology Applications and Markets. Boston: Artech House.
29. GAZSO, A. and FRIES, R. (2012) Nanomaterials and Occupational Safety: An Overview. The European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1(4), pp. 594 - 601.
30. GIDEON, F. (2014) Small Science, Big Questions. Alternatives Journal, 40(1), pp. 57 - 58.
31. GODBOLE, AA. (2007) Exploring Key Issues and Strategies for Adopting Nanotechnology in Wireless Communication Devices. Academic paper, Arizona: Prescott.
32. GRIGER, K.D., LAURENT, A., MISELJIC, M., CHRISTENSEN, F., BAUN, A. and OLSEN, S.I. (2012) Analysis of current research addressing complementary use of life-cycle assessment and risk assessment for engineered nanomaterials: have lessons been learned from previous experience with chemicals?. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14 (958), pp. 1 - 22.
33. GROVES, C. (2013) Four scenarios for nanotechnologies in the UK, 2011-2020. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(5), pp. 507 - 526.
34. HEFLIN, J.R., VENTRA, M.D. and EVOY, S. (2004) Introduction to Nanoscale Science and Technology. Boston: Kluwer.
xiv
35. HEMEIDA, FAEAO. (2010) Green Nanoarchitecture. Academic paper, Alexandria.
36. HESELHAUS, S. (2010) Nanomaterials and the Precautionary Principle in the EU. Journal of Consumer Policy. 1(33), pp. 91 - 108.
37. HORTON, M., KHAN. A. and MADDISON, S. (2006) Delivering nanotechnology to the healthcare, IT and environmental sectors – a perspective from the ‘London Centre for Nanotechnology’. BT Technology Journal, 24(3), pp. 175 – 183.
38. JAMES, R. (2011) Soft Machines. Articles on nanotechnology [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?page_id=565. [Accessed 01 April 2014].
39. JOHANSEN, JM. (2002) NanoArchitecture: A New Species of Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
40. JOHANSEN, JM. (2011) NanoArchitecture: A Discourse Part 1 [Online] John M Johansen. Available from: http://johnmjohansen.com/Nanoarchitecture.html [Accessed 21/03/14].
41. JONES, R. (2011) Why has the UK given up on nanotechnology? [Online] Soft Machines. Available from: http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=1060 [Accessed 21/03/14].
42. KAH, M., BEULKE, S., TIEDE, K. and HOFMANN. T. (2013) Nanopesticides: State of Knowledge, Environment Fate, and Exposure Modelling. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 43(16), pp. 1823 - 1867.
43. KOHLER, M and FRIZSCHE, W. (ed.) (2007) Nanotechnology: An introduction to Nanostructuring Techniques. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
44. KRABBENBORG, L. (2012) The Potential of National Public Engagement Exercises: Evaluating the Case of the Recent Dutch Societal Dialogue on Nanotechnology. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 10(1), pp. 27 – 44.
45. LALBAKHSH, E. and SHIRAZPOUR, P. (2011) Nanomaterial for Smart Future Buildings. International Conference on Nanotechnology and Biosensors, 25(1), pp. 80 – 83.
46. LEONE, MF. (2012) Nanotechnology for Architecture. Innovation and Eco-Efficiency of Nanostructured Cement-Based Materials. Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology, 1(1), pp. 1 - 9.
47. LELE, A. (2009) Role of Nanotechnology in Defence. Strategic Analysis, 33(2), pp. 229 - 241.
48. LEWINSKI, N. (2008) Nanotechnology Policy and Environmental Regulatory Issues. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1(1) pp. 1 – 37.
49. LEYDECKER, S. (2008) Nano Materials in Architecture, Interior Architecture and Design. Berlin: Birkhäuser.
50. LINDSAY, S.M. (2010) Introduction to Nanoscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. LOWRY, V. G., HOTZE, M. E., BERNHARDT, S. E., DIONYSIOU, D. D., PEDERSEN, A. J., WIESNER, R. M. and XING, B. (2010) Environmental Occurrence, Behaviour, Fate, and Ecological Effects of Nanomaterials: An Introduction to the Special Series. Journal of Environmental Quality.1(39), pp. 1867 - 1874.
xv
52. LU, Y.Y.L., LIN, Y.J.B., LIU, S.J. and YU, Y.C. (2012) Ethics in Nanotechnology: What’s Being Done? What’s missing? Journal of Business Ethics. 1(109), pp. 583 - 598.
53. LUTHER, W. (ed.) (2004) Industrial application of nanomaterials – chances and risks. Dusseldorf: Future Technologies Division.
54. MACOUBRIE, J. (2005) Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. Emerging Nanotechnologies, 1(1), pp. 1 – 26.
55. MANSOORI, G.A., GEORGE, T.F., ASSOUFID, L. and ZHANG, G. (ed.) (2007) Molecular Building Blocks for Nanotechnology: From Diamonds to Nanoscale Materials and Applications. New York: Springer.
56. MASSAWE, E. (2013) Nanomaterials for Environmental Remediation: Investigating the role of Nanoinformatics in support of Environmental, Health, and safety Oversight of Nanotechnologies at the Local Level. Advancement of the Science, 78(1), pp. 8 - 17.
57. MATUK. (2010) Nanotechnology: a UK Industry View. London: Mini-IGT. 58. MONTFORT, J-P., INDIRLI, G., GEORGIEVA, D. and CARREGA, C-M. (2010)
Nanomaterials under REACH: Legal Aspects. Nanomaterials under REACH, 1(1), pp. 51 - 62.
59. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE. (2014) Nano. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.nano.gov/. [Accessed 01 April 2014].
60. NASTASSJA, L. (2008) Nanomaterials: What are the Environmental and Health Impacts? Chemical Engineering Progress, 104(12), pp. 37 - 40.
61. NIROUMANESH, A., RAHIMPOUR, M., RAHIMPOUR, M., GOMARI, H., ELHAM, S., SAREMI, K. and SARDARI, S. (2013) Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology: A Survey in the Mega Cities of Iran. Nanoethics, 6(1), pp. 119 – 126.
62. NIROUMAND, H., ZAIN, M.F.M. and JAMIL, M. (2013) The Role of Nanotechnology in Architecture and Built Environment. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 1(89), pp. 10 - 15.
63. O’ROURKE, E. (2010) European nanotechnology landscape report. Medtechinsider.
64. OLI, M. Nanotechnology: Introduction to nanotechnology. Young Scientist Journal, 1(8), pp.1 – 6.
65. OWEN, F.J. (2003) Introduction to Nanotechnology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
66. PETER, K. (2010) Nanomaterials: Getting the measure. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1(34), pp. 279.
67. PRADEEP, T. (2007) Nano: The Essentials - Understanding Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company limited.
68. P2i. (2014). P2i Nanotechnology [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.p2i.com/news/articles/P2i_and_Trekmates_win_OutDoor_INDUSTRY_AWARD_2012_ for_water_repellent_nanotechnology_glove. [Accessed 1 April 2014].
69. QIN, D. and RIGGS, B.A. (2012) Nanotechnology: A Top–Down Approach. Manila Typesetting Company, 1(1), pp. 1-9.
70. RESEARCH COUNCILS UK. (2014) Home - RCUK. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/. [Accessed 01 April 2014].
xvi
71. ROGERS, B., ADAMS, J. and PENNATHUR, S. (2008) Nanotechnology: Understanding small systems. United States of America: CRC Press.
72. SCHOMBERG, RV. (2008) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy: implications for robotics. Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication, 22(1), pp. 331 - 348.
73. SCHULTE, J. (ed.) (2005) Nanotechnology: Global Strategies, Industry Trends and Applications. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
74. SHATKIN, J.A., (2013) Nanotechnology: Health and Environmental Risks. 2nd ed. Cornwall: CRC Press.
75. SHEA, CM., GRINDE, R. and ELMSLIE, B. (2011) Nanotechnology as general-purpose technology: empirical evidence and implications. Technology Analysis and strategic management, 23(2), pp. 175 - 192.
76. SIEGRIST, M. (2010) Predicting the Future: Review of Public Perception Studies of Nanotechnology. Human and ecological risk – assessment: an international Journal, 16(4), pp. 837 - 846.
77. TAYLOR, M. (2002) New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology, IBMResearch, DTIPub6182.
78. THERMA APPLIED NANOTECH. (2014) Applied Nanotech, Inc. Nanomaterials. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.appliednanotech.net/tech/thermal_management.php. [Accessed 2 April 2014].
79. ULDRICH, J. and NEWBERRY, B. (2003) The Next Big Thing is Really Small: Nanotechnology and the Future of Big Business. United States: Random House.
80. WALDRON, A.M., SPENCER, D. and BATT, C.A. (2006) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(1), pp. 569 – 575.
81. YEADON, P. (2007) Nanoarchitecture.net. 2014. [ONLINE] Available at: http://nanoarchitecture.net/. [Accessed 02 April 2014].
xvii
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. MICHEAL, F. and HOCHELLA, J. (2002) Nanoscience and technology:
the next revolution in the Earth sciences. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 203(1), pp. 593 – 605.
2. RINALDI, A. and MASTILOVIC, S. (2014) The Krajcinovic approach to model size dependent fracture in quasi-brittle solids. Mechanics of Materials, 71(1), pp. 21 – 33.
3. VAN LENTE, M.A. (2006) Building the New World Of Nanotechnology. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 38(1), pp. 173 – 215.
4. SHEETZ, T., VIDAL, J., THOMAS, D. and LOZANO, K. (2005) Nanotechnology: Awareness and societal concerns. Technology in Society, 27(1), pp. 329 – 435.
5. SELIN, C. (2011) Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 17(1), pp. 723 – 737.
6. KELLER, K.H. (2006) Nanotechnology and society. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(1), pp. 5 – 10.
7. VAN Est, R., WALHOUT, B., RERIMASSIE, V., STEMERDING, D. and HANSSEN, L. (2012) Governance of Nanotechnology in the Netherlands – Informing and Engaging in Different Social Spheres. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 10 (1), pp. 6 – 26.
8. LYNN, B.L. (2007) Nanotechnology, Boom or Bust. Pollution Engineering, 39(8), pp. 14.
9. PROFESSIONAL SAFETY. (2006) Nanotechnology: Plan Inadequate for Risks from Nanomaterials. Report finds, Des Plaines: Industry Notes. 1(1), pp. 16-17.
10. PETER, C. (2007) Visionary Architecture: Blueprints of the Modern Imagination. The Architectural Review, 221(1320), pp. 94.
11. ANONYMOUS (2009) NanoKTN Supports Micro and Nanotechnology in UK. Microwave Journal, 52(2), pp. 53.
12. NAYAR, S., BHUMINATHAN, S. and MUTHUVIGNESH, J. (2011) Upsurge of Nanotechnology in Dentistry and Dental Implants. Indian Journal of Multidisciplinary Dentistry, 1(5), pp. 264 – 268.
13. MANNERS, D. (2005) Nanotechnology investors could face ‘implosion’ but UK is likely to escape. Electronics Weekly, 1(2191), pp. 5.
14. JOSLIN, J. (2005) Nanotechnology could carve niche for the UK. Electronics Weekly, 2192(1), pp. 4.
15. ANONYMOUS (2003) The potential of nanotechnology worth funding. Industrial Heating, 70(7), pp. 14.
16. PAMPALONI, F. and FLORIN, E. (2008) Microtubule architecture: inspiration for novel carbon nanotube-based biomimetic materials. Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics, 1(1), 302 – 310.
xviii
17. STEPHEN, K. (2013) Functional Supramolecular Architectures for Organic Electronics and Nanotechnology. Materials World, 21(3), 50.
18. GEORGE, E. (2007) The Nano Revolution. Architect, 96(6), pp. 93 – 96. 19. ROCO, M.C. (2004) Four Generations of Nanotechnology Products.
Electronic Design, 52(13), pp. 66. 20. ROCO, M.C., MIRKIN, C.A. and HERSAM, M.C. (2011) Nanotechnology
research directions for societal needs in 2020: summary of international study. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 1(13), pp. 897 – 919.
21. WOOD, S., GELDART, A. and JONES, R. (2008) Crystallizing the nanotechnology debate. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(1), pp. 13 – 27.
22. PETER, Y. (2007) Nanotechnology: Small but Mighty. The Canadian Architect, 52(11), pp. 65 – 67.
23. MAHDAVINEJAD, M., GHASEMPOURABADI, M., NIKHOOSH, N. and GHAEDI, H. (2011) The Usage of Nanomaterial in Building Constructions in Hot and Dry Climate (Case Study: IRAN, South East). International Conference on Nanotechnology and Biosensors, 25(1), pp. 75 – 79.
24. BALEANU, D., GUVENC, Z.B. and MACHADO, J.A.T. (ed.) (2010) New Trends in Nanotechnology and Fractional Calculus Applications. Dordrecht: Springer.
25. DREXLER, E. (1986) Engines of Creation: The coming Era of Nanotechnology. United States: Doubleday.
26. DREXLER. E., PETERSON, C. and PERGAMIT, G. (1991) Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution. United States: William Morrow
27. MANSOORI, G.A. (2007) Principles of Nanotechnology: Molecular-Based Study of Condensed Matter in Small Systems. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
28. RATNER, M.A. (2003) Nanotechnology: a gentle introduction to the next big idea. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
29. TATOR, K.B. (2014) Nanotechnology: The Future of Coatings – Part 1. Materials Performance, 53(3), pp.34 - 36.
30. SOHAEBUDDIN, S.K., THEVENOT, P.T., BAKER, D., EATON, JW. And TANG, L. (2010) Nanomaterial cytotoxicity is composition, size, and cell type dependent. BioMed Central, 1(1), pp. 1 - 17.
31. ALLHOFF, F., LIN, P. and MOORE, D. (2010) What is Nanotechnology and Why Does It Matter? From Science too Ethics. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
32. CASKEY, C.L., KOLBASK, C. (2011) Nanomaterials the Good, the Bad & the ugly: A Case Study. Professional Safety, 1(1), pp. 49 - 55
33. CHRISTIAN, B. (2011) Nanomaterials and the Environmental Risk: Is there some room left for ethics and law? Journal international de bioéthique, 22 (1/2), pp. 157 - 216.
xix
34. KEARNS, P. (2010) Nanomaterials: Getting the measure. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and development. The OECD Observer. 1(279), pp. 34.
35. LAURENT, B (2011) Political spaces for Nanomaterials. EJRR, 1(1), pp. 577 - 582.
36. MEHRABIAN, S. (2013) Nanotechnology Applications in the Construction Industry. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3 (6), pp. 391 - 396.
37. WILSON, M., KANNANGARA, K., SMITH, G., SIMMONS, M. and RAGUSE, B. (ed.) (2002) Nanotechnology: Basic Science and Emerging Technologies. Australia: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
38. NIST (2013) Assessing the Environmental, Health and Safety Impact of Nanoparticles [Online] Material Measurement Laboratory. Available from: http://www.nist.gov/mml/bbd/cell_systems/assessing-np-ehs.cfm [Accessed 21/03/14].
39. NAYAR, S., BHUMINATHAN, S. and MUTHUVIGNESH, J. (2011) Upsurge of Nanotechnology in Dentistry and Dental Implants. Indian Journal of Multidisciplinary Dentistry, 1(5), pp. 264 - 268.
40. UNITED STATES. THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE (2014) Supplement to the President’s 2014 Budget, May 14 2013. Washington DC: EOP, pp. 1 - 4.
41. LUDHIYANI, A., PATHAK. R. and JOSHI, S. (2011) Business Implications of Recent Developments in Nanotechnology for Micro Scale Devices. Intellectual Economics, 1(9), pp. 117 – 134.
42. SRINIVAS, P.R., PHILBETT, M., VU, T.Q., HUANG, Q., KOKINI, J.L., SAOS, E., CHEN, H., PETERSON, C.M., FRIEDL, K.E., NGUTTER, C.M., HUBBARD, V., STARKE-REED, P., MILLER. N., BETZ. J.M., DWYER. J., MILNER. J. and ROSS, S.A. (2010) Nanotechnology Research: Applications in Nutritional Sciences. The Journal of Nutrition, 140 (1), pp. 119 – 124.
43. McGINN, R.E. (2010) What’s Different, Ethically, About Nanotechnology?: Foundational Questions and Answers. Nanoethics, 1(4), pp. 115 – 128.
44. HEATH, J.R., KUEKES, P.J., SNIDER, G.S. and WILLIAMS, S. (1998) A Defect-Tolerant Computer Architecture: Opportunities for Nanotechnology. Science, 280 (5370), pp. 1716 – 1721.
45. BLIND, K. and GAUCH, S. (2009) Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1(34), pp. 320 – 342.
46. RANSOM, B. (2008) Introduction to nanoscience. Science and Technology Reviews, 46(3), pp. 553.
47. SCHOMBERG, R.V. (2008) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy: implications for robotics. AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, 22(1), pp. 331 – 348.
xx
48. MOHAMMED, A.M.M. (2010) Zero Carbon Architecture: The future challenges and the nanotechnology solutions. Master’s Dissertation, Alexandria University.
xxi
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Background Questionnaire
xxii
APPENDIX B Survey Instrument
xxiii
APPENDIX C Slip Given Following the Completion of Survey
xxiv
APPENDIX D Research Ethics Checklist
xxv
APPENDIX E Nanomaterial
xxvi
APPENDIX F Current Budget for Science and Research Spending
xxvii
APPENDIX G Taylor Report
xxviii
APPENDIX H Bolton Academic Ethical Standards
xxix
APPENDIX I Manchester Academic Ethical Standards
xxx
APPENDIX J Disadvantages of Nanomaterial
xxxi
APPENDIX K Pictures from conducting Research
xxxii
APPENDIX L Interview manuscript
xxxiii
APPENDIX M Calculations