Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Grygorowicz-Kosakowska, Klaudia

  • Google
  • 1
  • 4
  • 21

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2023Mycelium-Based Composite Materials: Study of Acceptance21citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Cofta, Grzegorz
1 / 3 shared
Bonenberg, Agata
1 / 2 shared
Doczekalska, Beata
1 / 4 shared
Sydor, Maciej
1 / 7 shared
Chart of publication period
2023

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Cofta, Grzegorz
  • Bonenberg, Agata
  • Doczekalska, Beata
  • Sydor, Maciej
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Mycelium-Based Composite Materials: Study of Acceptance

  • Cofta, Grzegorz
  • Bonenberg, Agata
  • Grygorowicz-Kosakowska, Klaudia
  • Doczekalska, Beata
  • Sydor, Maciej
Abstract

<jats:p>Mycelium-based composites (MBCs) are alternative biopolymers for designing sustainable furniture and other interior elements. These innovative biocomposites have many ecological advantages but present a new challenge in aesthetics and human product acceptance. Grown products, made using living mycelium and lignocellulosic substrates, are porous, have irregular surfaces and have irregular coloring. The natural origin of these types of materials and the fear of fungus can be a challenge. This research investigated the level of human acceptance of the new material. Respondents were students of architecture who can be considered as people involved in interior design and competent in the design field. Research has been performed on the authors’ prototype products made from MBCs. Three complementary consumer tests were performed. The obtained results measured the human reactions and demonstrated to which extents products made of MBCs were “likeable” and their nonobvious aesthetics were acceptable to the public. The results showed that MBC materials generally had a positive or not-negative assessment. The responses after the pairwise comparison of the MBC with wall cladding samples pointed out the advantage of ceramic reference material above the MBC based on an overall assessment. The respondents also believed that the chamotte clay cladding would be easier to fit into the aesthetics of a modern interior and would in better accordance with its style. Although the MBC was less visually appealing, the respondents nevertheless found it more interesting, original, and environmentally friendly. The experiments suggested that the respondents had double standards regarding MBCs. MBCs were generally accepted as ecological, but not in their own homes. All of these results support current and future applications of MBCs for manufacturing items where enhanced aesthetics are required.</jats:p>

Topics
  • porous
  • surface
  • experiment
  • laser emission spectroscopy
  • composite
  • ceramic