# The Ability to Control VOC Emissions from Multilayer Building Materials
## 3 Results and Discussion
The emission temperature of sample W was 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C higher, and the relative humidity of the environment  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**An Increase in the Maximum Chamber**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**An Increase in the Maximum Chamber**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**An Increase in the Maximum Chamber**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**An Increase in the Maximum Chamber**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Concentration \(\Delta C_{max}\) due to an Increase**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Concentration \(\Delta C_{max}\) due to a Decrease**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Concentration \(\Delta C_{max}\) due to a Decrease**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**in the Emission Surface Temperature**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**In ventilation Efficiency at a Constant**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**In ventilation Efficiency at a Constant**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AT1 from 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 33 \({}^{\circ}\)C**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Temperature 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C, by Reducing the**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Temperature 33 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (or 29 \({}^{\circ}\)C) by**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Air Changes \(n=1.0\) h\({}^{-1}\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Number of Air Changes from**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Reducting the Number of Air Changes**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Air Changes \(n=1.0\) h\({}^{-1}\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**0.1 h\({}^{-1}\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**0.5 h\({}^{-1}\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**from 1.0 h\({}^{-1}\) to 0.5 h\({}^{-1}\)**} \\ \hline W3 (RH & & & & & & & & \\  80\%) & 23 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 33 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(\Delta C_{max}\) & \(\rightarrow\) & 0.5 h\({}^{-1}\) & 0.  
was higher by RH = 30%. These changes were a consequence of the assumption that the tests would be performed in the real working conditions of radiation floors. The profile runs in Figure 12, although not quite adequate, show the interesting phenomenon of a greater delay in the time of occurrence of the first peak emission profiles at the \(C_{max}\) point. According to the literature, this delay for the sample under dry conditions is approx. 40 h.  
Comparison of Emission Profiles from W-Type Samples (W3 vs. W2) with a Different Chemical Composition of one Layer: Primer (Air Exchange ACH = 0.5)  
A comparison of the emission profiles of samples in a humid environment with different chemical compositions of one layer (W3 vs. W2) shows that even one emitting layer (primer) can significantly change the emission characteristics of the system (Figure 13). The curve fittings by provide model for W3 has an R\({}^{2}\) coefficient of 0.94. The values of the \(k_{1}\) coefficients for the emission profile (W3 and W2) are in the range 0.007-0.0014 and \(k_{2}\) in the range 0.0005-0.001. In the first period (after about 30 h), the system's emission  
Figure 12: The TVOC emission profiles from D2 and W1 similar floor systems (tested for480 h) for the air change rates \(n\) = 0.5 h\({}^{-1}\) at 29 \({}^{\circ}\)C for D1 and at 33 \({}^{\circ}\)C for W1 (and RH = 50% for D1 and RH = 80% for W1) and polyurethane–epoxy adhesive; D2 is made of polyurethane solvent primer and polyurethane–epoxy adhesive (see Table 3); significant VOCs compounds for these products are provided in Table 1). Figure 13: The TVOC emission profiles from W3 and W2 floor systems (tested for 480 h) for the air change rates \(n\) = 0.5 h\({}^{-1}\) at 33 \({}^{\circ}\)C (and RH = 80% for both) in the emission test chamber. (W3 sample is a floor system made of: polyurethane solvent primer, polymer–cement waterproofing (2), epoxy adhesive; W2 is made of: epoxy primer, polymer–cement waterproofing (1) andepoxy adhesive (see Table 3); significant VOCs compounds for these products are provided in Table 1). with a primer layer of significant emissions caused the emission to be almost 30% higher than from the system with another primer. As it stabilises, the emissions from both W3 and W2 became closer to each other. In the case of the W2 sample, the experimental points do not follow the typical \(C(t)\) shape in a visual way.