Next Article in Journal
Role of Changes in State of Bound Water and Tissue Stiffness in Development of Age-Related Diseases
Next Article in Special Issue
Bio-Degradable Polyurethane Foams Produced by Liquefied Polyol from Wheat Straw Biomass
Previous Article in Journal
A Textile Pile Debridement Material Consisting of Polyester Fibers for in Vitro Removal of Biofilm
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Adding Offcuts and Trims with a Recycling Approach on the Properties of High-Density Fibrous Composites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/polym12061361
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of the Physical, Mechanical and Acoustic Properties of Arundo donax L. Biomass in Low Pressure and Temperature Particleboards

by
Maria Teresa Ferrandez-García
,
Antonio Ferrandez-Garcia
,
Teresa Garcia-Ortuño
,
Clara Eugenia Ferrandez-Garcia
and
Manuel Ferrandez-Villena
*
Department of Engineering, Universidad Miguel Hernandez, 03300 Orihuela, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2020, 12(6), 1361; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12061361
Submission received: 22 May 2020 / Revised: 3 June 2020 / Accepted: 16 June 2020 / Published: 17 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomass-Derived Polymers)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Traditionally, plant fibres have been used as a raw material for manufacturing construction materials; however, in the last century, they have been replaced by new mineral and synthetic materials with manufacturing processes that consume a large amount of energy. The objective of this study was to determine the mechanical, physical and acoustic properties of panels made from giant reed residues. The article focuses on evaluating the acoustic absorption of the boards for use in buildings. The materials used were reed particles and urea–formaldehyde was used as an adhesive. The panels were produced with three particle sizes and the influence that this parameter had on the properties of the board was evaluated. To determine the absorption coefficient, samples were tested at frequencies ranging from 50 to 6300 Hz. The results showed that the boards had a medium absorption coefficient for the low and high frequency range, with significant differences depending on the particle size. The boards with 2–4 mm particles could be classified as Class D sound absorbers, while boards with particle sizes of 0.25–1 mm showed the greatest sound transmission loss. Unlike the acoustic properties, the smaller the particle size used, the better the mechanical properties of the boards. The results showed that this may be an appropriate sound insulation material for commercial use.

1. Introduction

A material is considered to be suitable for acoustic insulation when it is capable of absorbing sound and has a high sound absorption coefficient in all or part of the spectrum of sound frequencies that are audible to the human ear, ranging from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. These days, there are technical materials on the market that offer good acoustic properties, including those of mineral origin (glass wool, rock wool, etc.) and those of synthetic origin (foam polyurethane, polystyrene, etc.), which not only have a high energy consumption during their manufacture, but also have the disadvantage of not being biodegradable. Due to the environmental problems generated by their manufacture, the use of renewable and ecological resources is increasing, so the use of sustainable materials is becoming a common practice for reducing noise in buildings. One of the plant materials used as a sound absorber is wood in the form of panels or particleboards. The wood residues used to produce wood-based materials have been considered environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socially acceptable [1], but we are seeking suitable replacements to avoid deforestation. Attempts have been made to reduce the use of wood in particleboards by introducing mixtures of forestry waste [2], whole trees [3], prunings from garden trees [4,5] and prunings from fruit trees [6]. In order to meet the demand caused by the decline in supplies of solid wood and wood-based materials, there has been a considerable increase in research into the use of plant fibres for the development of new acoustic insulating products.
In general, plant materials are porous and are good sound absorbers, with good acoustic insulating properties throughout a wide range of frequencies. The fact that plant fibres can be cheaper, lighter and more environmentally friendly explains why they have been studied as an alternative to synthetic fibres [7]. Some plant fibres, such as kenaf, are already on the market, so they could start to be used more extensively. Asdrubali et al. [8] state that the performance of plant fibres is similar to that of synthetic fibres. As a replacement for acoustic materials, various studies have been carried out with particleboards using different types of plant waste [9,10,11,12,13,14,15], including rice stalks [15,16], coconut [17,18,19,20,21,22,23], kenaf [24,25,26], bamboo [27,28,29], sisal [18,26,30], luffa [31], sugarcane [32], jute with latex [33], oil palm [34,35,36,37,38,39], Arenga pinnata [40,41], date palm [23,42] and Washingtonia palm [43].
Yang et al. [15] manufactured acoustic panels from rice stalks, with a specific density of 400 and 600 kg·m−3, which were suitable as an insulating material for sound absorption in wooden constructions. This study showed that, regardless of the particle size that was used, there was a decrease in the sound absorption coefficient for medium frequencies and an increase in sound absorption in the low- and high-frequency range. Other works using date palm [23], bamboo [29] and oil palm [39] obtained panels that offered good sound absorbing properties at high and low frequencies, and with very low values at medium frequencies. With coconut fibres panels [19], it was found that increasing the thickness improved the acoustic properties, while with low-density palm rachis fibre panels (77 kg·m−3, 100 kg·m−3 and 125 kg·m−3), Khidir et al. [42] showed that the sound absorption coefficient could be increased by increasing the density.
Giant reed (Arundo donax L.) was used as a building material in many Mediterranean countries. In the south of the province of Alicante it was used in all buildings up to the beginning of the 20th century, mainly forming part of the roof and floor. It continued to be used in small detached houses and farm buildings until the 1960s. However, it is no longer used, causing it to spread along riverbanks at a great rate, invading watercourses, impoverishing riverside vegetation and blocking the infrastructures that cross watercourses and making drainage difficult. When the water level rises more than usual, this leads to flooding that causes environmental, economic and material damage. These problems mean that the competent authorities have to make significant economic investments in cleaning and clearing this plant waste from riverbanks and subsequently processing it in authorised landfills. Experiences in Greece [44], Italy [45] and the United Kingdom [46] obtained dry matter yields of Arundo donax L. of 15 t/ha in sterile soils and as much as 40 t/ha in fertile soils, so it is a plant from which a large amount of dry matter can be generated.
The chemical composition of giant reed (Table 1) shows slight variations between the nodes and internodes of the plant and between different authors. It can be concluded that giant reed has a high holocellulose content and a lower lignin content [47,48,49]. The analysis by Shalatov et al. [47] also indicates that it has a high silicate content.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of particle size on the properties of boards manufactured with a process that uses a lower temperature and pressure than commercial boards and to determine whether they can be used as a construction material. The use of giant reed would contribute to the control and recycling of this waste material and would lead to greater energy efficiency and less environmental pollution.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The material used was giant reed biomass collected during the clearing of the banks of the River Segura, in southeastern Spain. The reeds were left to dry outdoors for 6 months. They were then shredded in a blade mill. The particles obtained were sorted in a vibrating sieve and three particle sizes were selected: particles that passed through the 4-mm sieve but were retained in the 2-mm one (2 to 4 mm), particles that passed through the 2-mm sieve but were retained in the 1-mm one (1 to 2 mm) and particles that passed through the 1-mm sieve but were retained in the 0.25-mm one (0.25 to 1 mm). The approximate moisture content of the particles was 11%.
Based on previous tests [50], 8 wt % (based on the weight of the particles) of class E1 urea–formaldehyde (UF) with a solid content concentration of 65% and a reaction time of 3–4 h was used as a binder. Ammonium nitrate, at a concentration of 0.4 wt % (based on the weight of the particles), was used as a hardener. The binder was diluted with 2 wt % of water (based on the weight of the binder). No paraffin or water-repellent substance was used.

2.2. Manufacturing Process

Three types of panels with different particle sizes (0.25 to 1 mm, 1 to 2 mm and 2 to 4 mm) were produced from the reeds. The UF resin was mixed into the particles in an Imal horizontal axis mixer (model LGB100, Modena, Italy) at 30 rpm for 5 min.
To make the agglomerated particleboards, the mat was formed in a mould of dimensions 400 mm × 600 mm and was subjected to a pressure of 2.6 MPa and a temperature of 120 °C for 4 min in a hot plate press. The formed boards were left to cool outdoors in a vertical position for 24 h. The production characteristics of the three types of panels are shown in Table 2 and several of the panels are shown in Figure 1. Eight boards of each type were manufactured. The particleboards consisted of a single layer and their approximate dimensions were 600 mm × 400 mm × 7.5 mm.

2.3. Methods

The method followed to evaluate the particleboards was experimental, conducting tests in the materials strength laboratory of the Higher Technical College of Orihuela at Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to determine the texture and analyse the morphological properties of the giant reed. Micrographs were taken of the reed and of cross-sections of the three types of boards. A Hitachi S3000N electron microscope (Hitachi, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) was used.
Their properties were determined according to the European standards established for wood particleboards [51]. The properties of the boards were measured according to the European standards: density [52], internal bonding strength (IB) [53], modulus of elasticity (MOE) and modulus of rupture (MOR) [54] and thickness swelling (TS) after 2 and 24 h immersed in water [55].
The mechanical tests were performed with a universal testing machine (model IB600, Imal, S.R.L., Modena, Italy). The bending test was carried out with six samples from each board (three in a longitudinal direction and three in a transversal direction) measuring 250 × 50 × 10 mm, maintaining a constant velocity of 5 mm/min. The IB test was performed with three samples from each board measuring 50 × 50 × 10 mm, taken from the outer and inner parts of the board, using a constant velocity of 2 mm/min. The number of samples of each board used in the tests is indicated in Table 3. Before testing, the samples were placed in a JP Selecta refrigerated cabinet (model: Medilow-L, Barcelona, Spain) for 24 h at a temperature of 20 °C and a relative humidity of 65%.
The method followed to determine the sound absorption coefficient of a material under normal incidence is based on the acoustic impedance tube. This test method uses an impedance tube, two microphone positions and a digital signal processing system [56]. This technique requires a correction procedure prior to testing to minimise differences in amplitude and phase characteristics between the two microphones. The Acupro Spectronics impedance tube (Spectronics C., Lexington, KY, USA) was used for testing, with a frequency range between 50 and 6300 Hz. Three samples of each type of board were used for the acoustic tests. The different samples can be seen in Figure 2.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Scanning Electron Microscopy

Giant reed is cylindrical and has a hollow interior. Figure 3 shows the micrographs of the outer and inner surfaces of the plant. On the outside, the vascular bundles of compact fibres surrounded by silica phytoliths can be visualised, aligned along the entire outer surface of the reed, giving it a bright, glossy appearance. On the inside, the vascular bundles are less dense and there are small stomata aligned along the surface.
Figure 4 shows the micrographs of the fracture surfaces of panels made from type A (0.25 to 1 mm), type B (1 to 2 mm) and type C (2 to 4 mm) particles, respectively, in which it can be observed that the greater the particle size, the greater the porosity.
In the panels with a larger particle size, there is a lot of porosity and it can also be noted that they fracture more easily when the particles are from the outer layers of the reed, where the phytoliths are concentrated, as can be seen clearly in the type C panels in Figure 4. This seems to indicate that boards with larger particle sizes have a lower density and worse mechanical properties, as they are very porous and have a large surface area of phytoliths that prevent better binding of the particles, making adhesion of the urea–formaldehyde resin more difficult. In the boards with small particle sizes, it can be observed that they have a lower porosity, except for the fibres of the vascular bundles, which have not been compressed because they are harder.
Klimek et al. [57] carried out a microscopic evaluation of different particleboards to find structural evidence of differences between the properties found, establishing that particle–particle bonding influences both mechanical performance and thickness swelling.

3.2. Physical and Mechanical Properties

For the laboratory tests, the samples for the different tests were previously kept in a controlled atmosphere at a temperature of 20 °C and relative humidity of 65% for 24 h. The mean values obtained in the tests are shown in Table 4.
The density of the boards ranges between 719.6 and 817.8 kg·m−3, so they can be considered medium-density boards. Having performed the analysis of variance (Table 5), it can be observed that the density depends on the particle size. The result obtained coincides with our observations in the micrographs of the fracture surface of the manufactured panels: the larger the particle size, the lower the density. When the density of the samples is increased, the amount of particles also increases. Therefore, the excessive use of fibres contributes to the formation of a more compact board, which reduces its capacity to absorb sound waves. This basically means that boards with a lower density have a higher porosity, making them a better acoustic insulating material [15,39].
The average thickness swelling (TS) value of the boards after immersion in water for 24 h is similar, ranging from 19.3% to 20.7%, and does not depend on the particle size used.
The modulus of rupture (MOR) depends on the particle size. The MOR value for type A particles is 17.2 N·mm−2, and it decreases with larger particles. The modulus of elasticity (MOE) also depends on the particle size, with values ranging from 1190 to 2300 N·mm−2. The internal bonding strength (IB) values do not depend on the particle size and high values are obtained, ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 N·mm−2. The result obtained coincides with that achieved in other research [59], in which the authors state that better mechanical properties are obtained with a smaller particle size.
Table 4 compares the results obtained with the values required by the European standards [58] in order to determine the compatibility of uses of boards with a thickness of 6 to 13 mm. In order for boards with type A particles to be classified as Grade P3, a water-repellent product should be added to them to reduce the TS to values below 17%, so they are classed as Grade P2. Type B and C boards would achieve a Grade P1 classification and could be implemented in general applications.

3.3. Acoustic Properties

Figure 5 shows the average values obtained for the sound absorption coefficient in the tests carried out with the three types of board. As can be observed, there are considerable differences between the boards manufactured according to particle size. Figure 5 shows the average values obtained in the sound absorption test according to particle size for standardised octave frequency bands.
As shown in the graphs corresponding to the sound absorption test, with all three particle sizes, a high value is obtained for very low frequencies (with 50 Hz, the absorption coefficient is 0.7). It then decreases to low values for medium frequencies and increases again for high frequencies. The graphs for the different types of board indicate that there are significant differences between some types of board and others, especially in the 1250 to 5000 Hz bands. In reference to the statistical analysis (Table 3), it can be concluded that there are significant differences with respect to the particle size used, and that the larger the particle size, the greater the sound absorption coefficients. This may be because the boards have different densities, indicating different degrees of porosity, as is also observed in the micrographs. Therefore, boards with a lower density have a greater porosity (or larger particle size), improving the acoustic properties of the boards.
Some studies with other plant fibres have observed similar findings to this work regarding the acoustic performance of the board according to frequency, showing a good performance at low and high frequencies, but a worse performance at medium frequencies [15,23,29,39].
Table 6 shows the sound absorption coefficients based on the standardised centre frequencies of octave bands. The results obtained refer to these frequencies because they are the most commonly used in architectural acoustics and in most of the works and studies consulted. Doing so facilitated a subsequent comparison of the results with the values obtained for other materials of the same density that are commonly used in construction and, therefore, their classification in accordance with the applicable regulations [60].
The results showed that type C boards (2 to 4 mm) are better at absorbing noise than commercial wood and plywood for low and high frequencies, while similar values are obtained for medium frequencies. Type B boards (1 to 2 mm) offer greater sound absorption than wood boards, except at the frequency of 500 Hz. For type A particleboards (0.25 to 1 mm), the values obtained are similar to those of wood boards.
According to the current regulations [60], with sound absorption coefficient values between 0.30 and 0.55, they could be classified as Class D absorbents; with values ranging between 0.15 and 0.25 they could be classified as Class E absorbents, and with values below 0.15 they would not be classified. In general, type C reed particleboards (2 to 4 mm) could be classified as Class D sound absorbing boards, except for medium frequencies ranging from 250 to 1000 Hz.
Other studies with coconut fibre [19] and date palm [23] have also found that an increase in thickness leads to an increase in the sound absorption coefficient, so increasing the thickness of the board would improve the sound absorption properties.
Sound transmission loss (TL) is a parameter expressed in decibels (dB) that depends on frequency and thickness, and its value indicates how much the energy of the incident sound is attenuated as it passes through a material. Figure 6 shows the average TL values obtained in the test on three samples of each type of board according to the standardised centre frequencies of octave bands.
A larger amount of acoustic energy is lost in boards with a smaller particle size, with the sound energy being lower than the incident energy up to 52 dB at a frequency of 400 Hz. The mean sound transmission loss for boards with particle sizes of 0.25 to 1 mm is 37.5 dB, for particle sizes 1 to 2 mm it is 31.5 dB and for particle sizes 2 to 4 mm it is 15 dB. The sound transmission loss depends on the density of the board and on the particle size. This shows that reed boards can be a good acoustic insulating material, as the sound is attenuated more with smaller particle sizes and the sound absorption coefficient is greater with larger particles.
For wood-derived panels with acoustic properties, MOR values of approximately 1.55 MPa and MOE values of 276 MPa are required [62]. In this regard, we stress that the mechanical properties of all types of boards manufactured exceed these values. Mechanical strength is not generally one of the main requirements in acoustic materials [63], but the boards produced in this work not only have good acoustic performance, but could also be used for applications requiring certain mechanical features in buildings, such as enclosures (vertical and horizontal) and floorings.
The manufacture of industrial particleboards requires more energy consumption than the boards of this study, as commercial wood boards consume a larger amount of energy in the grinding process, as giant red stems are easier to grind than a tree trunk. Finally, in this study, it was not necessary to dry the material after grinding and the pressing temperature and pressure (120 °C, 2.6 MPa) were lower than the temperature and pressure used in the manufacture of industrial particleboards (180 °C, 3.5 MPa).

4. Conclusions

The acoustic insulation properties of giant reed boards are conditioned by the spaces between their particles. Using larger particle sizes results in boards with a lower density, achieving a better sound absorption coefficient.
The acoustic results achieved for type C reed boards (2 to 4 mm) are suitable for use as an insulation material for sound absorption. These boards offer better values than commercial wood boards in general and plywood boards used in construction.
The panels manufactured had high sound transmission loss (TL) values, and the thinness of the panels indicated that they had good sound insulation properties. The acoustic properties could be improved by increasing the thickness of the board.
The medium-density boards manufactured have good mechanical properties; the type A particleboards could be classified as Grade P2 and type B and C boards could be classified as Grade P1. All the boards tested had better mechanical properties than those required for boards that are intended for acoustic insulation.
These particleboards could replace traditional raw materials used in construction, contributing to a reduction in the pressure on timber forest resources.

Author Contributions

M.T.F.-G. and C.E.F.-G. devised and designed the experiments; M.F.-V. and T.G.-O. performed the experiments; A.F.-G. and M.T.F.-G. analysed the data; M.F.-V. contributed reagents/materials/analytical tools; M.T.F.-G. wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors assisted in writing and improving the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded thanks to Agreement No. 4/20 between the company Aitana, Actividades de Construcciones y Servicios, S.L. and Universidad Miguel Hernandez, Elche.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the company Aitana, Actividades de Construcciones y Servicios, S.L. for its support by signing Agreement No. 4/20 with Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche, on 20 December 2019.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Velázquez-Martí, B.; Sajdak, M.; López-Cortés, I. Available residual biomass obtained from pruning Morus alba L. trees cultivated in urban forest. Renew. Energy 2013, 60, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Turgut Sahin, H.; Burak Arslan, M. Weathering performance of particleboards manufactured from blends of forest residues with Red pine (Pinus brutia) wood. Maderas-Cienc. Tecnol. 2011, 13, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hiziroglu, S.; Holcomb, R. Some of the properties of three-layer particleboard made from eastern redcedar. Build. Environ. 2005, 40, 719–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nasser, R.A. Physical and mechanical properties of three-layer particleboard manufactured from the tree pruning of seven wood species. World Appl. Sci. J. 2012, 19, 741–753. [Google Scholar]
  5. Da Duarte Silva, M.J.; Bezerra, B.S.; Gomes Battistelle, R.A.; De Domenico Valareli, I. Prospects for the use of municipal tree pruning wastes in particleboard production. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31, 960–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lykidis, C.; Grigoriou, A.; Barboutis, I. Utilisation of wood biomass residues from fruit tree branches, evergreen hardwood shrubs and Greek fir wood as raw materials for particleboard production. Part A. Mechanical properties. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014, 9, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhu, X.; Kim, B.J.; Wang, Q.; Wu, Q. Recent advances in the sound insulation properties of bio-based materials. BioResources 2014, 9, 1764–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Asdrubali, F.; D’Alessandro, F.; Schiavoni, S. A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2015, 4, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sampathrajan, A.; Vijayaraghavan, N.C.; Swaminathan, K.R. Acoustic aspects of farm residue-based particle boards. Bioresour. Technol. 1991, 35, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lü, X.; Lu, T.; Lipponen, O.; Viljanen, M. Insulation Materials Made with Vegetable Fibres. In Nearly Zero Energy Building Refurbishment; Springer: London, UK, 2013; pp. 411–455. [Google Scholar]
  11. Berardi, U.; Iannace, G. Acoustic characterization of natural fibers for sound absorption applications. Build. Environ. 2015, 94, 840–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Berardi, U.; Iannace, G. Predicting the sound absorption of natural materials: Best-fit inverse laws for the acoustic impedance and the propagation constant. Appl. Acoust. 2017, 115, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yahya, M.N.; Sambu, M.; Latif, H.A.; Junaid, T.M. A study of acoustics performance on natural fibre composite. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Melaka, Malasia, 6–7 May 2017; IOP Publishing: Melaka, Malasia, 2017; Volume 226. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mamtaz, H.; Fouladi, M.H.; Al-Atabi, M.; Narayana Namasivayam, S. Acoustic absorption of natural fiber composites. J. Eng. 2016, 2016, 5836107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Yang, H.S.; Kim, D.J.; Kim, H.J. Rice straw–wood particle composite for sound absorbing wooden construction materials. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 86, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Putra, A.; Abdullah, Y.; Efendy, H.; Mohamad, W.M.F.W.; Salleh, N.L. Biomass from paddy waste fibers as sustainable acoustic material. Adv. Acoust. Vib. 2013, 2013, 605932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nor, M.J.M.; Jamaludin, N.; Tamiri, F.M. A preliminary study of sound absorption using multi-layer coconut coir fibers. Electron. J. Tech. Acoust. 2004, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  18. Silva, G.M.; Magalhaes, M.D.C. Acoustical properties of vegetal fibers used on multilayered materials. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Daejeon, Korea, 6–10 July 2008; pp. 1835–1841. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zulkifli, R.; Nor, M.J.M.; Ismail, A.R.; Nuawi, M.Z.; Tahir, M.F.M. Effect of perforated size and air gap thickness on acoustic properties of coir fibre sound absorption panels. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2009, 28, 242–252. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nor, M.J.M.; Ayub, M.; Zulkifli, R.; Amin, N.; Fouladi, M.H. Effect of different factors on the acoustic absorption of coir fiber. J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 10, 2887–2892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Fouladi, M.H.; Ayub, M.; Nor, M.J.M. Analysis of coir fiber acoustical characteristics. Appl. Acoust. 2011, 72, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yao, J.; Ma, L.L.; Wei, L.; Jiang, L.W.; Li, Y.Q. Acoustic absorption performance research of coir density board. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 549, 589–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Al Rahman, L.A.; Raja, R.I.; Rahman, R.A. Experimental study on natural fibers for green acoustic absorption materials. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2013, 10, 1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ramis, J.; Alba, J.; Del Rey, R.; Escuder, E.; Sanchís, V.J. New absorbent material acoustic based on kenaf’s fibre. Mater. Constr. 2010, 60, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sambu, M.; Yahya, M.N.; Latif, H.A.; Hatta, M.N.M.; Ghazali, M.I.B. Preliminary study on acoustical and physical charachteristics of kenaf (hibiscus cannabinus) using natural rubber as binder. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 11, 2467–2474. [Google Scholar]
  26. Dunne, R.; Desai, D.; Sadiku, R. Material characterization of blended sisal-kenaf composites with an ABS matrix. Appl. Acoust. 2017, 125, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Koizumi, T.; Tsujiuchi, N.; Adachi, A. The development of sound absorbing materials using natural bamboo fibers. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2002, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Koizumi, T.; Tsujiuchi, N.; Fujita, K. Performance improvement of sound-absorbing materials using natural bamboo fibers and their application. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2004, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karlinasari, L.; Hermawan, D.; Maddu, A.; Bagus, M.; Lucky, I.K.; Nugroho, N.; Hadi, Y.S. Acoustical properties of particleboards made from betung bamboo (Dendrocalamus asper) as building construction material. BioResources 2012, 7, 5700–5709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Azevedo, L.; Nabuo, M. Sound absorption of sisal fiber panels. In Proceedings of the 2005 Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 7–10 August 2005; pp. 1806–1811. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jayamani, E.; Hamdan, S.; Rahman, M.R.; Soon, K.H.; Bakri, M.K.B. Processing and characterization of epoxy/luffa composites: Investigation on chemical treatment of fibers on mechanical and acoustical properties. Bioresources 2014, 9, 5542–5556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Putra, A.; Abdullah, Y.; Efendy, H.; Farid, W.M.; Ayob, M.R.; Py, M.S. Utilizing sugarcane wasted fibers as a sustainable acoustic absorber. Procedia Eng. 2013, 53, 632–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Fatima, S.; Mohanty, A.R. Acoustical and fire-retardant properties of jute composite materials. Appl. Acoust. 2011, 72, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rasat, M.S.M.; Wahab, R.; Sulaiman, O.; Moktar, J.; Mohamed, A.; Tabet, T.A.; Khalid, I. Properties of composite boards from oil palm frond agricultural waste. BioResources 2011, 6, 4389–4403. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hashim, R.; Nadhari, W.N.A.W.; Sulaiman, O.; Kawamura, F.; Hiziroglu, S.; Sato, M.; Sugimoto, T.; Seng, T.G.; Tanaka, R. Characterization of raw materials and manufactured binderless particleboard from oil palm biomass. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sulaiman, O.; Salim, N.; Nordin, N.A.; Hashim, R.; Ibrahim, M.; Sato, M. The potential of oil palm trunk biomass as an alternative source for compressed wood. BioResources 2012, 7, 2688–2706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Or, K.H.; Putra, A.; Selamat, M.Z. Oil palm empty fruit bunch fibers as sustainable acoustic material. In Proceedings of the Mechanical Engineering Research Day 2015 (MERD’15), Melaka, Malasya, 31 March 2015; pp. 99–100. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kerdtongmee, P.; Saleh, A.; Eadkhong, T.; Danworaphong, S. Investigating Sound Absorption of Oil Palm Trunk Panels Using One-microphone Impedance Tube. BioResources 2016, 11, 8409–8418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Kalaivani, R.; Ewe, L.S.; Chua, Y.L.; Ibrahim, Z. The Effects of Different Thickness of Oil Palm Trunk (Opt) Fiberboard on Acoustic Properties. Sci. Int. 2017, 29, 1105–1108. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ismail, L.; Ghazali, M.I.; Mahzan, S.; Zaidi, A.A. Sound absorption of Arenga Pinnata natural fiber. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2010, 67, 804–806. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sambu, M.; Nizamyahya, M.; Latif, H.A.; Hatta, M.N.M.; Ghazali, M.I.B. Acoustical performance and physical properties of nonwoven fibre; Arenga pinnata (Ijuk) and natural rubber composite. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 11, 13292–13299. [Google Scholar]
  42. Khidir, E.A.; Nik Mohamed, N.A.; Nor, M.; Jailani, M.; Tahir, M.F.M.; Zulkifli, R.; Nuawi, M.Z. Effect of density on the sound absorption of date palm fibers. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 663, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ferrández-García, C.C.; Ferrández-García, C.E.; Ferrández-Villena, M.; Ferrandez-García, M.T.; García-Ortuño, T. Acoustic and Thermal Evaluation of Palm Panels as Building Material. BioResources 2017, 12, 8047–8057. [Google Scholar]
  44. Dalianis, C.; Christou, M.; Sooter, C.; Kyritsis, S. Miscanthus Sinensis Giganteus under Greek Conditions; Ponte Press: Bochum, Germany, 1994; pp. 1229–1234. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jodice, R.; Vecchiet, M.; Parrini, F.; Schenone, G. Giant red multiplication and cultivation experiences. In Proceedings of the Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Industry: Proceeding of 9th EU Biomass Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24–27 June 1996; Chartier, P., Ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1996; Volume 1, pp. 686–691. [Google Scholar]
  46. Morgana, B.; Sardo, V.; Scrl, C.; Sardo, S. Giant reeds and C4 grass as a source of biomass. In Proceedings of the Biomass for Energy, Environment, Agriculture and Industry: Proceedings of the 8th European Biomass Conference, Vienna, Austria, 3–5 October 1994; pp. 700–707. [Google Scholar]
  47. Shatalov, A.A.; Quilho, T.; Pereira, H. Arundo donax L. reed: New perspectives for pulping and bleaching: 1. Raw material characterization. Tappi J. 2001, 84, 96. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pascoal Neto, C.; Seca, A.; Nunes, A.M.; Coimbra, M.A.; Domínguez, F.; Evtuguin, D.; Silvestre, A.; Cavaleiro, J.A.S. Variations in chemical composition and structure of macromolecular components in different morphological regions and maturity stages of Arundo donax. Ind. Crops Prod. 1997, 6, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Caparrós, S.; Ariza, J.; Hernanz, D.; Díaz, M.J. Arundo donax L. valorization under hydrotermal and pulp processing. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 2940–2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Garcia-Ortuño, T.; Rodríguez, J.A.; Ferrandez-García, M.T.; Ferrandez-Villena, M.; Ferrandez-García, C.E. Evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of particleboard made from giant reed (Arundo donax L.). BioResources 2011, 6, 477–486. [Google Scholar]
  51. European Committee for Standardization. EN 309. Particleboards. Definitions and Classification; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  52. European Committee for Standardization. EN 323. Wood-Based Panels. Determination of Density; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  53. European Committee for Standardization. EN 319. Particleboards and Fiberboards. Determination of Tensile Strength Perpendicular to the Plane of de Board; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  54. European Committee for Standardization. EN 310. Wood-Based Panels. Determination of Modulus of Elasticity in Bending and of Bending Strength; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  55. European Committee for Standardization. EN 317. Particleboards and Fiberboards. Determination of Swelling in Thickness after Immersion in Water; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  56. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10534-2. Acoustics. Determination of Sound Absorption Coefficient and Impedance in Impedance Tubes. Part 2: Transfer-Function Method; International Organization for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  57. Klímek, P.; Wimmer, R.; Mishra, P.K.; Kúdela, J. Utilizing brewer’s-spent-grain in wood-based particleboard manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 812–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. European Committee for Standardization. EN 312. Particleboards. Specifications; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hegazy, S.; Ahmed, K. Effect of date palm cultivar, particle size, panel density and hot water extraction on particleboards manufactured from date palm fronds. Agriculture 2015, 5, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 11654. 1997. Acoustics. Sound Absorbers for Use in Buildings. Rating of Sound Absorption; International Organization for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  61. Flores, M.D.; Ferreyra, S.P.; Cravero, G.A.; Budde, L.; Longoni, H.C.; Ramos, O.A.; Tommasini, F.C. Base de datos de coeficientes de absorción sonora de diferentes materiales. Mec. Comput. 2013, 32, 2901–2908. [Google Scholar]
  62. ASHRAE. ASHRAE Standard 62-73 (ANSI B 194.1-1977), Standards for Natural and Mechanical Ventilation; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  63. Da Silva Bertolini, M.; de Morais, C.A.G.; Christoforo, A.L.; Bertoli, S.R.; dos Santos, W.N.; Lahr, F.A.R. Acoustic Absorption and Thermal Insulation of Wood Panels: Influence of Porosity. BioResources 2019, 14, 3746–3757. [Google Scholar]
Polymers 12 01361 g001 550
Figure 1. Type A giant reed boards manufactured.
Figure 1. Type A giant reed boards manufactured.
Polymers 12 01361 g001
Polymers 12 01361 g002 550
Figure 2. Particles and acoustic test samples.
Figure 2. Particles and acoustic test samples.
Polymers 12 01361 g002
Polymers 12 01361 g003 550
Figure 3. Micrograph of the outer (ext) and inner (int) surface of the giant reed.
Figure 3. Micrograph of the outer (ext) and inner (int) surface of the giant reed.
Polymers 12 01361 g003
Polymers 12 01361 g004 550
Figure 4. Micrographs of fracture surfaces of type A, B and C particleboards.
Figure 4. Micrographs of fracture surfaces of type A, B and C particleboards.
Polymers 12 01361 g004
Polymers 12 01361 g005 550
Figure 5. Coefficient α according to the particle size obtained in the test and for standardised octave frequency bands.
Figure 5. Coefficient α according to the particle size obtained in the test and for standardised octave frequency bands.
Polymers 12 01361 g005
Polymers 12 01361 g006 550
Figure 6. Transmission loss according to particle size.
Figure 6. Transmission loss according to particle size.
Polymers 12 01361 g006
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition of Arundo donax L. according to different authors.
Table 1. Chemical composition of Arundo donax L. according to different authors.
Components
(%)		Shatalov et al. [47]Pascoal Neto et al. [48]Caparrós et al. [49]
NodeInternodeNodeInternode
Ash4.776.143.033.803.00
Silicates1.311.16
Lignin20.9221.3117.7019.4023.00
Holocellulose61.2161.4157.7062.1764.50
α-Cellulose29.1832.9330.8034.6334.80
Hemicelluloses32.0328.48
Table
Table 2. Types of board manufactured.
Table 2. Types of board manufactured.
Type of BoardParticle Size (mm)Pressing Pressure (MPa)Pressing Time (min)Pressing Temperature (°C)No. of Boards
A0.25 to 12.641208
B1 to 28
C2 to 48
Table
Table 3. Dimensions and number of samples of each board used in the tests.
Table 3. Dimensions and number of samples of each board used in the tests.
DensityTSMORMOEIBAcoustic
Dimensions (mm)50 × 5050 × 5050 × 20050 × 20050 × 50Ø 30
Number633 longit.
3 transv.		3 longit.
3 transv.		33
Longitudinal (longit.); transversal (transv.).
Table
Table 4. Physical and mechanical properties of giant reed particleboards.
Table 4. Physical and mechanical properties of giant reed particleboards.
Type of
Board		Density
(kg·m−3)		MOR
(N·mm−2)		MOE
(N·mm−2)		IB
(N·mm−2)		TS 2 h
(%)		TS 24 h
(%)
A817.8 (57.1)17.2 (2.9)2200 (387)1.10 (0.4)13.0 (3.0)19.3 (7.7)
B752.6 (53.3)13.2 (0.6)1790 (095)1.30 (0.2)14.8 (3.7)19.3 (5.5)
C719.6 (42.4)10.5 (1.0)1190 (189)1.00 (0.4)15.8 (7.0)20.7 (7.3)
Grade P1 [58] 10.5-0.28--
Grade P2 [58] 11.018000.40--
Grade P3 [58] 15.020500.45-17.0
Grade P4 [58] 16.023000.40-19.0
Standard deviation (..).
Table
Table 5. ANOVA of the results of the tests.
Table 5. ANOVA of the results of the tests.
FactorPropertiesSum of Squaresd.f.Half QuadraticFSig.
Type of boardDensity (kg/m3)16,726.95128.363.4733.3260.047
MOR (N/mm2)89.879244.94015.1230.003
MOE (N/mm2)1,805,357.7062902,678.85314.8970.003
IB (N/mm2)0.22620.1130.8240.477
TS 2 h (%)105.941252.9702.1810.120
TS 24 h (%)33.823216.9120.3520.704
Sound absorption (α)0.43420.2179.7450.000
Transmission loss (dB)370,834.7892185,417.3952,071.9430.000
Sound absorption coefficient (α); degrees of freedom (d.f.); Fisher–Snedecor distribution (F); significance (Sig.).
Table
Table 6. Sound absorption coefficients (α) according to frequency.
Table 6. Sound absorption coefficients (α) according to frequency.
MaterialType of BoardThickness (mm)Frequency (Hz)
125250500100020004000
Giant reed panelA6.70.37 (0.00)0.12 (0.00)0.03 (0.01)0.07 (0.03)0.06 (0.02)0.05 (0.01)
B6.70.37 (0.00)0.11 (0.03)0.05 (0.00)0.12 (0.00)0.19 (0.08)0.15 (0.04)
C6.70.39 (0.04)0.17 (0.09)0.08 (0.08)0.13 (0.06)0.33 (0.04)0.34 (0.07)
Wood [61]25.00.190.140.090.060.060.05
Plywood [61]9.00.280.220.170.090.100.11
Insulation classes (a) [60] DE--DD
Standard deviation (..); classification for type C boards (a).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ferrandez-García, M.T.; Ferrandez-Garcia, A.; Garcia-Ortuño, T.; Ferrandez-Garcia, C.E.; Ferrandez-Villena, M. Assessment of the Physical, Mechanical and Acoustic Properties of Arundo donax L. Biomass in Low Pressure and Temperature Particleboards. Polymers 2020, 12, 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12061361

AMA Style

Ferrandez-García MT, Ferrandez-Garcia A, Garcia-Ortuño T, Ferrandez-Garcia CE, Ferrandez-Villena M. Assessment of the Physical, Mechanical and Acoustic Properties of Arundo donax L. Biomass in Low Pressure and Temperature Particleboards. Polymers. 2020; 12(6):1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12061361

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ferrandez-García, Maria Teresa, Antonio Ferrandez-Garcia, Teresa Garcia-Ortuño, Clara Eugenia Ferrandez-Garcia, and Manuel Ferrandez-Villena. 2020. "Assessment of the Physical, Mechanical and Acoustic Properties of Arundo donax L. Biomass in Low Pressure and Temperature Particleboards" Polymers 12, no. 6: 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12061361

APA Style

Ferrandez-García, M. T., Ferrandez-Garcia, A., Garcia-Ortuño, T., Ferrandez-Garcia, C. E., & Ferrandez-Villena, M. (2020). Assessment of the Physical, Mechanical and Acoustic Properties of Arundo donax L. Biomass in Low Pressure and Temperature Particleboards. Polymers, 12(6), 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12061361

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop