materials

Article
Characterization of Sheep Wool as a Sustainable
Material for Acoustic Applications
Romina del Rey 1, * ID
, Antonio Uris 2 , Jesús Alba 1 ID
and Pilar Candelas 2
1 Centro de Tecnologías Físicas, Universitat Politècnica de València, EPS Gandia, C/Paraninf,
1, 46730 Grao de Gandia, Valencia, Spain; jesalba@fis.upv.es
2 Centro de Tecnologías Físicas, Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia,
Spain; auris@fis.upv.es (A.U.); pcandelas@fis.upv.es (P.C.)
* Correspondence: roderey@fis.upv.es; Tel.: +34-962849302

Received: 29 September 2017; Accepted: 3 November 2017; Published: 7 November 2017

Abstract: In recent years, natural materials are becoming a valid alternative to traditional sound
absorbers due to reduced production costs and environmental protection. This paper reports the
acoustical characterization of sheep wool. Measurements on normal incidence and diffuse-incidence
sound absorption coefficients of different samples are reported. The airflow resistance has also been
measured. The results prove that sheep wool has a comparable sound absorption performance to that
of mineral wool or recycled polyurethane foam. An empirical model is used to calculate the sound
absorption of sheep wool samples. A reasonable agreement on the acoustic absorption of all sheep
wool samples is obtained.

Keywords: natural material; sound absorption; flow resistance; sheep wool; delany-bazley model

1. Introduction
In conventional construction, most of the materials used respect little or do not respect at
all the environment, since they require high energy expenditure for their extraction, transport,
and transformation. In addition, they incorporate chemicals that can be detrimental to human health
into materials to improve their technical characteristics. At present, the demand for a more sustainable
construction has gone from being a matter of personal choice to being a regulated sector in order
to implement measures that improve the environmental behavior of infrastructures and buildings.
Construction activity is a great consumer of natural resources. Buildings continue to be a direct
cause of pollution after they have been built due to their emissions and their impact on territory.
Sustainable construction takes into account the consumption of resources, the environmental impact
it produces, and the specific risks to human health. Thus, ecological materials must be natural,
renewable, and durable, and they must have a low environmental impact for their manufacture,
placement, and maintenance.
In recent years, the development of new renewable materials has focused the attention of the
research community. The origin of these materials can be vegetable or animal so their manufacture
has a low environmental impact due to the energy saved in the production process. Several papers
focused their investigations on thermal insulation [1–8]. Other authors have studied natural fibers for
acoustic applications [9–17].
This paper describes the work carried out as part of the BIAEFIREMAT project to develop a new
eco-materials and sustainable constructive solutions based on the use of waste and renewable raw
materials. It is based on the fact that sheep wool is an excellent natural material, with very good
characteristics for thermal insulation, moisture management, and sound absorption. However, due to
their natural origin, the homogeneity of the fibers is not controlled and each hair or wool fiber can come

Materials 2017, 10, 1277; doi:10.3390/ma10111277 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2017, 10, 1277 2 of 11

Materials 2017, 10, 1277 2 of 11

from different sheep, breeds, or skin areas. It is intended to convert residues of sheep wool into new
materials with acoustic
new materials applications
with acoustic both in both
applications architectural and environmental
in architectural acoustics. acoustics.
and environmental The sheepskin
The
generates
sheepskinwell-known wool fiberswool
generates well-known that fibers
are used
thattoare
make
usednatural
to make materials. These materials
natural materials. could be
These materials
substitutes of others of
could be substitutes more aggressive
others with the environment.
more aggressive with the environment.
The aim of this
this paper
paper is
is to
to examine
examinethetheairflow
airflowresistance
resistanceand
andsound
soundabsorption
absorptioncoefficient
coefficientofofa
anatural
naturaland
andrenewable
renewablematerial
materialsuchsuchasassheep
sheepwool
woolasasan
an alternative
alternative to
to classical
classical sound
sound absorbers.
absorbers.
The sound absorption capabilities of the sheep wool presented in this paper were measured in an
impedance tube and in aa reverberation
reverberation chamber.
chamber. The sound absorption coefficient has also been
calculated by using an empirical model.model.

2.
2. Recall
Recall of
of the
the Sheep
Sheep Wool
Wool Fiber
Fiber Characteristics
Characteristics and
and the
the Manufacturing
Manufacturing Process
Process
Sheep
Sheep wool
wool comes
comes in in the
the form
form ofof aa corrugated
corrugated fiber
fiber having
having aa diameter
diameter of of 16
16 to
to 40 μm and
40 µm and aa total
total
length of 35–350 mm. Figure 1 shows electronic microscope details of sheep wool
length of 35–350 mm. Figure 1 shows electronic microscope details of sheep wool fibers. A sheep wool fibers. A sheep wool
fiber
fiber of
of 16 μm would
16 µm would have
have aa size
size similar
similar toto mineral
mineral fibers.
fibers. A A 33–36
33–36 µm μm sheep
sheep wool
wool fiber
fiber would
would be be
roughly the same size as PET polyester fibers (33 µm) [18] or Kenaf fibers (36
roughly the same size as PET polyester fibers (33 μm) [18] or Kenaf fibers (36 μm) [19]. Unlike µm) [19]. Unlike synthetic
fibers, sheep
synthetic fibers
fibers, do not
sheep have
fibers doa not
fixedhave
thickness.
a fixedTheir thickness
thickness. Their range has a standard
thickness range hasdeviation
a standard of
2deviation
µm, according to the
of 2 μm, consulted
according scientific
to the works
consulted [20]. Theworks
scientific fiber diameter
[20]. The also
fiberdepends
diameteronalsothe depends
breed of
the
on the breed of the sheep. Merina is the predominant breed in Spain. In the Merina and relatedfleece
sheep. Merina is the predominant breed in Spain. In the Merina and related breeds, the breeds,is
closed and the wool has no brightness and presents variable uniformity: 60–80
the fleece is closed and the wool has no brightness and presents variable uniformity: 60–80 mm mm length, 18–20 µm
fineness,
length, 18and
–20 ripple of 100 mm.
μm fineness, The wash
and ripple performance
of 100 mm. The washafter shearing
performance to remove natural impurities
after shearing to remove
such
natural impurities such as remains of vegetation, urine, and above all grease was 38a–42%.
as remains of vegetation, urine, and above all grease was 38–42%. It is considered fine fiber.
It is
A priori, it would be comparable to mineral fibers such as fiberglass, and studies
considered a fine fiber. A priori, it would be comparable to mineral fibers such as fiberglass, of this type of wool
and
should focus on the same applications. This is the best quality sheep wool.
studies of this type of wool should focus on the same applications. This is the best quality sheep wool.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Electronic microscope details of sheep wool fibers. (a) 200 μm rank; (b) 50 μm rank.
Figure 1. Electronic microscope details of sheep wool fibers. (a) 200 µm rank; (b) 50 µm rank.

Another type of ovine breed is known as Entrefino group. These are of wide geographic
Another
diffusion andtype of ovineproductive
of varied breed is known as Entrefino
orientation. When group.
first These
bred, are of main
their wide geographic diffusion
objective was wool
and of varied productive orientation. When first bred, their main objective
production, but today, production has been diversified with meat-wool or meat-milk-wool was wool production,
but today, production
exploitations. These animalshas have
beena diversified
semi-closedwith meat-wool
medium-size or The
fleece. meat-milk-wool exploitations.
wool is characterized by its
These
varying brightness, variable uniformity, 70–80 mm length, 28–30 μm fineness, ripple of its
animals have a semi-closed medium-size fleece. The wool is characterized by 40–varying
60 mm,
brightness,
and a thorough variable
washuniformity,
performance70–80
of 42–mm
48%.length, 28–30would
These fibers µm fineness, ripple of
be comparable 40–60
with mm, and
polyester fibersa
thorough
(PET) [18]. wash performance of 42–48%. These fibers would be comparable with polyester fibers
(PET)Finally
[18]. there is another sheep breed called Churro. The Churro breed is characterized by wool
that Finally
is shiny,there
hasisvery
another
lowsheep breed called
uniformity, 80–120Churro. The Churro
mm length, 35–40breed is characterized
μm fineness, by wool
a low ripple thata
and
is shiny, has very low uniformity, 80–120 mm length, 35–40 µm fineness, a low
thorough wash performance of 46–50%. These fibers would be comparable with other natural fibers ripple and a thorough
wash
such asperformance
Kenaf fibersof(3646–50%. These
μm) [19]. Thisfibers
is thewould
secondbe comparable
best quality sheepwithwool.
other natural fibers such as
KenafThefibers (36 µm) [19]. This is the second best quality sheep wool.
manufacturing process of sheep wool is the classic of a nonwoven. It is carried out via dry
and thermo-fusion. Sheep wool fibers are “combed” and introduced into the machinery, where they
are mixed with polyester fibers obtained from recycled PET flakes. The caula ends up generating
sheep wool by the thermo-fusion of the PET fiber that acts as a binder (the fiber melts at 140–150 °C).
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 3 of 11

The manufacturing process of sheep wool is the classic of a nonwoven. It is carried out via dry
and
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 Sheep wool fibers are “combed” and introduced into the machinery, where3they
thermo-fusion. of 11
are mixed with polyester fibers obtained from recycled PET flakes. The caula ends up generating
The material
sheep wool bycomes out compressed
the thermo-fusion of the to the
PET desired
fiber density
that acts depending
as a binder on melts
(the fiber the capacity
at 140–150 of ◦the
C).
machinery.
The materialItcomes
is a process similar toto
out compressed thethemanufacture of conventional
desired density depending on PETthe[18]. The difference
capacity is that
of the machinery.
theisfinal
It product
a process has 80%
similar sheep
to the wool fiber of
manufacture (first quality, second
conventional PET quality,
[18]. The ordifference
blend), andisthe
thatremaining
the final
20% is PET
product has fiber. An important
80% sheep wool fiberissue
(first is that the
quality, machinery
second quality,used for these
or blend), andnew fibers is the
the remaining 20% same as
is PET
that used in the textile sector for non-woven materials. The machine should be cleaned
fiber. An important issue is that the machinery used for these new fibers is the same as that used in the only if fibers
are changed.
textile sector for non-woven materials. The machine should be cleaned only if fibers are changed.

3. Acoustic Measurement Set-Up

3.1. Airflow Resistance

3.1. Airflow Resistance
To
To evaluate
evaluate thethe airflow
airflow resistance
resistance ofof sheep
sheep wool
wool samples,
samples, two
two indirect
indirect measurement
measurement methods
methods
were used: Ingard & Dear's indirect method [21] and the Dragonetti et al. method
were used: Ingard & Dear's indirect method [21] and the Dragonetti et al. method [22]. Both of [22]. Both
themof
them allow us to obtain the specific airflow resistance of sound absorbing materials.
allow us to obtain the specific airflow resistance of sound absorbing materials. Ingard & Dear’s Ingard & Dear’s
method
method isis based
based onon measurements
measurements withwith an
an impedance
impedance tube
tube and
and two
two microphones.
microphones. The
The Dragonetti et al.
Dragonetti et al.
method is based on measurement through cavities with different volumes. Details of
method is based on measurement through cavities with different volumes. Details of each of these each of these two
measurement
two measurement methods, similarities
methods, and and
similarities differences between
differences themthem
between and and
the normalized procedure
the normalized can
procedure
be
canfound in [23].
be found Figure
in [23]. 2 shows
Figure bothboth
2 shows airflow measurement
airflow measurement systems.
systems.

(a) (b)
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Airflow measurementsystems.
Airflow measurement systems.(a)(a) Ingard
Ingard & Dear’s
& Dear’s indirect
indirect method;
method; (b) Dragonetti
(b) Dragonetti et al. et al. method.
method.

3.2. Sound Absorption Coefficient at Normal Incidence

3.2. Sound Absorption Coefficient at Normal Incidence
The sound absorption coefficient at normal incidence, α, is the quotient between the acoustic
The sound absorption coefficient at normal incidence, α, is the quotient between the acoustic
energy absorbed by the surface of the test sample and the incident acoustic energy, for a plane
energy absorbed by the surface of the test sample and the incident acoustic energy, for a plane acoustic
acoustic wave at normal incidence. ISO 10534-2 standard [24] establishes a test procedure to determine
wave at normal incidence. ISO 10534-2 standard [24] establishes a test procedure to determine the
the sound absorption coefficient for normal incidence of acoustic absorbers by means of an
sound absorption coefficient for normal incidence of acoustic absorbers by means of an impedance
impedance tube, two microphone positions, and a digital analysis system signal. The measurements
tube, two microphone positions, and a digital analysis system signal. The measurements described in
described in the standard procedure are useful in basic research and product development.
the standard procedure are useful in basic research and product development.
3.3. Sound
3.3. Sound Absorption
Absorption Coefficient Measurement in
Coefficient Measurement in Reverberation
Reverberation Chamber
Chamber
ISO
ISO 354
354 standard
standard [25]
[25] establishes
establishes the
the measurement
measurement procedure
procedure ofof the
the sound
sound absorption
absorption coefficient
coefficient
in a diffuse field. This coefficient is obtained from measurements of the reverberation
in a diffuse field. This coefficient is obtained from measurements of the reverberation time, time, with
with and
and
without sample, inside a reverberation chamber. Measurements were carried out in the
without sample, inside a reverberation chamber. Measurements were carried out in the normalized normalized
reverberation chamber
reverberation chamber at at the
the EPS
EPS Gandia
Gandia at at the
the Universitat
Universitat Politécnica
Politécnica de
de València
València (EPSG-UPV).
(EPSG-UPV).
This measurement method requires large samples. Each sample size under investigation had
This measurement method requires large samples. Each sample size under investigation had 12
12 mm2..
2

Figure 3 shows an image of the normalized reverberation chamber at the EPS Gandia at the Universitat
Politécnica de València.
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 4 of 11

Figure 3 shows an image of the normalized reverberation chamber at the EPS Gandia at the Universitat
Politécnica
Materials 2017,de
10,València.
1277 4 of 11

Figure 3. Normalized reverberation chamber at the EPS Gandia at the Universitat Politécnica de
Figure 3. Normalized reverberation chamber at the EPS Gandia at the Universitat Politécnica de València.
València.

ISO
ISO 11654
11654 standard
standard [26]
[26] establishes
establishes aa procedure
procedure for
for obtaining
obtaining aa single
single parameter,
parameter, the
the weighted
weighted
sound
sound absorption coefficient, αw, to evaluate the degree of sound absorption providedmaterial.
absorption coefficient, α w , to evaluate the degree of sound absorption provided by the by the
This weighted
material. Thisvalue is obtained
weighted value from the 1/3 octave
is obtained band
from the 1/3sound absorption
octave coefficient
band sound valuescoefficient
absorption measured
in the reverberation
values measured in chamber. The weighted
the reverberation sound
chamber. Theabsorption
weighted coefficient allows to
sound absorption rate the absorbent
coefficient allows to
material as indicated in Table 1.
rate the absorbent material as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1. Rating of sound absorption according to ISO 11654, 1997.
Table 1. Rating of sound absorption according to ISO 11654, 1997.

SoundAbsorption
Sound Absorption Rating
Rating αwαw
AA 0.900.90
or or
higher
higher
BB between
between 0.80.8
andand 0.85
0.85
CC between
between 0.60.6
andand 0.75
0.75
D between 0.3 and 0.55
E
D between 0.3 and 0.55
between 0.15 and 0.25
E
No qualify between0.10
0.15
or and
lower0.25
No qualify 0.10 or lower
3.4. Tested Samples
3.4. Tested Samples
In the study reported here, seven sheep wool samples with different compositions were used.
In the studyofreported
The composition here,
all samples seven sheep
included wool
20% PET andsamples with
a variable differentof
percentage compositions weresecond
wool of first and used.
The composition of all samples included 20% PET and a variable percentage of wool of first
quality. Table 2 shows the composition of each considered sample, its density, weight, and thickness, and
second
and the quality. Table
code used 2 shows
for each the composition of each considered sample, its density, weight, and
sample.
thickness, and the code used for each sample.
Table 2. Composition and the code used for each sample.
Table 2. Composition and the code used for each sample.
Composition
Sample Composition
Nominal
Pet Bi-Co 1st Quality Wool 2nd Quality Wool Density (Kg/m3 ) Weight (g/m2 ) Test Thickness (mm)
1st 2nd Nominal
Thickness (mm) Test
Sample20 Pet Density Weight
S1 Quality
80 Quality
0 30 1500 Thickness
50 Thickness
43
S2 20 Bi-Co 40 40 (Kg/m
30 3) (g/m
15002) 50 53
S3 20 40Wool Wool
40 25 1250 (mm)
50 (mm)
43
S4 20 40 40 30 1200 40 53
S5 S1 20 20 40 80 0
40 3030 1500
1800 50
60 43
55
S6 20 40 40 40 2000 50 54
S7 S2 20 20 0 40 40
80 3030 1500
1500 50
50 53
44
S3 20 40 40 25 1250 50 43
S4 20 40 40 30 1200 40 53
S5 20 40 40 30 1800 60 55
S6 20 40 40 40 2000 50 54
S7 20 0 80 30 1500 50 44
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 5 of 11

4. Results and Discussion

Materials 10, 1277
2017, replicates
Three of each sample were prepared and measured so that three values of 5flow of 11

resistance for each sample were obtained. The largest and smallest values are taken as the interval if
theResults
4. typicalanddeviation
Discussion was lower than 2%. Table 3 presents the results of airflow resistance for the
seven samples considered. By comparing different samples results, it is found that there are no great
Three replicates
variations on airflow of resistance.
each sampleThis wereisprepared
due to the andfactmeasured so that
that there is athree
closevalues of flow resistance
relationship between
for each sample were obtained. The largest and smallest values are taken
airflow resistance, density, and fiber diameter [9]. In this case, there are no large variations as the interval if the typical
in density
deviation was lower
or fiber diameter, than
so the 2%. Table
airflow 3 presents
resistance valuesthe results
have littleof airflow between
variation resistance for the The
samples. seven samples
differences
considered. By comparing different samples results, it is found that
are caused by the material heterogeneity, which increases the dispersion of the results [23]. there are no great variations on
airflow resistance. This is due to the fact that there is a close relationship
Figure 4 shows the measured normal incidence sound absorption coefficients of the seven between airflow resistance,
density,
samplesand fiber diameter
considered. [9]. In show
The results this case,
high there are absorption
sound no large variations
coefficient in density
values or at fiber
mid diameter,
and high
so
frequencies, making it an excellent sound absorbing material. It is observed that the are
the airflow resistance values have little variation between samples. The differences caused
higher by
sound
the material heterogeneity, which increases the
absorption coefficients are obtained for the higher thicknesses. dispersion of the results [23].
Figure 4 shows the measured normal incidence sound absorption coefficients of the seven samples
considered. The results show Tablehigh sound
3. Specific absorption
airflow coefficient
resistance measurementvalues at mid and high frequencies,
results.
making it an excellent sound absorbing material. It is observed that the higher sound absorption
Nominal Test
coefficients are obtained for
Density the higher thicknesses.
Weight Ingard & Dear Dragonetti
Sample Thickness Thickness
(Kg/m ) 3 (g/m )2 (rayls/m) × 1000 (rayls/m) × 1000
Table 3. Specific(mm) airflow resistance(mm) measurement results.
S1 30 1500 50 43 9.29–9.31 6.89–7.11
S2
Sample 30 3
Density (Kg/m ) 1500
Weight (g/m )2 50 Nominal 53
Test Thickness (mm)7.59–7.61
Ingard & Dear 5.26–5.61
Dragonetti
Thickness (mm) (rayls/m) × 1000 (rayls/m) × 1000
S3
S1
25
30
12501500 50 50 43 43
9.33–9.47 9.29–9.31
6.70–6.90
6.89–7.11
S4
S2 30
30 12001500 40 50 53 53 9.28–9.32 7.59–7.61 6.34–6.47
5.26–5.61
S3 25 1250 50 43 9.33–9.47 6.70–6.90
S5
S4 30
30 1800 1200 60 40 55 53 7.18–7.22 9.28–9.32 5.85–6.05
6.34–6.47
S5
S6 30
40 20001800 50 60 54 55 7.38–7.42 7.18–7.22 5.85–6.05
7.55–7.59
S6 40 2000 50 54 7.38–7.42 7.55–7.59
S7
S7 30
30 15001500 50 50 44 44 9.09–9.13 9.09–9.13 7.52–7.68
7.52–7.68

Figure 4. Measured normal incidence sound absorption coefficients.

Figure 4. Measured normal incidence sound absorption coefficients.

For room acoustics and environmental applications, normal incidence sound absorption is not
For usable.
directly room acoustics
It is moreand environmental
practical and moreapplications,
representativenormal
of the incidence
performance sound absorption
of the material tois not
use
directly usable. It is more practical and more representative of the performance of the
diffuse-field sound absorption. The measured diffuse field sound absorption coefficients are shown material to use
diffuse-field sound
in Figure 5. As absorption.
expected, The measured
the diffuse diffuse
field sound field sound
absorption absorption
coefficient coefficients
values are higherarethan
shownthe
in Figure 5. As expected, the diffuse field sound absorption coefficient values
normal incidence sound values for the same samples. Figure 5 reveals that there are no greatare higher than the
normal incidence
variations between sound values
sound for the same
absorption samples.
properties Figure 5 reveals
of measured samples that
duethere arefact
to the no great variations
that differences
between sound absorption properties of measured samples due to the fact that differences
between densities and thicknesses in all measured samples are relatively small: samples densities between
densities and thicknesses in all measured samples are relatively small: samples densities range between
25–40 kg/m3 while sample thicknesses range between 40–60 mm. By comparing samples S1, S2, and S7,
Materials
Materials 2017,
2017, 10,
10, 1277
1277 66 of
of 11
11
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 6 of 11

range between 25–40 kg/m33 while sample thicknesses range between 40–60 mm. By comparing
range
the between
influence 25–40quality
of and
wool kg/m on while
sound sample thicknesses range between
Sample40can –60 mm.80%By percentage
comparing
samples S1, S2, S7, the influence ofabsorption canon
wool quality be sound
observed.
absorption S1 has
be an
observed. Sample
samples
of has
firstan S1,
qualityS2, and S7, the influence
sheep wool,ofwhereas of
samplewool quality
S2 wool,
has a 40%on sound absorption
percentage can be observed. Sample
S1 80% percentage first quality sheep whereas sampleofS2first
has quality sheep wool
a 40% percentage ofand
firsta
S1 has an
40% percentage80% percentage
of second of first
quality quality sheep
sheep wool. wool, whereas
Finally, sample sample
S7 hasS2 has
an 80% a 40% percentage
percentage of first
of second
quality sheep wool and a 40% percentage of second quality sheep wool. Finally, sample S7 has an
quality
quality sheep wool
sheep wool. and a 40%
As observed percentage of second quality sheep wool. Finally, sample S7 has an
80% percentage of second qualityfrom
sheepFigure
wool.6,Asthe quality of
observed sheep
from wool6,does
Figure not have
the quality of an influence
sheep wool
80%
on the percentage
absorption of second quality
coefficient. sheep wool. As observed from Figure 6, the quality of sheep wool
does not have an influence onTherefore, low quality
the absorption sheepTherefore,
coefficient. wool, which
lowcannot
qualitybesheep
used wool,
in the which
textile
does not
industry, have an influence on the absorption coefficient. Therefore, low quality sheep wool, which
cannot be can
usedbeinused as a sound
the textile absorbing
industry, can bematerial.
used as a sound absorbing material.
cannot be used in the textile industry, can be used as a sound absorbing material.

Figure 5. Measured
Measureddiffuse
diffuse field sound absorption coefficients.
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Measured diffuse field
field sound
sound absorption
absorption coefficients.
coefficients.

Figure 6. Measured diffuse field sound absorption coefficients of samples S1, S2, and S7.
Figure 6. Measured
Figure 6. Measured diffuse field sound
diffuse field sound absorption
absorption coefficients
coefficients of
of samples
samples S1,
S1, S2,
S2, and
and S7.
S7.

The comparison between the diffuse field sound absorption coefficients of sheep wool sample
The comparison between the diffuse field sound absorption coefficients of sheep wool sample
S4, mineral wool, recycled
The comparison poliurethane
between the diffusefoam [27], and
field sound PET is shown
absorption in Figure
coefficients 7. Allwool
of sheep samples
samplehave
S4,
S4, mineral wool, recycled poliurethane foam [27], and PET is shown in Figure 7. All samples have
the same thickness of 40 mm. The bulk densities of the samples were mineral wool 30 kg/m
mineral wool, recycled poliurethane foam [27], and PET is shown in Figure 7. All samples3 have the 3, recycled
the same thickness of 40 mm. The bulk densities of the samples were mineral wool 30 kg/m3 , recycled
foam
same 80 kg/m3, and 40PET
mm.35 kg/m 3. The sound absorption curves have similar shapes and values,
foam thickness
80 kg/m33, of
and PET The
35 bulk
kg/m 3. densities
3
The sound of the samples were mineral wool 30 kg/m , recycled
absorption curves have similar shapes and values,
except for the PET sample. There are some differences in the low frequency range
foam 80 kg/m , and PET 35 kg/m . The sound absorption curves have similar shapes and values, where PET and
except for the PET sample. There are some differences in the low frequency range where PET and
sheep
except wool have
for the PEThigher values
sample. thanare
There mineral wool and recycled
some differences foam.
in the low frequency range where PET and
sheep wool have higher values than mineral wool and recycled foam.
sheep wool have higher values than mineral wool and recycled foam.
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 7 of 11
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 7 of 11

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenthe
thediffuse
diffusefield
fieldsound
sound absorption
absorption coefficients
coefficients of sheep
of sheep wool
wool sample
sample S4,
S4, mineral wool, recycled poliurethane foam and polyester fibers
mineral wool, recycled poliurethane foam and polyester fibers (PET). (PET).

From the measured diffuse field sound absorption coefficients, and in accordance with ISO
From the measured diffuse field sound absorption coefficients, and in accordance with ISO 11654
11654 standard [26], the weighted sound absorption coefficient, αw, can be obtained for all the
standard [26], the weighted sound absorption coefficient, αw , can be obtained for all the measured
measured samples in the reverberation chamber. Table 4 shows the weighted sound absorption
samples in the reverberation chamber. Table 4 shows the weighted sound absorption coefficient, αw .
coefficient, αw. It is observed that sheep wool samples have the same or, in samples S2, S5, and S6,
It is observed that sheep wool samples have the same or, in samples S2, S5, and S6, even higher sound
even higher sound absorbing capacity than mineral wool or recycled polyurethane foams.
absorbing capacity than mineral wool or recycled polyurethane foams.
Table 4. Measured rating of sound absorption according to ISO 11654.
Table 4. Measured rating of sound absorption according to ISO 11654.
Sample αw (11654:1958) Absorption Class
Sample
S1 αw (11654:1958)
0.75 Absorption
C Class
S1S2 0.80
0.75 B C
S2S3 0.80
0.75 C B
S3 0.75
S4 0.75 C C
S4 0.75 C
S5S5 0.85
0.85 B B
S6S6 0.80
0.80 B B
S7S7 0.75
0.75 C C
Mineral
MineralWool
Wool 0.65
0.65 C C
Recicled Foam 0.65 C
Recicled
PET
Foam 0.65
0.70
C C
PET 0.70 C

5. Calculation of the Sound Absorption Coefficient of Sheep Wool

5. Calculation of the Sound Absorption Coefficient of Sheep Wool
It is desirable to have a method for predicting sound absorbing performance of sheep wool due
It is desirable to have a method for predicting sound absorbing performance of sheep wool due to
to the fact that it is impossible to measure every possible sample. In this section, a summary of the
the fact that it is impossible to measure every possible sample. In this section, a summary of the model
model for predicting the sound absorbing performance of sheep wool is given. This model is based on
for predicting the sound absorbing performance of sheep wool is given. This model is based on the
the empirical model proposed by Delany and Bazley [28]. Two complex values determine the sound
empirical model proposed by Delany and Bazley [28]. Two complex values determine the sound
propagation through a homogeneous and isotropic material in the frequency domain. They are the
propagation through a homogeneous and isotropic material in the frequency domain. They are the
characteristic wave impedance (Z) and the characteristic propagation constant (k'). Delany and Bazley
characteristic wave impedance (Z) and the characteristic propagation constant (k'). Delany and Bazley
model determines the real constants Ci (i = 1 . . . 8) that best fit the following Equations (1) and (2):
model determines the real constants Ci (i = 1 … 8) that best fit the following Equations (1) and (2):

 
 
−C 2C 2 −C4 C 4
ZZ=Z0Z 011+CC1 χ
1  − jCjCχ
3 3  (1)

  
  
−C6 C 6
k0 k=' k kCC
5 χ5  +  1 C7Cχ7−C8 C8
j 1j + (2)

where Z00 == ρc
where ρc isisthe
thecharacteristic
characteristicimpedance
impedanceofofair, air,χχ= =ρf/σ
ρf /σ
is aisdimensionless
a dimensionless parameter,
parameter, is the
ρ isρthe air
air density at room temperature ( ≈ 1.2 kg/m 3 ), f is the sound frequency, σ is the airflow resistivity
density at room temperature (≈1.2 kg/m ), f is the sound frequency, σ is the airflow
3

(rayls/m), cc is
(rayls/m), is the
the speed
speed of
of sound
sound inin air
air at
at room
room temperature
temperature (≈343(≈343m/s),
m/s), and
and k =k ω/c
= ω/c = 2πfis/c
= 2πf/c theisfree
the
free
fieldfield wavenumber.
wavenumber. The The
rangerange
overover
which which the model
the model is valid
is valid  χ ≤1.2.
is 0.012
is 0.012 χ ≤ 1.2.
The normal-incidence sound absorption coefficient, α, can be determined by Equation (3) [19]:
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 8 of 11

The normal-incidence sound absorption coefficient, α, can be determined by Equation (3) [19]:

4Z0 ZdR
α= 2
(3)
| Zd | + 2Z0 ZdR + Z02

where the rigid-backing specific surface impedance of the material is given by

Zd = Z0 coth(k0d) = ZdR + jZdI (4)

where d is the material layer thickness and ZdR and ZdI are the real and imaginary parts of
Zd , respectively.
The regression coefficients, Ci , are determined from the normal-incidence sound absorption
coefficients in the frequency domain of the measured data for a known airflow resistivity of the
material sample. An iterative method based on a minimization of a quadratic error function is used to
obtain the regression coefficients that best fit the measured sound absorption coefficient.
The quadratic error function used in the iterative process is defined as

N
ε= ∑ (αi − âi )2 (5)
i =1

where αi is the measured normal-incidence sound absorption coefficient for a material sample at the
i-th frequency and âi is the corresponding value estimated from Equations (1) and (2). Minimization of
Equation (5) implies that
N
∂ε ∂ â
= 2 ∑ (αi − âi ) i = 0 (6)
∂Ci i =1
∂C i

for all i = 1 . . . 8.
To minimize the nonlinear Equation (6) and to obtain the corresponding values of Ci , a MATLAB
computer program was implemented. The Nelder-Mead simplex method [29] was used for the
optimization process. Acceptable values of χ were constrained to fall between 0.04 and 1.0.
The regression coefficients of the empirical model proposed by Delany and Bazley [28] were used as
initial values in the iterative method.
Table 5 reports the obtained coefficients, while Figure 8 shows the results of the best-fit curves
normal incidence sound absorption coefficient for the sheep wool samples considered. It is interesting
to emphasize that the empirical model proposed by Delany-Bazley, as it can be observed from Figure 8h,
does not adjust to the absorption coefficient measurements for one of the sheep wools analyzed in this
work. In the same figure, it can be observed that the model developed in this work, specific for sheep
wool, adjusts much better to the experimental values.

Table 5. Values of coefficients Ci .

Model C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Delany & Bazley 0.057 0.754 0.087 0.732 0.189 0.595 0.098 0.700
First Quality Sheep Wool 0.0574 0.3808 0.0222 0.8552 0.1999 0.8906 0.1031 0.8687
Second Quality Sheep Wool −0.0298 0.4829 0.0249 0.7419 0.2653 1.1107 0.0965 1.0131
Sheep Wool Mixture 0.0560 0.3640 0.0164 0.9325 0.1915 0.7863 0.1201 1.1163
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 9 of 11
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 9 of 11

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure 8. Best-fit curves for the different sheep wool samples measured in this paper. (a): sample S1;
Figure 8. Best-fit curves for the different sheep wool samples measured in this paper. (a): sample S1;
(b): sample S2; (c): sample S3; (d): sample S4; f; (e): sample S5; (f): sample S6; (g): sample S7 and
(b): sample S2; (c): sample S3; (d): sample S4; f; (e): sample S5; (f): sample S6; (g): sample S7 and (h):
(h): sample S8.
sample S8.

6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
In this paper, the sound absorption performance of sheep wool has been investigated. Seven
In this paper, the sound absorption performance of sheep wool has been investigated. Seven sheep
sheep wool samples with different wool compositions and densities have been used. Airflow
wool samples with different wool compositions and densities have been used. Airflow resistance
resistance and sound absorption coefficients at normal and diffuse incidence measurements were
and sound absorption coefficients at normal and diffuse incidence measurements were carried out.
carried out. From the measurements results, it has been demonstrated that sheep wool is a good
From the measurements results, it has been demonstrated that sheep wool is a good sound absorbing
sound absorbing material at medium and high frequencies. It is also shown that sheep wool has
material at medium and high frequencies. It is also shown that sheep wool has comparable sound
comparable sound absorption performance to that of mineral wool or recycles polyurethane foams.
absorption performance to that of mineral wool or recycles polyurethane foams. An empirical model
An empirical model proposed by Delany-Bazley has been used to predict the sound absorption of the
proposed by Delany-Bazley has been used to predict the sound absorption of the sheep wool samples.
sheep wool samples. A reasonable agreement for sound absorption has been obtained.
A reasonable agreement for sound absorption has been obtained.
Acknowledgments: This work was financially supported by the project BIA2013-41537-R (BIAEFIREMAT
Acknowledgments: This work was financially supported by the project BIA2013-41537-R (BIAEFIREMAT
“Development of
“Development of new
new eco-materials
eco-materials and
and sustainable
sustainable constructive
constructive solutions
solutions based
based on
on the
the use
use of
of waste
waste and
and
renewable raw materials”),
materials”), funded by the Ministry
Ministry of
of Economy
Economy and
and Competitiveness
Competitiveness of Spain and co-financed
co-financed
with
with ERDF
ERDF funds,
funds, within
within the
the National
National RDI
RDI Programme
Programmefocused
focusedon
onthe
theChallenges
Challengesof
ofSociety
Society2013.
2013.
Author Contributions: Romina
Author Contributions: Rominadel
delRey
Reyand
andJesús Alba
Jesús Albaconceived
conceivedandanddesigned the the
designed experiments; Romina
experiments; del Rey
Romina del
performed the experiments; Antonio Uris and Pilar Candelas analyzed the data and participated in the analysis of
Rey performed the experiments; Antonio Uris and Pilar Candelas analyzed the data and participated in the
the state-of-the-art and in the design of some experiments, as well as in the drafting of the manuscript.
analysis of the state-of-the-art and in the design of some experiments, as well as in the drafting of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
Conflicts
of of Interest:
the study; The authors
in the collection, declareor
analyses, nointerpretation
conflict of interest. Theinfounding
of data; sponsors
the writing of thehad no role in and
manuscript, the design
in the
decision to publish the results.
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 10 of 11

References
1. Pinto, J.; Cruz, D.; Paiva, A.; Pereira, S.; Tavares, P.; Fernandes, L.; Varum, H. Characterization of corn cob as
a possible raw building material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34, 28–33. [CrossRef]
2. Briga-Sa, A.; Nascimento, D.; Teixeira, N.; Pinto, J.; Caldeira, F.; Varum, H.; Paiva, A. Textile waste as an
alternative thermal insulation building material solution. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 155–160. [CrossRef]
3. Bicini, H.; Eken, M.; Dolaz, M.; Aksogan, O.; Kara, M. An environmentally friendly thermal insulation
material from sunflower stalk, textile waste and stubble fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51, 24–33.
[CrossRef]
4. Korjenic, A.; Klaric, S.; Hadžić, A.; Korjenic, S. Sheep Wool as a Construction Material for Energy Efficiency
Improvement. Energies 2015, 8, 5765–5781. [CrossRef]
5. Lopez-Hurtado, P.; Rouilly, A.; Vandenbossche, V.; Raynaud, C. A review on the properties of cellulose fibre
insulation. Build. Environ. 2016, 96, 170–177. [CrossRef]
6. Lopez-Hurtado, P.; Rouilly, A.; Raynaud, C.; Vandenbossche, V. The properties of cellulose insulation applied
via the wet spray process. Build. Environ. 2016, 107, 43–51. [CrossRef]
7. Binicia, H.; Aksoganb, O.; Demirhan, C. Mechanical, thermal and acoustical characterizations of an
insulationcomposite made of bio-based materials. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 20, 17–26. [CrossRef]
8. Asdrubali, F.; Bianchi, F.; Cotana, F.; D’Alessandro, F.; Pertosa, M.; Pisello, A.L.; Schiavoni, S. Experimental
thermo-acoustic characterization of innovative common reed bio-based panels for building envelope.
Build. Environ. 2016, 102, 217–229. [CrossRef]
9. Ballagh, K.O. Acoustical Properties of Wool. Appl. Acoust. 1996, 48, 101–120. [CrossRef]
10. Ersoy, S.; Küçük, H. Investigation of industrial tea-leaf-fibre waste material for its sound absorption
properties. Appl. Acoust. 2009, 70, 215–220. [CrossRef]
11. Oldham, D.J.; Egan, C.A.; Cookson, R.D. Sustainable acoustic absorbers from the biomass. Appl. Acoust.
2011, 72, 350–363. [CrossRef]
12. Berardi, U.; Iannace, G. Acoustic characterization of natural fibers for sound absorption applications.
Build. Environ. 2015, 94, 840–852. [CrossRef]
13. Mati-Baouche, N.; Baynast, H.; Michaud, P.; Dupont, T.; Leclaire, P. Sound absorption properties of a
sunflower composite made from crushed stem particles and from chitosan bio-binder. Appl. Acoust. 2016,
111, 179–187. [CrossRef]
14. Rwawiire, S.; Tomkova, B.; Militky, J.; Hes, L.; Kale, B.M. Acoustic and thermal properties of a cellulose
nonwoven natural fabric (barkcloth). Appl. Acoust. 2017, 116, 177–183. [CrossRef]
15. López, J.P.; El-Mansouri, N.E.; Alba, J.; Del-Rey, R.; Mutjé, P.; Vilaseca, F. Acoustic properties of polypropylene
composites reinforced with stone groundwood. BioResources 2012, 7, 4586–4599. [CrossRef]
16. Arenas, J.P.; Rebolledo, J.; Del Rey, R.; Alba, J. Sound absorption properties of unbleached cellulose loose-fill
insulation material. BioResources 2014, 9, 6227–6240. [CrossRef]
17. Reixach, R.; Del Rey, R.; Alba, J.; Arbat, G.; Espinach, F.X.; Mutjé, P. Acoustic properties of agroforestry waste
orange pruning fibers reinforced polypropylene composites as an alternative to laminated gypsum boards.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 77, 124–129. [CrossRef]
18. Del Rey, R.; Alba, J.; Ramis, J.; Sanchis, V. New absorbent acoustics materials from plastic bottle remnants.
Mater. Constr. 2011, 61, 547–558. [CrossRef]
19. Ramis, J.; Alba, J.; Del Rey, R.; Escuder, E.; Sanchís, V. New absorbent material acoustic based on kenaf’s
fibre. Mater. Constr. 2010, 60, 133–143. [CrossRef]
20. Baxter, B.P.; Cottle, D.J. Fibre Diameter Distribution Characteristics of Midside (Fleece) Samples and Their
Use in Sheep Breeding. In Proceedings of the Boston Meeting of the International Wool Textile Organization,
Boston, MA, USA, May 1997.
21. Ingard, K.U.; Dear, T.A. Measurement of Acoustic Flow Resistance. J. Sound Vib. 1985, 103, 567–572.
[CrossRef]
22. Dragonetti, R.; Ianniello, C.; Romano, A.R. Measurement of the resistivity of porous materials with an
alternating air-flow method. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 129, 753–764. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Del Rey, R.; Alba, J.; Arenas, J.P.; Ramis, J. Evaluation of two alternative procedures for measuring airflow
resistance of sound absorbing materials. Arch. Acoust. 2013, 38, 547–554.
Materials 2017, 10, 1277 11 of 11

24. Acoustics-Determination of Sound Absorption Coefficient and Impedance in Impedance Tubes-Part 2: Transfer-function
Method; ISO 10534-2; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998.
25. Acoustics-Measurement of Sound Absorption in a Reverberation Room; ISO 354; International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
26. Acoustics-Sound Absorbers for Use in Buildings-Rating of Sound Absorption; ISO 11654; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
27. Del Rey, R.; Alba, J.; Arenas, J.P.; Sanchis, V. An empirical modelling of porous sound absorbing materials
made of recycled foam. Appl. Acoust. 2012, 73, 604–609.
28. Delany, M.E.; Bazley, E.N. Acoustical properties of fibrous absorbent materials. Appl. Acoust. 1970, 3, 105–116.
[CrossRef]
29. Lindfield, G.; Penny, J. Numerical Methods using MATLAB, Ellis Horwood Series in Mathematics & Its Applications;
Prentice Hall PTR: Upper Saddle River, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 269–283.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).