Next Article in Journal
Degradation Behavior and Mechanical Integrity of a Mg-0.7Zn-0.6Ca (wt.%) Alloy: Effect of Grain Sizes and Crystallographic Texture
Next Article in Special Issue
Quality and Quantity Assessment of the Water Repellent Properties of Functional Clothing Materials after Washing
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanical Properties and Axial Compression Deformation Property of Steel Fiber Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete Containing High Level Fly Ash
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Electro-Conductive Compression Knits Wearing Conditions on Heating Characteristics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/ma15093139
materials-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

Acoustic Performance of Sound Absorbing Materials Produced from Wool of Local Mountain Sheep

by
Katarzyna Kobiela-Mendrek
1,
Marcin Bączek
1,
Jan Broda
1,*,
Monika Rom
1,
Ingvild Espelien
2 and
Ingun Klepp
3
1
Faculty of Materials, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Bielsko-Biala, Willowa 2, 43-309 Bielsko-Biala, Poland
2
Selbu Spinneri, Amundalsvegen 91, 7540 Klæbu, Norway
3
Consumption Research Norway SIFO, Oslo Metropolitan University, Stensberggata 27, 0130 Oslo, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(9), 3139; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093139
Submission received: 16 March 2022 / Revised: 14 April 2022 / Accepted: 24 April 2022 / Published: 26 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Multifunctional Textiles: Materials, Technologies and Production Processes)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wool of mountain sheep, treated nowadays as a waste or troublesome byproduct of sheep husbandry, was used for the production of sound-absorbing materials. Felts of two different thicknesses were produced from loose fibres. Additionally, two types of yarn, ring spun and core rug, were obtained. The yarns were used for the production of tufted fabric with cut and loop piles. During the examinations, basic parameters of the obtained materials were determined. Then, according to standard procedure with the use of impedance tube, the sound absorption coefficient was measured, and the noise reduction coefficient (NRC) was calculated. It was revealed that felt produced from coarse wool exhibits high porosity, and its sound absorbing capacity is strongly related to the felt thickness. For thicker felt the NRC achieved 0.4, which is comparable with the NRC of commercial ceiling tiles. It was shown that the crucial parameter influencing the sound absorption of the tufted fabrics was the pile height. For both types of yarns, when the height of the pile was increased from 12 to 16 mm, the NRC increased from 0.4 to 0.42. The manufactured materials made from local wool possess good absorption capacity, similar to commercial products usually made from more expensive wool types. The materials look nice and can be used for noise reduction as inner acoustic screens, panels, or carpets.

1. Introduction

For centuries, sheep wool was one of the important natural fibres commonly used for the production of apparel textiles, carpets, and blankets [1,2]. In recent decades, due to the rapid development of synthetic fibres and availability of competitive products in the market, the demand for wool has decreased significantly. In this situation, some new products designed mainly for technical applications were developed [3,4]. These new products include insulating materials [5,6,7], geotextiles [8,9,10], oil sorbents [11,12], and heavy metal absorbing materials [13,14,15].
The most applicable new wool products include insulating materials used in the construction industry. They provide good thermal and acoustic insulation and can be used as a substitute for common insulating materials such as mineral wool, polyester, and polyurethane foam [16,17]. Numerous investigations have revealed that materials manufactured from wool sufficiently dampen normal speech and possess excellent sound-absorbing ability, especially in regard to medium and high frequencies [18,19,20,21,22]. Contrary to other raw materials used for the production of soundproofing materials, wool is renewable, biodegradable, and naturally fire resistant. The enzymes break down the wool keratin into low molecular compounds, so wool buried in soil can degrade completely within several months [23,24]. Due to its high ignition temperature (close to 600 °C) wool is difficult to ignite [25]. When burning, it reveals a low propensity for flame spread, produces little smoke, does not melt or drip, emits low amount of toxic substances, and is easily extinguished.
Wool’s acoustic insulation properties were used to develop different commercial products. One group of products available on the market are mats, batts, or panels intended for insulation of roofs, walls, and ceilings [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. They are designed mostly to insulate closed spaces and, as with other insulating materials, they need to be protected with covering materials.
The second group includes interior products, which are used to reduce noise inside houses, offices, and public facilities. These materials provide comfortable acoustic conditions and contribute to creating a pleasant indoor environment. The products are multifunctional, modify the microclimate, and not only improve the hearing experience but also influence other senses, such as sight, smell, and touch. They are designed to be exposed and decorate the interior. Due to their high moisture absorption ability and high heat of adsorption, wool materials prevent water condensation, regulate indoor humidity and temperature, and create a comfortable microclimate. Thanks to their ability to absorb volatile organic compounds, these products trap air pollutants and eliminate unpleasant smells in the room [33,34]. Even when heated, the products do not release the absorbed gases and may continue to purify the indoor air for up to 30 years.
Wool acoustic insulation materials used in interiors include screens/dividers, wall/ceiling panels, and rugs/carpets. Screens and space dividers are often used in offices to improve the acoustics of the workplace and to create private workspaces for employees in open office arrangements. Wall and ceiling panels installed either as single larger elements or as smaller tiles put together in clusters become a form of decoration and improve both the acoustic comfort and aesthetic qualities of the space. Rugs and carpets used as floor covers effectively reduce noise and minimize reverberation times.
The abovementioned products can be made using different techniques. The possible manufacturing methods include the already known traditional wool processing techniques: spinning, knitting, weaving, and tufting. Additionally, certain products can be manufactured using nonwoven and other unique techniques designed for special purposes.
Depending on the technique used, products with different structures and various acoustic performance can be developed [35,36,37,38]. The results of numerous studies of wool fabrics, nonwovens, and carpets can be found in the literature [39,40,41].
The review of the commercial products shows that sound absorbing materials offered on the market are manufactured from fine merino wool or other kinds of thin and soft wool, which is often transported from the other end of the world [42,43]. One can suppose that merino wool is more commonly used due to its greater availability on the world markets, rather than its superior sound absorption properties. Few attempts have shown that similar good sound absorption may be achieved using coarser wool obtained from local sheep breeds [44].
At the moment, local wool is discarded in many European countries and treated as an embarrassing and unnecessary byproduct of sheep husbandry [45,46,47,48,49]. Production of sound absorbing materials from this wool seems to be a reasonable alternative for its utilization.
During the investigations reported herein, several sound-absorbing materials designed for indoor applications were produced. The material used was a coarse sheep wool from the Polish local mountain breed. The insulating materials were manufactured by means of felting and tufting techniques. The acoustic performance of the materials, in dependence on their structural parameters, was analysed, and the sound absorption abilities of various products were compared.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Raw Wool

The raw material used for the production of sound absorbing materials was wool of Polish Mountain Sheep. The breed is well adapted to long treks, steep and hardly-accessible pastures, and harsh climatic mountainous conditions. The fleece is mainly white with occasional brown or black variations (Figure 1). The wool used in the investigations was from the coloured variety.
The fleece of mountain sheep is not homogeneous. It consists of more delicate wool, which forms the undercoat, guarded hairs forming the outer coat, and kemp (Figure 2). The average diameter and length of wool equalled 36 µm with a standard deviation of 9 µm and 60 mm with a standard deviation of 16 mm, respectively. The same parameters for guarded hairs amounted to 64 µm, with a standard deviation of 11 µm and 120 mm with a standard deviation of 26 mm. The content of particular fractions varied considerably between individual animals. The wool content varied from less than 35% to as much as 65% of the fleece weight. The kemp content in the fleece usually equalled 5–20%.

2.1.2. Preparation of Sound Absorbing Materials

The sound absorbing materials with different structures were manufactured according to the scheme (Figure 3). Felt and the yarns were manufactured in a spinning mill Selbu Spinneri (Klæbu, Norway). The mill is used for small scale wool processing and is equipped with carding and spinning machines supplied by Belfast Mini Mills (Belfast, PE, Canada) and Ramella (Biella, Italy). Tufted fabrics were manufactured in Sztuka Beskidzka (Czechowice-Dziedzice, Poland).
Felt was produced from the wool obtained from various fleeces without quality sorting. After scouring and removing plant contaminants, the raw wool was carded. During the process, an essential amount of kemp was removed. The machine used was the Felt Maker plate (Belfast Mini Mils). A layer of carded web was laid out on the bottom plate of the device and covered with transversely arranged layers. The four-layer stack was wetted with hot water and then with a solution of basic soap with pH 8. In a further step, the stack was loaded with the upper plate and felted for half an hour. Finally, the felt was washed and rinsed in warm water and dried at room temperature.
To produce the ring-spun yarns, the card web was formed into slivers, which were then drawn twice on a pin drafter. Drawn slivers were spun into yarns by the classic ring spinning technique. In this way, a single yarn 400 tex Z170 was obtained. In the next step, three single yarns were twisted together and finished. The final product was a three-ply yarn 400 tex Z 170 × 3 S 60; R 1240 tex (Figure 4a).
The core rug yarns were manufactured using the Rug Yarn Maker (Belfast Mini Mills). In the process, the card web was removed directly from the doffer of the carding machine and wrapped around a core formed from the previously spun wool yarn. The final product was a thick yarn with a linear density of 4 ktex and a diameter of 8–20 mm (Figure 4b).
The yarns were used to produce tufted fabrics with a manual pneumatic gun. The yarns were punched by the tubular needle of the gun into a prestretched primary backing mounted on a frame. The primary backing was a polyester plain weave cloth with the square set equal to 70 threads/dm and with both yarns’ linear density of 180 tex. To prevent the pile from being pulled out, a secondary backing was bonded with latex. The secondary backing was a leno fabric of polypropylene warp with a linear density of 33 tex and an acryl weft with a linear density of 125 tex. The warp and the weft sets for this fabric were 64 threads/dm and 40 threads/dm, respectively. Fabrics with cut and loop piles with a nominal height of 12 and 16 mm were obtained using the ring spun yarn (Figure 5). The core rug yarn was used to produce fabrics with loop piles of two different heights—12 and 16 mm (Figure 6).

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Measurement of Materials Parameters

The fibre thickness was determined with a light microscope coupled with the image Aphelion Dev software. The length of the fibres was determined separately for the guarded hair and the wool, in accordance with PN-ISO 6989:2000. The fibre surface morphology was examined by means of a JEOL JSM 5500 LV scanning electron microscope. The microscopic observations were carried out for fibres sputtered with gold in a JEOL JFC 1200 ionic sputter.
The surface density, thickness, and air permeability of the felt and tufted fabrics were determined in accordance with PN-EN ISO 9863–1:2007, PN-EN ISO 9864:2007, and PN-EN ISO 9237:1998 standards. The measurements were performed using a thickness gauge Tilmet 73 (Lodz, Poland) and a permeabilimeter FX 3300 Textest AG Instrument (Schwerzenbach, Switzerland). For each parameter, the mean value from 10 measurements and the 95% confidence interval was determined.

2.2.2. Measurement of Sound Absorbing Coefficient

The acoustic performance of the materials was measured using a Brüel & Kjaer standing wave tube coupled with a loudspeaker placed at the end of it. During the measurements, a one-dimensional acoustic field was generated inside the tube. A plane sound wave was propagated in the tube and then reflected at the other end of it. As a result of the interference of the reflected wave with the incident wave inside the tube, a standing wave was formed with the sound pressure maxima and minima. By introducing the investigated sample in front of the hard termination, part of the energy of the incident wave was absorbed, and the energy of the reflected wave was reduced. As a consequence, the sound pressure maxima decreased and the minima increased. The sound absorption coefficient was calculated based on the ratio of the measured maximum and minimum standing wave sound pressure.
The measurements were carried out for round samples with the diameter of 100 mm in third-octave intervals within the frequency band of 250–3150 Hz. During the measurements, the sound absorption coefficient α was determined; then, the noise reduction coefficient (NRC) was calculated. The NRC was determined as the average value of the sound absorption coefficients at frequencies of 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz.

3. Results

3.1. Properties of Materials

The values of the parameters of the sound absorbing materials are summarised in Table 1.
During the investigations, two felts with two different thicknesses—9.9 and 19.5 mm were obtained. For the thicker felt, which was twice as high as the thinner one, the surface density was respectively two times higher, while the air permeability was almost two times lower. The tufted fabrics were produced at two different pile heights—12 and 16 mm—set on the tufting gun. The measured thickness takes into account the pile layer, the backing fabrics, and the latex layer. With the additional layers, the thickness of the fabrics with the 12 mm piles equalled approximately 14 mm. For the 16 mm piles, the thickness reached approximately 16 mm for the ring spun yarn and even 18 mm for the core rug yarn. Consequently, the higher the pile, the higher the surface density. Compared to the fabrics made from the ring spun yarn, the surface density for the thick core rug yarn was greater. The increase in fabric thickness and surface density was strictly related to the decrease in their air permeability. For the ring spun yarn, when the height of the cut piles grew by only 2 mm, the air permeability dropped by 40%. The air permeability of the loop piles dropped even threefold.
Because of the too high fabric thickness, the air permeability measurement of the thicker fabric made from the core rug yarn was unworkable. In this case, the comparison between thinner and thicker samples was impossible.

3.2. Sound Absorption Capacity

The dependence between the noise absorption coefficient and the sound wave frequency for two samples of felt of different thicknesses is presented in Figure 7.
For both samples, at low sound wave frequency the α coefficient was low, from 0.1 to 0.15. Above 500 Hz, when the frequency grew, the α coefficient increased significantly, and at 2000 Hz, it reached a value of 0.79 for the thinner sample and 0.84 for the thicker one. At a frequency above 2000 Hz, a further increase in the coefficient was less meaningful. At the highest frequency of 3150 Hz, the α achieved the highest value of 0.89 and 0.95 for thin and thick felt, respectively. At all frequencies, the measured coefficient of the thicker sample was 0.15–2.2 higher.
Similar to the felt, the lowest value of the α coefficient for the tufted fabrics was observed at low frequencies. As the frequency increased, the α coefficient rose significantly until the frequency was 2000 Hz. Above this value, no further increase in the coefficient was observed (Figure 8 and Figure 9).
For the fabrics manufactured from the ring spun yarn, as the frequency increased from low to medium, the α coefficient increased from 0.15 to almost 0.9. For the fabric with cut piles, at the highest measured frequencies the coefficient achieved the value of 0.96 for the 12 mm piles and even 0.99 for the 16 mm piles. Similar maximum values were observed for the fabrics with loop piles. For this type of fabric, at all frequencies the coefficient was slightly higher in the samples with the higher piles.
The increments of the α coefficient were very similar for all the fibres manufactured from the core yarn. The coefficient grew steadily until 2000 Hz. Then, at higher frequencies, it achieved the maximum value of 0.96 for the 12 mm piles and 0.98 for the 16 mm piles.
The values of the Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) calculated for all the investigated samples are presented in Figure 10. The NRC was relatively low for the thinner felt. It was much higher for the thicker felt and reached the level determined for tufted fabrics. For all the tufted fabrics made both of the ring spun and the core rug yarns, the NRC value was between 0.4 and 0.43. For both types of yarn, the greater the pile height, the slightly higher the NRC value.

4. Discussion

The sound absorption ability of materials produced from mountain sheep wool is comparable with other wool acoustic insulation materials. Like other wool absorbers, the obtained materials possess low sound absorption capacity at low sound wave frequency and good capacity at medium and higher frequencies. The values of the sound absorption coefficient and noise reduction coefficient correspond well to those of commercial products made from merino wool and other wool articles produced with various textile techniques [50,51]. It is well known that sound absorption of insulating materials depends on many factors. For fibrous insulating materials consisting of randomly oriented loose fibres, it depends mainly on the fibre packing density and the product’s geometrical dimensions. For insulating textiles, the sound absorbing capacity is also strongly affected by the textile structure, which is the result of manufacturing technique and production parameters.
During the investigations, two techniques were applied to produce the sound absorbing materials: felting and tufting. Felting involves compression and consolidation of loose fibres by mechanical and chemical action in higher temperature and in a moist environment. The final product is felt which is likely the oldest textile structure known to mankind (Figure 11a). The felting ability is unique for the wool fibres, mainly thanks to the scales on the surface of the fibres (Figure 11b). During the reciprocal movements, the scales covering the adjacent fibres interlock with one another and form a compact felt structure.
Due to their low diameter, high crimp, and high scale frequency, fine wool fibres show good feltability [52,53]. Less flexible coarse fibres typical for mountain sheep are less prone to felting. Coarser fibres give felt a hairy appearance and significantly reduce its softness. Moreover, coarse fibres are usually accompanied by a higher proportion of stiff and brittle kemp, which considerably reduces wool feltability and even makes felting impossible. To improve the feltability of coarse wool, at least partial removal of kemp is necessary [54]. In the process of manufacturing felt from the mountain sheep wool, the kemp was partially removed during carding. The fibrous web obtained had sufficient felting ability and felt with reasonable quality could be formed.
Felt is composed entirely of tangled and physically interlocked fibres. They form a highly porous structure with a great number of built-in capillary channels and numerous interconnected pores in the micron and submicron scale. The porous structure provides high air permeability and accessibility of sound waves. Incidental sound waves entering the felt cause vibrations of air molecules accumulated within the pores between the fibres. The oscillating air molecules rub irregular interstices and lose their energy as a result of friction. Eventually, the energy of the sound wave is transformed into thermal and viscous heat, which is finally dissipated [26].
Intensive investigations into the sound absorption of the wool felt confirmed that it was a strongly dissipative and dispersive material with a strong damping effect [55,56]. High sound absorption capacity and extraordinary acoustic properties of wool felt have been long known and are commercially utilized in piano manufacturing. For almost two centuries, it has been used to coat piano hammers, to produce piano dampers, as well as isolating pads ensuring vibration isolation between the vibrating strings and the cast iron frame.
In housing construction, wool felt is commercially applied for the production of interior soundproofing materials to improve the acoustic comfort and reduce the reverberation resonances in the room [36]. For these materials the NRC, which is a quantitative measure of a material’s potential for reverberation control, is above 0.4.
In the investigated samples, the NRC of the thinner felt equals 0.31, which was approximately 0.1 below the level of commercial products. The NRC of the thicker felt was higher, and its values were comparable with those of the commercial soundproofing ceiling tiles.
Similarly to fibrous insulating materials formed from randomly oriented fibres, the acoustic properties of felt depend on its packing density and thickness. The packing density of felt made from coarse, mountain sheep wool is relatively low. In this case, empty spaces between the fibres were larger, and the porosity of the felt was higher in comparison to the felt obtained from fine fibres [57]. The felt had low surface density and high air permeability. As a result, the NRC of the thinner sample was lower. The air permeability decreases with greater thickness, and the path length of the sound wave passing through the material is longer. Thus, viscosity losses, which convert acoustic energy into heat, are greater, and sound absorption is more effective [21,30].
The second technique used for the production of insulating materials involved stitching yarn into the backing fabric to create loop, cut, or mixed pile with a different height. Wool tufted carpets are highly effective in controlling noise in buildings. The carpets absorb airborne sound, reduce surface noise generation, and the impact of sound transmission between the stories in multi-storey buildings. Additionally, tufted carpets virtually eliminate floor impact sounds such as the noise produced by footfalls, furniture moved across the floor, and objects dropped on the floor.
During the investigations, the tufting technique was used to produce tufted fabrics from ring spun and core rug yarns.
The ring spun yarn manufactured with the classic ring spinning technique was composed of twisted fibres laying around one another in concentric helical paths. Friction forces between the fibres enhanced the adhesive forces and prevented the fibres from slipping under the tensile strain. The yarn had properties that enabled the production of fabrics with the tufting technique. It was flexible enough to provide loop piles and had a relatively low thickness to be easily cut with a knife of a tufting gun. Tufted fabrics with both cut and loop piles with two different heights were easily obtained from this yarn. For both cut and loop piles, the determined coefficients achieved the same value at the same pile height. For both types of piles, higher sound absorption was observed for the higher piles.
The other type of yarn, namely the core rug yarn, was obtained by twisting a fibrous web around the core yarn produced in a separate process. The structure of the core rug yarn was less compact, which creates the risk of the fibres being pulled out during pile cutting. Due to this risk and the high linear density, which hindered cutting and causes fast blunting of the tufting gun knives, it was impossible to form fabric with cut piles. For this reason, for core rug yarn only fabrics with loop piles were obtained. The sound absorption coefficients for these fabrics were similar to the ones for the fabrics obtained from the ring spun yarn, and as with the ring spun yarn, the NRC was higher at greater pile height.
Obviously, increasing the pile height for both types of yarns was connected with a greater thickness and a higher surface density of the tufted fabrics. This change led to a significant reduction in air permeability, which greatly affected the sound absorption capacity. Moreover, higher piles are more prone to deformation, which in turn increases their tortuosity and lengthens the path of the sound wave moving inside the fabrics.
The results obtained show that the acoustic performance of the tufted fabrics was not affected by the structure and parameters of the pile yarns. The results confirmed the previous findings of other authors, namely that the thickness of the fibres and structure of the pile yarn have relatively less effect on the acoustic performance of tufted fabrics [58]. The investigations clearly show that the noise absorption coefficients were strongly dependent on the pile height. This finding is consistent with previous results obtained for wool, acrylic, and polypropylene carpets [59,60,61].
The sound absorbing materials were manufactured from coarse wool of naturally coloured fleeces. For years, white fibres were more appreciated and had greater economic value because they could be dyed different colours. The investigation showed that the coloured variety can serve as valuable raw material to manufacture products with good acoustic performance. In this way, ecologically correct, environmentally sustainable, attractive, more rustic, and natural-looking materials can be obtained. Using a combination of white and naturally coloured wool allows obtaining various colouristic effects of the final products.

5. Conclusions

Coarse wool obtained from mountain sheep can be used to produce attractive sound absorbing materials. The sound absorption coefficients of these materials were similar to those of other products available on the market, usually made from more expensive wool types. The materials produced, both felt and tufted fabrics, can be successfully used for reverberation control and improvement of noise comfort in rooms. In addition to their insulating functions, the materials can also be decorative. The use of local wool to produce sound absorbing materials can serve as a reasonable solution for the utilization of wool obtained from the mountain sheep. In this way local wool treated in many European countries as waste can be used to produce valuable products.
Acoustic properties of the produced materials depend on their structure and parameters. The sound absorption of felt formed from randomly oriented, tangled, and physically interlocked fibres depends mainly on the fibre packing density and felt thickness. Wool from the mountain sheep is thick; therefore, it is difficult to achieve dense packing of these fibres. Less packed felt is highly porous and, consequently, possesses higher air permeability. As a result, its sound absorption is lower, compared to felt made from fine wool, and may be insufficient for some applications. A higher level of sound absorption can be achieved through increasing the felt thickness.
Tufted fabrics can be manufactured from yarns with different structure and parameters. The ring spun yarn produced from coarse wool has adequate flexibility to be used to produce fabrics with both cut and loop piles. The core rug yarns are much thicker, stiff, and difficult to cut with a tufting gun; so, only fabrics with loop piles can be made of this yarn. The influence of the structure, pile parameters, and the type of piles on the absorption capacity of tufted fabrics is less distinguished. The absorption capacity of fabrics manufactured from both ring spun and core rug yarns depends on the pile height.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K.-M. and J.B.; methodology, K.K.-M., M.B. and M.R.; formal analysis, J.B. and M.R.; investigation, K.K.-M., M.B. and M.R.; resources, I.E. and I.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.-M. and J.B.; writing—review and editing, K.K.-M., M.R. and J.B.; supervision, J.B. and I.K.; project administration, J.B.; funding acquisition, J.B. and M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has received funding from the Norway Grants via the National Centre for Research and Development (Poland); NOR/POLNOR/WOOLUME/0007/2019-00.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data are presented in the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Grömer, K.; Saliari, K. Dressing Central European prehistory-the sheep’s contribution. An interdisciplinary study about archaeological textile finds and archaeozoology. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien Serie A 2018, 120, 127–156. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rast- Eicher, A.; Jørgensen, L.B. Sheep wool in Bronze Age and Iron Age Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40, 1224–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Allafi, F.; Hossain, M.S.; Lalung, J.; Shaah, M.; Salehadabi, A.; Ahmad, M.I. Advancements in Applications of Natural Wool Fiber: Review. J. Nat. Fibers 2022, 19, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Johnson, N.A.G.; Wood, E.J.; Ingham, P.E.; McNeil, S.J.; McFarlane, I.D. Wool as a Technical Fibre. J. Text. Inst. 2003, 94, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Korjenic, A.; Klarić, S.; Hadžić, A.; Korjenic, S. Sheep Wool as a Construction Material for Energy Efficiency Improvement. Energies 2015, 8, 5765–5781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rubino, C.; Bonet Aracil, M.; Liuzzi, S.; Stefanizzi, P.; Martellotta, F. Wool waste used as sustainable nonwoven for building applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zach, J.; Korjenic, A.; Petránek, V.; Hroudová, J.; Bednar, T. Performance evaluation and research of alternative thermal insulations based on sheep wool. Energy Build. 2012, 49, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Broda, J.; Gawloski, A.; Przybylo, S.; Binias, D.; Rom, M.; Grzybowska-Pietras, J.; Laszczak, R. Innovative wool geotextiles designed for erosion protection. J. Ind. Text. 2017, 48, 599–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Broda, J.; Gawlowski, A. Influence of Sheep Wool on Slope Greening. J. Nat. Fibers 2020, 17, 820–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marczak, D.; Lejcus, K.; Misiewicz, J. Characteristics of biodegradable textiles used in environmental engineering: A comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122129. [Google Scholar]
  11. Radetić, M.M.; Jocić, D.M.; Jovančić, P.M.; Petrović, Z.; Thomas, H.F. Recycled Wool-Based Nonwoven Material as an Oil Sorbent. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 1008–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Radetic, M.; Ilic, V.; Radojevic, D.; Miladinovic, R.; Jocic, D.; Jovancic, P. Efficiency of recycled wool-based nonwoven material for the removal of oils from water. Chemosphere 2008, 70, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Laurie, S.H.; Barraclough, A. Use of waste wool for the removal of mercury from industrial effluents, particularly those from the chlor-alkali industry. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 1979, 14, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Naik, R.; Wen, G.; Kureau, S.; Uedono, A.; Wand, X.; Liu, X.; Cookson, P.G.; Smith, S.V. Metal ion binding properties of novel wool powders. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 115, 1642–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Saha, S.; Zubair, Z.; Khosa, M.A.; Song, S.; Ullah, A. Keratin and Chitosan Biosorbents for Wastewater Treatment: A Review. J. Polym. Environ. 2019, 27, 1389–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ballagh, K.O. Acoustical properties of wool. Appl. Acoust. 1996, 48, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Asdrubali, F.; Schiavoni, S.; Horoshenkov, K. A Review of Sustainable Materials for Acoustic Applications. Build. Acoust. 2012, 19, 283–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bousshine, S.; Ouakarrouch, M.; Bybi, A.; Laaroussi, N.; Garoum, M.; Tilioua, A. Acoustical and thermal characterization of sustainable materials derived from vegetable, agricultural, and animal fibers. Appl. Acoust. 2022, 187, 108520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Del Rey, R.; Uris, A.; Alba, J.; Candelas, P. Characterization of Sheep Wool as a Sustainable Material for Acoustic Applications. Materials 2017, 10, 1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Nordin, M.; Wan, L.; Zainulabidin, M.; Kassim, A.; Mohd Aripin, A. Research finding in natural fibers sound absorbing material. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2016, 11, 8579–8584. [Google Scholar]
  21. Seddeq, H.S.; Aly, N.M.; Marwa, A.; Elshakankery, M.H. Investigation on sound absorption properties for recycled fibrous materials. J. Ind. Text. 2012, 43, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, S.; Yu, W.; Pan, N. Investigation of the sound-absorbing behavior of fiber assemblies. Text. Res. J. 2010, 81, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Broda, J.; Kobiela-Mendrek, K.; Rom, M.; Grzybowska-Pietras, J.; Przybylo, S.; Laszczak, R. Biodegradation of Wool Used for the Production of Innovative Geotextiles Designed to Erosion Control. RILEM Bookseries 2016, 12, 351–361. [Google Scholar]
  24. Korniłłowicz-Kowalska, T.; Bohacz, J. Biodegradation of keratin waste: Theory and practical aspects. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1689–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cardamone, J.M. Flame resistant wool and wool blends. In Handbook of Fire Resistant Textiles; Kilinc, F.S., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2013; pp. 245–271. [Google Scholar]
  26. Berardi, U.; Iannace, G.; di Gabriele, M. Characterization of sheep wool panels for room acoustic applications. Proc. Meet. Acoust. 2016, 28, 15001. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bosia, D.; Savio, L.; Thiebat, F.; Patrucco, A.; Fantucci, S.; Piccablotto, G.; Marino, D. Sheep Wool for Sustainable Architecture. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Corscadden, K.W.; Biggs, J.N.; Stiles, D.K. Sheep’s wool insulation: A sustainable alternative use for a renewable resource? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 86, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Patnaik, A.; Mvubu, M.; Muniyasamy, S.; Botha, A.; Anandjiwala, R.D. Thermal and sound insulation materials from waste wool and recycled polyester fibers and their biodegradation studies. Energy Build. 2015, 92, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Qui, H.; Enhui, Y. Effect of Thickness, Density and Cavity Depth on the Sound Absorption Properties of Wool Boards. Autex Res. J. 2018, 18, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Tămaş-Gavrea, D.R.; Dénes, T.O.; Iştoan, R.; Tiuc, A.E.; Manea, D.L.; Vasile, O. A Novel Acoustic Sandwich Panel Based on Sheep Wool. Coatings 2020, 10, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Ye, Z.; Wells, C.M.; Carrington, C.G.; Hewitt, N.J. Thermal conductivity of wool and wool–hemp insulation. Int. J. Energy Res. 2006, 30, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hegyi, A.; Bulacu, C.; Szilagyi, H.; Lazarescu, A.V.; Matja, V.; Vizureanu, P.; Sandu, M. Improving Indoor Air Quality by Using Sheep Wool Thermal Insulation. Materials 2021, 14, 2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Mansour, E.; Curling, S.; Stéphan, A.; Ormondroyd, G. Absorption of volatile organic compounds by different wool types. Green Mater. 2016, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Arsalan, A.; Memon, H.; Khoso, A. Considerations while designing Acoustic Home Textiles: A Review. J. Text. Appar. Technol. Manag. 2015, 9, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  36. Segura Alcaraz, M.P.; Bonet-Aracil, M.; Julià Sanchís, E.; Segura Alcaraz, J.G.; Seguí, I.M. Textiles in architectural acoustic conditioning: A review. J. Text. Inst. 2022, 113, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Soltani, P.; Zerrebini, M. The analysis of acoustical characteristics and sound absorption coefficient of woven fabrics. Text. Res. J. 2012, 82, 875–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Soltani, P.; Zarrebini, M. Acoustic performance of woven fabrics in relation to structural parameters and air permeability. J. Text. Inst. 2013, 104, 1011–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ford, R.D.; Bakker, P.G.H. The acoustical properties of various carpet and underlay combinations. J. Text. Inst. 1984, 75, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Küçük, M.; Korkmaz, Y. The effect of physical parameters on sound absorption properties of natural fiber mixed nonwoven composites. Text. Res. J. 2012, 82, 2043–2053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Puranik, P.R.; Parmar, R.; Rana, P.P.; Ghandhy, S.S.; Gate, M. Nonwoven acoustic textiles—A review. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2014, 5, 8. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sigaard, A.S.; Berg, L.L.; Klepp, I.G. Woolume: Potential New Products from Vacant Wool. 2021. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2839326 (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  43. Sigaard, A.S.; Haugronning, V. Woolume: Mapping the Market for Acoustic and Sound Absorbing Products Made of Wool. 2021. Available online: https://oda.oslomet.no/oda-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2773899/SIFO-Report%209-2021%20Woolume.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  44. Ghermezgoli, Z.M.; Moezzi, M.; Yekrang, J.; Rafat, S.A.; Soltani, P.; Barez, F. Sound absorption and thermal insulation characteristics of fabrics made of pure and crossbred sheep waste wool. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 35, 102060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kicinska- Jakubowska, A.; Morales Villavicencio, A.; Zimniewska, M.; Przybylska, P.; Kwiatkowska, E. Evaluation of Wool Quality Parameters of Polish Sheep Breeds. J. Nat. Fibers 2021, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Milán, M.J.; Frendi, F.; González-González, R.; Caja, G. Cost structure and profitability of Assaf dairy sheep farms in Spain. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 5239–5249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Rajabinejad, H.; Buciscanu, I.I.; Maier, S. Current Approaches for Raw Wool Waste Management and Unconventional Valorization: A Review. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2018, 18, 1439–1456. [Google Scholar]
  48. Vagnoni, E.; Carrino, C.; Dibenedetto, N.; Pieragostini, E.; Consenti, B. The enhancement of native sheep’s wool: Three case studies from some Italian regions. Small Rumin. Res. 2015, 135, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Haugrønning, H.; Broda, J.; Espelien, I.S.; Klepp, I.G.; Kobiela-Mendrek, K.; Rom, M.; Sigaard, A.S.; Tobiasson, T.S. Upping the WOOLUME: Waste Prevention Based on Optimal Use of Materials. In Local, Slow and Sustainable Fashion; Klepp, I.G., Tobiasson, T.S., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 2, pp. 61–82. [Google Scholar]
  50. Broda, J.; Bączek, M. Acoustic Properties of Multi-Layer Wool Nonwoven Structures. J. Nat. Fibers 2020, 17, 1156–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, J.; Liu, X.; Xu, Y.; Bao, W. The acoustic characteristics of dual-layered porous nonwovens: A theoretical and experimental analysis. J. Text. Inst. 2014, 105, 1076–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, X.; Wang, X. A Comparative Study on the Felting Propensity of Animal Fibers. Text. Res. J. 2007, 77, 957–963. [Google Scholar]
  53. Gurkan Unal, P.; Atav, R. Determination of the relationship between fiber characteristics and felting tendency of luxury fibers from various origins. Text. Res. J. 2017, 88, 636–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Asm, R.; Shakyawar, D.; Kumar, A.; Pareek, P.; Temani, P. Feltability of coarse wool and its application as technical felt. Indian J. Fibre Text. Res. 2013, 38, 395–399. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kartofelev, D.; Stulov, A. Propagation of deformation waves in wool felt. Acta Mech. 2014, 225, 3103–3113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kartofelev, D.; Stulov, A. Wave propagation and dispersion in microstructured wool felt. Wave Motion 2015, 57, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Silva, P.; Navarro, M.; Bessa, J.; Coelho, A.; Cunha, F.; Fangueiro, R. Influence of Fibre Diameter on the Wool-Based Felt Properties. Mater. Circ. Econ. 2022, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shoshani, Y.Z.; Wilding, M.A. Effect of Pile Parameters on the Noise Absorption Capacity of Tufted Carpets. Text. Res. J. 1991, 61, 736–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shoshani, Y.Z. Effect of Nonwoven Backings on the Noise Absorption Capacity of Tufted Carpets. Text. Res. J. 1990, 60, 452–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kücük, M.; Korkmaz, Y.N. Acoustic and Thermal Properties of Polypropylene Carpets: Effect of Pile Length and Loop Density. Fibers Polym. 2019, 20, 1519–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kücük, M.; Korkmaz, Y.N. Sound absorption properties of acrylic carpets. J. Text. Inst. 2017, 108, 1398–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 15 03139 g001 550
Figure 1. Polish Mountain Sheep; (a) typical white variety in the mountain pasture; (b) black variety during shearing.
Figure 1. Polish Mountain Sheep; (a) typical white variety in the mountain pasture; (b) black variety during shearing.
Materials 15 03139 g001
Materials 15 03139 g002 550
Figure 2. Wool and guarded hair forming the fleece of mountain sheep.
Figure 2. Wool and guarded hair forming the fleece of mountain sheep.
Materials 15 03139 g002
Materials 15 03139 g003 550
Figure 3. Insulation materials’ production scheme.
Figure 3. Insulation materials’ production scheme.
Materials 15 03139 g003
Materials 15 03139 g004 550
Figure 4. Wool yarns manufactured from mountain sheep wool; (a) ring spun; (b) core rug.
Figure 4. Wool yarns manufactured from mountain sheep wool; (a) ring spun; (b) core rug.
Materials 15 03139 g004
Materials 15 03139 g005 550
Figure 5. Tufted fabrics manufactured from ring spun yarn; (a) loop pile; (b) cut pile.
Figure 5. Tufted fabrics manufactured from ring spun yarn; (a) loop pile; (b) cut pile.
Materials 15 03139 g005
Materials 15 03139 g006 550
Figure 6. Tufted fabrics manufactured from core rug yarn.
Figure 6. Tufted fabrics manufactured from core rug yarn.
Materials 15 03139 g006
Materials 15 03139 g007 550
Figure 7. Sound absorption coefficient in normal incident for wool felts.
Figure 7. Sound absorption coefficient in normal incident for wool felts.
Materials 15 03139 g007
Materials 15 03139 g008 550
Figure 8. Sound absorption coefficient for tufted fabric made from ring spun yarn; (a) cut pile; (b) loop pile.
Figure 8. Sound absorption coefficient for tufted fabric made from ring spun yarn; (a) cut pile; (b) loop pile.
Materials 15 03139 g008
Materials 15 03139 g009 550
Figure 9. Sound absorption coefficient in normal incident for tufted fabric made from core yarn.
Figure 9. Sound absorption coefficient in normal incident for tufted fabric made from core yarn.
Materials 15 03139 g009
Materials 15 03139 g010 550
Figure 10. NRC value for felt and tufted fabrics.
Figure 10. NRC value for felt and tufted fabrics.
Materials 15 03139 g010
Materials 15 03139 g011 550
Figure 11. Wool felt; (a) tangled fibres on the surface; (b) fibres of different thickness covered with scales.
Figure 11. Wool felt; (a) tangled fibres on the surface; (b) fibres of different thickness covered with scales.
Materials 15 03139 g011
Table
Table 1. Basic parameters of sound absorbing materials produced from mountain sheep wool.
Table 1. Basic parameters of sound absorbing materials produced from mountain sheep wool.
MaterialSymbolThickness
mm		Surface Density
g/m2		Air Permeability
l/m2/s
feltF19.9815890
F219.51550512
ring spun yarn
cut piles		RC1214.0370098
RC1616.0410060
ring spun yarn
loop piles		RL1214.93500230
RL1615.8420080
core rug yarnCL1214.24000173
CL1618.14800-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kobiela-Mendrek, K.; Bączek, M.; Broda, J.; Rom, M.; Espelien, I.; Klepp, I. Acoustic Performance of Sound Absorbing Materials Produced from Wool of Local Mountain Sheep. Materials 2022, 15, 3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093139

AMA Style

Kobiela-Mendrek K, Bączek M, Broda J, Rom M, Espelien I, Klepp I. Acoustic Performance of Sound Absorbing Materials Produced from Wool of Local Mountain Sheep. Materials. 2022; 15(9):3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093139

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kobiela-Mendrek, Katarzyna, Marcin Bączek, Jan Broda, Monika Rom, Ingvild Espelien, and Ingun Klepp. 2022. "Acoustic Performance of Sound Absorbing Materials Produced from Wool of Local Mountain Sheep" Materials 15, no. 9: 3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093139

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