Journal of Natural Fibers

ISSN: 1544-0478 (Print) 1544-046X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjnf20

Measuring Methods of Acoustic Properties and

Influence of Physical Parameters on Natural
Fibers: A Review

S Gokulkumar, PR Thyla, L Prabhu & S Sathish

To cite this article: S Gokulkumar, PR Thyla, L Prabhu & S Sathish (2019): Measuring Methods of
Acoustic Properties and Influence of Physical Parameters on Natural Fibers: A Review, Journal of
Natural Fibers

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.1598913

Published online: 06 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjnf20
JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.1598913

Measuring Methods of Acoustic Properties and Influence of

Physical Parameters on Natural Fibers: A Review
S Gokulkumara, PR Thylab, L Prabhua, and S Sathisha
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KPR Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu,
India; bDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Nowadays, the world becomes more contaminated due to various factors Measurement techniques;
such as pollution, global warming and unhealthy human practices. In this acoustic absorption
review paper, noise pollution is taken into major concern which affects coefficient; physical
parameters
quality of human life. Many researchers had attempted many studies to
optimize the sound-absorbing capacity of natural fibers and to replace use 关键词
of non-biodegradable synthetic sound barriers. This review research also 测量技术; 吸声系数; 物理
focuses on the measurement of acoustic absorption coefficient (AAC) 参数.
through various analytical such as Delany–Bazley, Garai–Pompoli and
Biot–Allard method and experimental approaches such as impedance
tube, reverberation room and environment anonymous (EA) noise. In addi-
tion to that, the influence of physical parameters such as fibrous material’s
thickness, density and porosity are also reviewed. It was found that most of
the reviewer used two microphone impedance test tubes for determining
absorption coefficient (α) of natural fiber-reinforced laminates. The more
denser, thicker and porous materials shows better absorption rate than less
denser, thicker and porous materials due to its high polymerization blend-
ing. Finally, these measuring methods are used to enhance the properties
such as absorbing and reflecting in applications like sound recording room,
acoustic baffles, damping sheets, barrier decoupler, etc.

摘要
如今，由于污染、全球变暖和不健康的人类行为等各种因素，世界变得
更加污染.本文综述了噪声污染对人类生活质量的影响.许多研究人员尝试
了许多研究，以优化天然纤维的吸声能力，并取代使用不可生物降解的
合成声屏障.本文还着重介绍了用Delany Bazley、Garai Pompoli、Biot
Allard等多种分析方法和阻抗管、混响室、环境匿名（EA）噪声等实验方
法测量吸声系数（AAC）的方法.此外，还对纤维材料的厚度、密度和气
孔率等物理参数的影响进行了综述.研究发现，大多数研究者使用两个传
声器阻抗测试管来测定天然纤维增强层合板的吸收系数（α）.密度越大、
厚度越厚、多孔材料由于具有较高的聚合共混性，其吸附速率比密度越
小、厚度越厚、多孔材料的好.最后，将这些测量方法应用于录音室、隔
音板、阻尼片、屏障去耦器等应用中，以提高其吸收和反射等性能.

Introduction
In recent era, acoustical or sound damping materials are finding more application in machine
tool applications, automobiles, building barriers, and so on. A green or bio-composite
material made of natural fibers tends to replace the traditional non-biodegradable materials

CONTACT S Gokulkumar gokulkumarmeprof@gmail.com Department of Mechanical Engineering, KPR Institute of

Engineering and Technology, Arasur, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu 641407
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wjnf.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

because of their high specific strength, eco-friendly nature, light weight, high modulus and
low thermal expansion (Arun Ramnath et al. 2018; Kumaresan, Sathish, and Karthi 2015;
Sathish et al. 2017). Readily market available acoustic barriers are in the forms of fibrous,
granular and cellular type. Also they are synthetic tailor made with fibrous materials of rock
wool, glass wool and mineral wool (Ballagh 1996; Nor, Jamaludin, and Tamiri 2004; Wassilieff
1996). These predominantly cause serious health impact in human health and their routine
lifestyle (Zulkifli, Zulkarnain, and Nor 2010). The drawbacks in use of synthetic fibrous
materials lead to the improvisation of controlling acoustics by natural sound absorption
porous panels to study the acoustic attenuation (Tayong, Dupont, and Leclaire 2013). The
sound barriers made of green bio-fibers are less hazardous and eco-friendly to human (Arenas
and Crocker 2010; D‘Alessandro and Pispola 2005). Therefore, seeking concern for human
safety and health-related issues has motivated engineers and researchers to develop alternative
materials as a replacing agent.
The fabrication of laminates with fortification of rubber and plastic polymer-based granular
materials increases the flow resistivity and bulk density which had an impact on low-
frequency sound absorption. Also fiber-grain concoction ratio, fiber and grain size and
chemical groups want to take into account for enhancing low-frequency acoustic absorption
(Maderuelo-Sanz et al. 2013, 2012; Pfretzschner 2002). The fortification of natural fiber with
synthetic granular exhibits more acoustic performance at lesser frequency range. But in view
of human health and hazardous impact on earth, these non-biodegradable absorptive lami-
nates cause serious health-related environmental pollution and also donates highly pathetic
CO2 emission that rises global temperature. Similarly, boichar addition with concrete samples
shows high energy of sound dissipation as interlinked network of porous substance about
NRC of 0.35. (Douglas Cuthbertson et al. 2019). A flax fiber-reinforced sound absorptive
material of thickness about 5.35 mm shows noise mitigation solution for aircraft and marine
industry at low- to mid-frequency range such as 100–1250 Hz and 1250–4000. (Kede Huang
et al. 2018; Sathish et al. 2018). Similarly, samples of sounder absorbers from waste fibers of
sugarcane are produced and their acoustic properties are experimentally investigated. Good
acoustic performance with an average absorption factor of 0.65 is found in 1.2–4.5 kHz.
(Putra et al., 2013). They offer absorbance properties depending on frequency, composition,
height, surface finish, and mounting method, and they include a broad range of sound-
absorbing material. Materials with a high sound absorption factor are usually porous, how-
ever. (Lim et al. 2018; Na and Cho, 2010 ; Qingbo et al. 2015; Tiuc et al., 2016).
Some researchers directed their attention on eco-friendly fibro-granular composites for
encouraging performance (Ekici, Kentli, and Küçük 2012; Borlea et al. 2012; Sakamoto et al.
2011). The reverberation-room method specifies a method of measuring the sound absorption
coefficient of acoustical materials such as space absorbers, ceiling or wall (ISO 354:2003).
Impedance-tube measurement using the standing wave ratio method specifies a method for
the determination of the sound absorption coefficient, reflection factor, surface impedance or
admittance of materials and objects (ISO 10534-1:1996). Impedance-tube measurement using
the transfer function method specifies the use of two microphone impedance tube system for
the determination of the acoustical absorption coefficient of sound absorbers for normal
sound incidence (ISO 354:2003). These three methods are commonly used for the determina-
tion of acoustical or sound properties as shown in Figure 1. The objective of this research
review is to establish the measuring methods of acoustical absorption coefficient of natural
fiber composites combined with porous materials or particulates. The aim of this review is to
give detailed report on acoustical absorption rate on natural fibers and the effective physical
parameters which enhances absorption coefficient.
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 3

Figure 1. Schematic representation of acoustic properties.

Reviews on measuring methods of acoustic properties

The different analytical and experimental analyses are explained in this present research. The analytical
methods such as Delany–Bazley model, Biot–Allard model and Garai and Pompoli model are used
commonly for interpreting impedance characteristics with help of non-acoustical parameter such as
permeability and air-flow resistivity. The experimental methods such as sample and sample chamber,
flow resistance apparatus and acoustic impedance apparatus are used to interpret the acoustical absor-
bance and reflection characteristics as shown in Figure 2. The scope of this review is to express the
detailed information on both the methods and comparative analysis of it.
4 S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

Figure 2. Measuring methods of acoustic properties.

Reviews on analytical measuring methods of acoustic properties

An acoustic absorption coefficient (AAC) (α) as per Delany–Bazley model is derived as follows:
4Rr
ρ0 C 0
/¼
2
2 (1)
4Rr
ρ00 þ1 þ Xr
ρ0 C 0

where ρ0 and C0 are density and speed of the sound with real (Rr) and imaginary components (Xr) of
frequency analysis and flow resistivity of porous material. The method is mainly used in simplified
applications with a wide range of materials having 0.1 < fpσ0 < 0.01. (Dunn and Davern 1986; Lee
and Swenson 1992; Voronina 1994). An AAC (α) as per Biot–Allard model is derived as


f f
z1 z2a μ2  z2 z1a μ1
Z ¼ j (2)
D
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 5

f
where z1 and z1a are transmission impedances for two waves propagating two different medias.
A sound propagation in elastic material for normal incident waves was empirically formulated to
determine the acoustic impedance range. The resonance can be detected by this method. Also, it was
much complicated when compared with the Delany–Bazley model since the bulk properties of
materials are taken as parameters inside and outside diametric circles (Allard and Atalla 2009;
Attenborough 1993).
The best-fitting approach is used as a baseline for Garai–Pompoli model just to categorize the
porous fibers with their densities and diameters. The Garai–Pompoli approach just modified the
Delany–Bazley model with different co-efficient as follows:

ρ 0:623  0:66 !
ρ0f
Zc ¼ ρ0 c 1 þ 0:078 0f
 j 0:074 (3)
σ σ

where ρ0 and C0 are density and speed of the sound (Crocker 2007; Garai and Pompoli 2005).
Therefore, more sophisticated models, such as Johnson–Allard or the Biot–Allard model, consider-
ing different physical elements, may be used to predict the overall absorption and resonance
frequencies accurately (Rwawiire et al. 2017).

Reviews on experimental measuring methods of acoustic properties

A steady air flow of 1 m/s bottled air supply is passed through the sample of diameter of 100 mm at
theoretical upper frequency limit of 2000 Hz for plane sound wave propagation. 12 mm open wire
meshes are attached for retaining samples at each end of the chamber with a sharp beveled edge. It is
more difficult to achieve impedance value for uniform packing of the material in the sample
chamber since loose fibrous materials can easily predictable (Christie 1976).
The air flow resistance test system follows “ASTM C522 test method for airflow resistance of
acoustical material” (Pan and Jackson 2009). Test system package comprises of DAQ (data acquisi-
tion system) including vacuum pump, sample holder and software package. This system may be used
for differential pressure and airflow measurements range between 0–294.1 Pa and 0–15 lpm,
respectively. The preheating chamber is the most essential part of this apparatus. A high-density
mineral wool is packed at latter (Situated near to an end of the apparatus) in order to ensure that the
temperature of the entering and uniform distribution flow across the sample face. Measurements
were set up for four flow point (1–4 lpm) with three hierarchical test orders for every snippet to get
an average resistivity flow data. Many researchers had derived empirical formulae for determining
acoustical impedance based on bulk modulus and density as follows (Bies and Hansen 1980):
Zs ¼ j Zc cotðKc dÞ (4)
Probe microphones are used to measure the sound pressure at each end of snippet. These monitor
probe microphones consist of capacitor microphones with conical adaptors. This method of mea-
surement eliminates the need for calibrated microphones. The frequency span of 63–6300 Hz with
3-Hz resolution took 15 s for the instrument to acquire the absorption spectrum analysis. Usually
two microphones are used for acquiring acoustical impedance experimentally. In rare cases, if the
source is not too close to the surface, an approximation of acoustical impedance is determined by
deriving Somerfield equation (Standard ISO 2001).
The acoustic signal driver generates a random noise and transmits it into the impedance tube.
The frequency is detected by two microphones and the sound pressure is measured. The experi-
mental absorption coefficient can be obtained in a graphic form by the frequency analysis system
that provides a transfer function. The two microphones in the impedance tube were calibrated
relatively to each other by mounting a specimen in the sample holder in order to ensure that the
sound field is inside the tube. The frequency of measurement is 63 Hz–6300 Hz and the coefficient
6 S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

of acoustic absorption α is calculated in this measurement with an interval of 3 Hz and finite-

duration sample records of about 10s (Ayub et al. 2011; Peng et al. 2015).

Reviews on influencing parameters of acoustical absorption coefficient

The foremost important influencing physical parameters among acoustic performance are fiber
thickness and sizes, porosity, air flow resistivity, tortuosity, density, surface impedance, compression,
placement or position, performance of acoustical absorptive materials. Nevertheless, this paper only
concerned reviewed about three physical factors influencing acoustical absorption performance
(Seddeq 2009).

Reviews on effect of thickness of absorptive materials

The thickness of the acoustic absorbent materials plays a vital role in increasing the AAC rate
gradually, since many researchers had attempted many trials on effect of thickness on acoustical
performance and also analytically compared with the Delany–Bazley model, Garai–Pompoli model
and Biot–Allard model. Many literatures stated that the thicker sample shows better acoustical
properties at low-frequency range than the higher values of frequencies (Castagnede et al. 2000).
A summarized analysis on the effect of thickness on acoustical absorption performance of natural
fibers recently done by researchers all over the world is shown in Table 1 and Figure 3. In AL-
Rahman et al. (2012), the date fibers having thickness of 8 mm show 0.83 NRC. It also has density of
11 kg/m3 that indents to enhance the absorption coefficient at low-frequency noise. In this laminate,
the higher dense factor helped thickness parameter for boosting the absorption level. Also, 35 mm
diameter snippet shows 0.84 NRC at 2587.5 Hz of frequency. This leads to high sound absorption at
mid- and high-frequency sound levels. Similarly, the testing of 50 mm diameter of tea leaf fiber
snippet by Ersoy and Küçük (2009) by an impedance test tube method shows 0.7 NRC range and
27.5 kg/m3 density at mid-range frequency of 5600 Hz. This type of snippet can be usable for the
application such as indoor ceiling insulation, acoustic barrier walls, barrier decoupler, etc. According
to Ismail et al. (2010), Arenga pinnata shows 0.88 NRC for 40 mm thickness at high-frequency
range. It can be applied for absorbing high-frequency level applications such as automobile cabinet,
sound recording room, home theaters, etc. Liu et al. (2015) also stated that higher thickness shows
higher sound absorption coefficient. A thickness of 20 mm shows 0.84 NRC. From the analysis of
these researches, it is clearly stated that the thicker snippet shows better NRC than others. In
addition to that, the impedance tests tube method for thicker and denser shows higher rate of
sound coefficient level. Thus, it was observed that thicker samples were found to be exhibiting more
acoustical performance (or) high AAC than the thinner samples at low-frequency range. However,
thinner samples exhibit better sound absorptive properties at high-frequency range.

Reviews on effect of density of absorptive materials

Among three factors chosen in this survey, density is considered as most considerable factor that
strongly influences the acoustical absorption behavior of the material. The fiber’s diameter is an
important microscopic parameter. In general, larger density of the material has more fiber content
per unit area and it will absorb more acoustic energy due to more surfaces frictional between the
sound wave and the fiber elements. Thus it enhances the acoustical absorption coefficient of the
porous materials.
A summarized analysis on the effect of density on acoustical absorption performance of natural
fibers recently done by researchers all over the world is shown in Table 2 and Figure 4. The effect of
density is compared with the same literature review about the effect of thickness. It is clearly proven
that the higher thick and higher dense snippet shows greater NRC. From AL-Rahman et al. (2012),
the denser snippet of 11 kg/m3 shows 0.83 NRC than the other snippets at low-frequency level of
Table 1. A summarized analysis on the effect of thickness on acoustical absorption performance of natural fibers.
Natural fiber Experimental technique (s) applied & Maximum NRC & SAC at peak
Author(s) materials specifications of work material frequency range Inferences
Berardi and Kenaf, wood, Two microphone impedance test tube 0.9 (light kenaf) @ 2000 Hz The method gives reliable solutions as exact experimental
Iannace, 2015 hemp, method & Range from 0.94 (denser kenaf) @ 2000 Hz values. The physical parameters considering as thickness
coconut, 30 mm to 100 mm 0.91 (fiber wood) @ 2000 Hz which influence on output response.
cork, cane, thick 0.4 (mineralized wood) @ 2000 Hz More thickness gives more AAC rate.
cardboard 0.7 (hemp) @ 2000 Hz
and sheep 0.94 (thick coconut fiber) @ 2000 Hz
wool 0.79 (50 mm coconut) @ 2000 Hz
0.86 (cork) @ 2000 Hz
0.68 (mixed cane) @ 2000 Hz
0.66 (wooden cane) @ 2000 Hz
0.89 (bark cane) @ 2000 Hz
0.66 (cardboard) @ 2000 Hz
0.95 (sheep wool) @ 2000 Hz
Ersoy and Küçük Tea-leaf fiber Two microphone impedance test tube 0.26 (25.36 kg/m3) @ 4000 to 6300 Hz The Sound Absorption Coefficient (SAC) is said to be
2009 (TLF) method 0.6 (25.35 kg/m3) @ 6300 Hz maximum when the density is higher at medium peak
& sample range from 30 mm and 50 mm 0.7 (27.5 kg/m3) @5600 Hz frequency range.
Rahman et al. (2012) Date palm Two microphone impedance test tube 0.83 (11 kg/m3) @ 2000 Hz An Acoustical properties AAC rate is found to be higher when
fiber (DPF) method & sample size are 8, 25 and 35 mm, 0.6 (10 kg/m3) @ 2000 Hz the material is denser and found to be minimum at less
respectively 0.84 (4.76 kg/m3 to denser materials.
9.2 kg/m3) @ 2443.75 to 2587.5 Hz Also, The date palm fiber was good at low and high
frequencies, but at medium frequencies the performance was
declining.
Fouladi et al. 2013 Coconut coir Two microphone impedance test tube 0.46 (1 cm CCF) @ 4000 Hz The optimized thickness of minimal level can also able to
(CCF), corn (CF), method & sample size of 10 and 20 mm, 0.97 (2 cm CCF) @ 2000 Hz emit good absorption characteristics.
grass (GF), sugar respectively 0.70 (1 cm CF) @ 3000 Hz The edge effect leads to an absorption coefficient greater
cane (SCF) 0.90 (2 cm CF) @ 4000 Hz than unity.
0.46 (1 cm GF) @ 4000 Hz
0.98 (2 cm GF) @ 2000 Hz
Yahya et al. 2017 Ijuk (IJK), A standard two-microphone transfer function 0.9 (IJK) @ 3000 Hz to 4500 Hz The thickness of each 50 mm natural fiber showed the
Kenaf (KF), & sample thickness of 50 mm 0.6 (IJK) @ 1500 Hz to 3000 Hz optimum level of
Coir (CR) and 0.92 (IJK) @ 0 to 1500 Hz sound absorption coefficient value of more than 0.7
Oil palm frond 0.84–0.91 (KF) @ 3750 Hz
(OF) 0.9 (KF) @ 1000 Hz
0.97 (KF) @ 875 Hz
0.95 to 0.97 (CR) @ 900 Hz to 1000 Hz
0.9 (CR) @ 4000 Hz
0.92 (OF) @ 3800 Hz
JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS

0.96 to 0.98 (OF) @ 850 Hz to 1200 Hz

(Continued )
7
 8

Table 1. (Continued).
Natural fiber Experimental technique (s) applied & Maximum NRC & SAC at peak
Author(s) materials specifications of work material frequency range Inferences
Xianga et al. 2013 Kapok fibers (KP) Impedance tube acoustical measurement 0.238, 0.352, 0.418 & 0.465 (KP) for Hence, the sound waves in the low
system and sample thickness of 20, 40 and 20 mm thickness of 5, 10,15 & 20 kg/ frequency transmit mostly through thicker materials and are
60 mm, respectively m3 bulk densities @ 125 Hz to absorbed through the materials
4000 Hz
0.405, 0.528, 0.576 & 0.598 (KP) for
40 mm thickness of 5, 10,15 & 20 kg/
m3 bulk densities @ 125 Hz to
S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

4000 Hz
Ismail et al. 2010 Arenga Pinnata Impedance Tube Method 0.88 for 40 mm @ 5000 Hz The sound
(AP) with ASTM E1050-98 & thickness of 10, 20, 30 0.78 to 0.97 @ 1000 Hz to absorption coefficients were good from the medium to high
and 40 mm. 5000 Hz frequency that is from 2000 Hz to 5000 Hz.
0.77 @ 2000 Hz to 5000 Hz
0.75–0.90 @ 0–2000 Hz
AL Rahman et al. Date palm (DPF) Impedance tube instrument and sample 0.83 (DPF-30) @ 2381.38–2809.38 Hz The effect of thickness is greater when considering its
2014 Oil palm (OPF) thickness of 30 and 50 mm 0.93 & 0.99 (DPF-50) @ 1365 Hz & porosity due to the similar fiber layer thickness.
4200–4353 Hz In addition, thin fibers, which promote the absorption
0.59 (OPF-30) @ 3225–3712.50 Hz coefficient and the transformation to lower frequencies,
0.75 (OPF-50) @ 1946.88–2178.13 Hz create more torturous path and a greater resistance to air
flows in porous substances.
Alessandro et al. Kenaf (KF) Reverberation room testing method and 0.85–0.90 @ 800–1600 Hz Measured absorption
2005 sample thickness of 50 mm 0.84 @ 5000 Hz seems slightly lower but comparable with those of
traditional synthetic fibers
Coconut fiber Impedance tube instrument & sample size of 0.74 @ 1700 Hz A sandwich panels are another development in enhancing
Asdrubali et al., (CF), 40, 3 + 40, 40 + 3 & 3 + 40 + 3 mm, 0.91 @ 1480 Hz acoustical performance
2012 FM + CF, respectively 0.78 @ 1660 Hz
CF + FM, 0.93 @ 1400 Hz
FM +CF +FM
Zaidi et al. 2009 Rice-husk Two-microphone Transfer-function Method & 0.679 @ 2000 Hz Rice husk are best of new identification which emits high
sample thickness of 25 mm 0.889 @ 250 Hz AAC rate at lower frequencies.
Soltani and Zerrebini Woven fabrics Impedance tube instrument – Texsonicmeter 0.3 @ 250–2000 Hz The maximum value of
2012 & sample thickness of 0.51 mm sound absorption coefficient occurred at lower frequencies
Hassan and Rus 2013 Cotton fabric Impedance tube instrument & sample 0.92 @ 3000–3500 Hz The analyses shows highest SAC obtained at 2000 to 3000 Hz
thickness of 1.104 mm approximately equal to 1 due to lesser thickness
Lee et al. 2017 Flax/epoxy Impedance tube instrument & sample 0.8 (F2) @ 10,000 Hz Flax/epoxy composites have very good acoustic properties
Composites (FE) thickness of 5.56 (G1), 8.51 (G2), 9.32(F1) & 0.09 (G1) @ 63 to 6300 Hz and show promise as environmentally safe and sustainable
Glass/epoxy 7.87(F2) mm 0.1 (G2) @ 63 to 6300 Hz replacements for glass/epoxy systems.
composites (GE) 0.11 (F1) @ 63 to 6300 Hz
0.1 (F2) @ 63 to 6300 Hz
(Continued )
Table 1. (Continued).
Natural fiber Experimental technique (s) applied & Maximum NRC & SAC at peak
Author(s) materials specifications of work material frequency range Inferences
Santhanam et al. Recycled Impedance tube instrument & sample 0.475 @ 125 to 3000 Hz Greater the thickness greater the acoustical performance
2018 nonwoven thickness of 20, 40, 50 & 70 mm 0.523 @ 125 to 3000 Hz hence proved again.
cotton and 0.573 @ 125 to 3000 Hz
polyester fabric 0.638 @ 125 to 3000 Hz
Liu et al. 2015 Kapok Impedance tube instrument & sample 0.62 (5 mm) at 2500 Hz The Acoustical Absorption Coefficient is seems to be high
fiber (Kp) thickness of 5, 10 & 0.8 (10 mm) at 2500 Hz when thickness of materials also high at low-frequency range.
20 mm 0.84 (20 mm) at 2500 Hz
Thilagavathi et al. Luffa Fibrous Impedance tube method and sample 0.05 (L1) @ 63 to 6300 Hz If the material is thicker then it absorbs low-frequency sound
2018 Mats with kapok thickness of 4.52(L1), 20.13(L2), 23.60(L3) & 0.17 (L2) @ 63 to 6300 Hz waves, i.e., sound waves with higher wave length.
layer 25.60(L4) 0.39 (L3) @ 63 to 6300 Hz
0.39 (L4) @ 63 to 6300 Hz
Berardi, Iannace, and Broom fibers Kundt’s tube method and sample thickness 0.9 (B1 & D1) @ 2000 Hz The results show good sound absorption values for the
Di Gabriele 2017 of 6 cm (B1), 8 cm(B2) & 12 cm(B3) of 1.5 0.91 (B2 & D1) @ 2000 Hz different thicknesses of the sample, comparable to those of
(D1), 3 (D2) & 4 mm (D3) diameter, 0.91 (B3 & D1) @ 2000 Hz more traditional porous materials.
respectively 0.68 (B1 & D2) @ 1000 Hz
0.69 (B2 & D2) @ 750 Hz
0.93 (B3 & D2) @ 1750 Hz
0.68 (B1 & D3) @ 1000 Hz
0.71 (B2 & D3) @ 750 Hz
0.9 (B3 & D3) @ 1750 Hz
Ali 2016 Calotropis Impedance tube method and sample 0.48 (85% hemp – 40 mm thickness) The hemp fiber have a better sound absorption for frequency
procera (Apple thickness of 40 mm @ 0 to 6300 Hz greater than 500 Hz
of
Sodom) Fibers
Elwaleed et al. 2013 Date palm fibers Impedance tube method and sample 0.28 @ 1257 Hz An enhancement in the sound
(DPF) thickness of 10, 20 and 30 mm 0.39 @ 1257 Hz absorption was achieved by backing the sample and tested
0.45 @ 1257 Hz above 4000 Hz
0.46@ 1257 Hz
Yang and Li, 2012 Ramie Impedance tube method and sample 0.74 @ 2500 Hz Natural fiber-reinforced composites also possessed better
Jute thickness of 3 mm 0.93 @ 2500 Hz acoustic absorption behavior than synthetic fiber-reinforced
Flax 0.81 @ 2500 Hz composite, especially at high frequencies.
Koizumi et al., 2002 Bamboo fibers Impedance tube method and sample 0.87 @ 3000 Hz SAC is developed through different airflow depths and by the
thickness of 25, 50 and 75 mm 0.95 @ 1750 Hz maximum value adjustment frequencies
0.97 @ 750 Hz
Zulkifli et al. 2008 Multi-layer coir Acoustic absorption coefficient test in 0.7–0.85 @ 500 Hz to 5000 Hz Coir fiber had already proven that it is the best alternative for
fibers reverberation room 0.87 @ 2500 Hz to 5000 Hz a synthetic acoustic panel for indoor as well as outdoor
0.78 @ 2000 Hz applications
JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS

Jayamani et al. 2014 Betelnut fiber Impedance tube method and sample 0.3 @ 6000 Hz Composites prepared at 10% fiber loading and 5% NaOH
thickness of 2, 4 and 6 mm 0.35 @ 6000 Hz treatment showed optimum mechanical strength.
0.42 @ 6000 Hz
(Continued )
9
 10

Table 1. (Continued).
S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

Natural fiber Experimental technique (s) applied & Maximum NRC & SAC at peak
Author(s) materials specifications of work material frequency range Inferences
Bin Bakri et al. 2017 Banana fibers Impedance tube method and sample 0.97 @ 500 Hz to 6000 Hz It is predicted and analyzed that the sound
thickness of 2, 4 and 6 mm 0.11 (untreated banana fiber) @ absorption coefficient of banana fiber were found to be as
500 Hz to 6000 Hz high for material
0.12 (treated banana fiber) @ 500 Hz thickness
to 6000 Hz
Khidir et al. 2014 Date palm Impedance tube method and sample 0.68 (DPF) @ 2500 Hz The results show a better improvement in the sound
fibers (DPF) thickness of 10, 20 and 30 mm absorption for
self-facing panel for the whole frequency range
Ekici, Kentli, and Tea-leaf fibers Impedance tube method and sample 0.2 (TLF) @ 1500 Hz The TLF is hygienic renewable bio- resources, and is
Küçük 2012 (TLF) thickness of 2 mm biodegradable. Also replacing element of synthetic fibers
ALRahman, Raja Ishak Date palm fiber Impedance tube method and sample CCF (20 mm) – 0.71 @ Furthermore, thin fibers lead to torture and higher porous
and Roslan 2013 (DPF) and thickness of 20 mm and 40 mm 4184.38–4575 Hz materials airflow resistance that promotes absorption and
coconut coir CCF (40 mm) – 0.77 @ shifts to lower frequencies.
fiber (CCF) 2434.38–2543.75 Hz
DPF (20 mm) – 0.84 @
2606.25–3025 Hz
DPF (20 mm) – 0.98 @
1381.25–1506.25 Hz
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 11

Figure 3. Effect of thickness of absorptive materials.

2000 Hz. Since these snippet when consider for thickness it shows more Acoustic Absorption for
35 mm diameter. It is clearly proven that both thick and dense snippet always enhance the sound
proofing quality at both mid- and high-range frequencies. It may be applicable for low-frequency-
absorbing walls. According to Ersoy and Küçük (2009), 27.5 kg/m3 shows better NRC of 0.7 at
5600 Hz. These snippets are applied in the application where the mid- and high-frequency range is
to be controlled. Similarly, Xiang et al. (2013) and Liu et al. (2015) shows better NRC of 0.627 and
0.93 for densities of 58 kg/m3 and 150 kg/m3, respectively. It shows that denser materials tend to
absorb more acoustic energy as compared to less dense materials. However, in some extend,
materials with higher density will absorb less acoustic energy due to non-fibrous nature of the
materials. Materials that are more compact and dense are low in porosity which significantly affects
its sound absorption performance.

Reviews on effect of porosity of absorptive materials

Porosity is stated as ratio of the volume of void to the total volume of the samples. Porosity of
materials can be determined by the dynamic method, static method or by a known density of fibers
 12

Table 2. A summarized analysis on the effect of density on acoustical absorption performance of natural fibers.
Experimental technique(s) applied & specificationsMaximum NRC & SAC at
Author(s) Natural fiber materials of work material peak frequency range Inferences
Rahman et al. 2012 Date palm Impedance tube method and range from 4.76 kg/ 0.83 (11k g/m3) @ More denser more acoustical absorption property. The
fiber (DPF) m3 2000 Hz material‘s absorption coefficient has increased with the
to 11 kg/m3 0.6 (10 kg/m3) @ decrease of airflow strength values.
2000 Hz
0.84 (4.76 kg/m3 to
9.2 kg/m3) @ 2443.75 to
S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

2587.5 Hz
Ersoy and Küçük 2009 Tea-leaf fiber (TLF) Impedance tube method and range from 25.358 0.26 (25.36 kg/m3) More denser material has a high porosity content since
kg/m3 to 27.5 kg/m3 @4000 to 6300 Hz it enhances the acoustical properties
0.6 (25.35 kg/m3) @
6300 Hz
0.7 (27.5 kg/m3)
@5600 Hz
Xianga et al. 2013 Kapok fibers (KP) Impedance tube acoustical measurement system 0.627 @ 125 to 4000 Hz An optimal level of impedance coincidence be
and sample density of 8.3, 25, 42 & 58 kg/m3 0.646 @ 125 to 4000 Hz realized when the bulk density is of 25.0 kg/m3
0.610 @ 125 to 4000 Hz
0.481 @ 125 to 4000 Hz
AL Rahman et al. 2014 Date palm (DPF) Impedance tube instrument and sample densities 0.83 (DPF-30) @ The effect of density is greater when considering its
Oil palm (OPF) of 130(DPF), 150 (DPF), 65 (OPF) & 75 (OPF) kg/m3 2381.38–2809.38 Hz thickness and porosity due to the similar fiber layer
0.93 & 0.99 (DPF-50) @ thickness.
1365 Hz &
4200–4353 Hz
0.59 (OPF-30) @
3225–3712.50 Hz
0.75 (OPF-50) @
1946.88–2178.13 Hz
Soltani and Zerrebini 2012 Woven fabrics Impedance tube instrument- Texsonicmeter & 0.3 @ 250–2000 Hz The maximum value of sound absorption coefficient
3
sample density of 0.3 kg/m occurred at high-density of lower frequency.
The more serious reflected phenomena are the greater
sound absorption for the same medium pore size and
lower fibrous densities.
3
Liu et al. 2015 Kapok Impedance tube instrument & sample density of 0.62 (6.9 kg/m ) at Sound absorption coefficient increases along with bulk
fiber (Kp) 6.9,11.55,18.2,32.86 & 44.41 kg/m3 2000 Hz density
0.78 (kg/m3) at 2000 Hz of nonwoven fabrics with lower bulk density of 6.95,
0.89 (kg/m3) at 2000 Hz 11.55, and 18.22 kg/m3, respectively
0.85 (kg/m3) at 1500 Hz
0.84 (kg/m3) at 2500 Hz
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 13

Figure 4. Effect of density of absorptive materials.

(Wassilieff 1996). Porosity gradually affects the acoustical absorption performance of material
samples. The absorbency of materials will increase when the porosity increases up to 70%
(Grondzik and Kwok 2014). However, when the porosity value crossed 70%, the value of absorption
usually will remain constant. Number, size and type of pores are among important factors to be
considered in porous sound absorber. Enough pores on surface of material will allow sound wave to
penetrate the porous material for maximum energy dissipation by friction (Castagnede et al. 2000).
When the porous surfaces of absorptive materials are blocked, it reduces the absorbency level at low-
, mid- and high-frequency range (Zakriya and Ramakrishnan 2017). Also, the fiber diameter is
directly related to the material’s sound-absorbing properties. The average diameters of fiber mea-
sured using electronic microscopic methods for several industrial types of fibers are shown in Table
2. The absorption of porous road surfaces by sound is an impact of a variety of parameters such as
porous thicknesses, air vacuums, air flow resistance, tortuosity and aggregate mixture coarseness.
(Arenas and Crocker 2010).
A summarized analysis on the effect of porosity on acoustical absorption performance of natural
fibers recently done by researchers all over the world is shown in Table 3 and Figure 5. From
Wassilieff (1996), the wood fibers having 90% porosity and 75 mm of thickness capable of proofing
 14

Table 3. A summarized analysis on the effect of porosity on acoustical absorption performance of natural fibers.
Experimental technique(s) applied & specifications of Maximum NRC & SAC at
Author(s) Natural fiber materials work material peak frequency range Inferences
Fouladi et al. 2013 Coconut coir Two microphone impedance test tube method & 0.46 (1 cm CCF) @ The optimized porosity of maximal level can also able to
(CCF), corn (CF), Average value for 4000 Hz emit good absorption characteristics. There is dependence
S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

grass (GF), sugar Ø100 mm and Ø 28 mm 0.88 (1 cm SCF) @ between sound and thermal conductivity. When sound
cane (SCF) samples: 4000 Hz waves spread over a porous fiber network, they cause
91.4 – 1 cm thick CCF 0.46 (1 cm GF) @ vibration which in turn leads to thermal and viscous heat.
95.76 −1 cm thick SCF 4000 Hz Thus a good porous-absorbing material absorbs sound
96.90–1 cm thick GF 0.70 (1 cm CF) @ waves and generates fewer heats.
97.67–1 cm thick CF 3000 Hz
Wassilieff 1996 Wood fibers 40% (25 mm thick WS) 0.16 @ 700 Hz High porosity can able to absorb more sound energy at low-
(WF) and 63% (45 mm thick WF) 0.83 @ 600–700 Hz and high-frequency region.
wood shaving 85% (50 mm thick WF) 0.9 @ 1200–1400 Hz The addition of an air gap between materials of sound
(WS) from 90% (75 mm thick WF) 1.0@ 600–800 Hz absorption has a positive effect on the absorption
Pinus radiata performance of materials.
Xianga et al. 2013 Kapok fibers (KP) Impedance tube acoustical measurement system and 0.627 @ 125 to 4000 Hz Hence, the sound waves in the low
sample porosity of 97.7, 93.2, 88.7 and 84.2%, 0.646 @ 125 to 4000 Hz -frequency transmit mostly through less porous materials
respectively 0.610 @ 125 to 4000 Hz and are absorbed through the high porous
0.481 @ 125 to 4000 Hz materials.
Less and more pores in the web with high porosity
demonstrate the greater chance for the fiber interaction of
the high-frequency sound wave.
Bin Bakri et al. 2017 Banana fibers Impedance tube method and sample porosity of 0.97 @ 500 Hz to It is predicted and analyzed that the sound
88.4% 6000 Hz absorption coefficients of banana fiber were found to be as
0.11 (untreated banana high for the change in material porosity.
fiber) @ 500 Hz to Thereby, the introduction of air gaps is efficient for good
6000 Hz absorption at lower frequencies instead of having
0.12 (treated banana a complete thicker absorber and can thus save the fiber-
fiber) @ 500 Hz to related materials.
6000 Hz
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 15

Figure 5. Effect of porosity of absorptive materials.

sound at 0.9 NRC at 1200–1400 Hz. This again proves that the high thickness and high porous
material shows the greater sound proofing rate. This can be applicable and suitable for damping low-
and high-frequency. Xiang et al. (2013) clearly stated that the kapok fiber having porosity of 97.7%
shows more NRC level of 0.627 at 125 to 4000 Hz. Similarly, Bin Bakri et al. (2017) show that banana
fiber snippet having 88.4% of porosity exhibits 0.97 NRC at 500 Hz to 6000 Hz. It is proven from
these researches that the more porous material exhibit higher NRC rate at mid- and high-range
frequencies because of intensity of air molecules travel through porous substances. These snippets
are commonly used in interior sound proofing, office environments, etc. It shows that high porous
materials tend to absorb more acoustic energy as compared to less porous materials that significantly
affect its sound absorption performance. However, machining of porous composites (Arun Ramnath
et al. 2018) also plays a vital role in experimental testing of acoustical characteristics.

Applications
The sound absorption or sound proofing natural fiber-reinforced composites are used in various
applications as shown in Figure 6
16 S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

Figure 6. Applications of acoustic products.

Conclusions
An in-depth revision of measuring methods and affecting physical parameters are contributed in this
research paper. Furthermore, from the reviews of expert researchers the following things are to be
clearly understood before undergoing research on porous acoustical absorption characteristics.

● Delany–Bazley, Biot–Allard and Garai–Pompoli are analytical models for the sound absorption
properties of porous natural fiber composites. Without specifying peak information or reso-
nances, the Delany–Bazley model shows just the basic absorptive pattern at overall broadband
frequency. Biot–Allard gives accurate resonance and peak information.
● Two microphones can accurately obtain the AAC using a sound impedance test tube method.
Since the surface is uniform for measuring the absorption coefficients, the sound is dominated
by the speculated reflection.
● An acoustic panel thickness is vital as increasing thickness of the layer leads to loss of more
energy by incident sound waves. Since high viscosity and thermal conduction of the acoustic
waves occur in the case of thinner material thickness. Many researches have concluded that the
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 17

thicker materials have a strong impact on acoustic waves as compared to thinner sound panel
materials.
● The porosity and density of the porous materials also significantly play a predominant role in
the acoustical performance. The many researchers stated that more dense and more porous
materials have high acoustical absorption characteristics than the less dense and less porous
acoustic materials.

In the field of acoustical performance, many researches is continuing in natural porous fiber,
including indoor and outdoor automotive applications, sound insulating industrial cabinets, home
theaters, classroom environments, building layouts, marine applications and aviation. This motivates
other researchers to find new fiber classes that increase acoustic characteristics substantially com-
pared to previous findings. In order to improve the acoustic performance, various physical para-
meters and measurement methods need continuous, comprehensive investigations to comply with
environmental requirements.

Title and Central theme of the article

In this environmental degrading world, noise pollution has its ripple effect on lives of human beings. The interior
control of noise has been notably improving in order to save future generations. But at the same time, the advanced
materials should also balance the development and applications where it is being used. In addition, the materials
should not harm human beings at any cost.
This present review work mainly focuses on sound absorption analysis on different natural fibers. This work helps
researcher to select new class of fibers and their affecting parameters in order to enhance the sound proofing quality
and decreasing effect on human ears.

Prime Novelty Statement

This work consists of new kind of tabular formation that expresses more information on natural fiber efficiency on
acoustical performance. This work has not been attempted earlier in this specified format.

Declaration of Interest
The authors solemnly declare that they have no conflict of interest. This work has not been published or presented
anywhere.

References
Ali, M. 2016. Microstructure, thermal analysis and acoustic characteristics of Calotropis procera (apple of sodom)
fibers. Journal of Natural Fibers 13 (3):343–52. doi:10.1080/15440478.2015.1029198.
Allard, J., and N. Atalla. 2009. Propagation of sound in porous media: Modelling sound absorbing materials. Propagation
of sound in porous media, Ed. 2. A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Publication.
ALRahman, L. A., R. I. Raja, R. A. Rahman, and Z. Ibrahim. 2014. Comparison of acoustic characteristics of date palm
fibre and oil palm fibre. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 7 (8):1656–61.
AL-Rahman, L. A., R. I. Raja, R. A. Rahman, and Z. Ibrahim. 2012. Acoustic properties of innovative material from
date palm fibre. American Journal of Applied Sciences 9 (9):1390.
Arenas, J. P., and M. J. Crocker. 2010. Recent trends in porous sound-absorbing materials. Sound & Vibration 44
(7):12–18.
Arun Ramnath, R., P. R. Thyla, N. Mahendra Kumar, and S. Aravind. 2018. Optimization of machining parameters of
composites using multi-attribute decision-making techniques: A review. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites 37 (2):77–89. doi:10.1177/0731684417732840.
Asdrubali, F., S. Schiavoni, and K. V. Horoshenkov. 2012. A review of sustainable materials for acoustic applications.
Building Acoustics 19 (4):283–311. doi:10.1260/1351-010X.19.4.283.
Attenborough, K. 1993. Models for the acoustical characteristics of air filled granular materials. Acta Acust 1:213–26.
Ayub, M., R. Zulkifli, M. H. Fouladi, N. Amin, and M. J. M. Nor. 2011. A study on the acoustical absorption behavior
of coir fiber using miki model. International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering 6 (3):343–49.
18 S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

Ballagh, K. O. 1996. Acoustical properties of wool. Applied Acoustics 48 (2):101–20. doi:10.1016/0003-682X(95)00042-8.

Berardi, U., and G. Iannace. 2015. Acoustic characterization of natural fibers for sound absorption applications.
Building and Environment 94:840–52. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.05.029.
Berardi, U., G. Iannace, and M. Di Gabriele. 2017. The acoustic characterization of broom fibers. Journal of Natural
Fibers 14 (6):858–63. doi:10.1080/15440478.2017.1279995.
Bies, D. A., and C. H. Hansen. 1980. Flow resistance information for acoustical design. Applied Acoustics 13
(5):357–91.
Bin Bakri, M. K., E. Jayamani, S. K. Heng, S. Hamdan, and A. Kakar. 2017. An experimental and simulation studies on
sound absorption coefficients of banana fibers and their reinforced composites. In Nano Hybrids and Composites
12:9–20. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/NHC.12.9.
Borlea, A., T. Rusu, O. Vasile, and A. Gheorghe 2012. Soundproofing materials whit recycled rubber particles and
sawdust. Proceedings of the 23th SISOM: Session of the Commission of Acoustics (Ed. Mediamira), Bucharest.
May. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN
Castagnede, B., A. Aknine, B. Brouard, and V. Tarnow. 2000. Effects of compression on the sound absorption of
fibrous materials. Applied Acoustics 61 (2):173–82. doi:10.1016/S0003-682X(00)00003-7.
Christie, D. R. 1976. Measurement of the acoustic properties of a sound absorbing material at high temperatures.
Journal of Sound and Vibration 46 (3):347–55. doi:10.1016/0022-460X(76)90859-2.
Crocker, M. J.2007. Handbook of noise and vibration control. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons. United States: Wiley.
Cuthbertson, D., U. Berardi, C. Briens, and F. Berruti. 2019. Biochar from residual biomass as a concrete filler for
improved thermal and acoustic properties. Biomass and Bioenergy 120:77–83.
D‘Alessandro, F., and G. Pispola. 2005. Sound absorption properties of sustainable fibrous materials in an enhanced
reverberation room. In INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings. Institute of Noise
Control Engineering. Jul5. Rio de Janeiro BRAZIL.
Dunn, I. P., and W. A. Davern. 1986. Calculation of acoustic impedance of multi-layer absorbers. Applied Acoustics 19
(5):321–34. doi:10.1016/0003-682X(94)90005-1.
Ekici, B., A. Kentli, and H. Küçük. 2012. Improving sound absorption property of polyurethane foams by adding
tea-leaf fibers. Archives of Acoustics 37 (4):515–20. doi:10.2478/v10168-012-0052-1.
Elwaleed, A. K., N. Nikabdullah, M. J. Nor, M. F. Tahir, and R. Zulkifli. 2013. Experimental investigation of sound
absorption properties of perforated date palm fibers panel. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering 46:012027.
Ersoy, S., and H. Küçük. 2009. Investigation of industrial tea-leaf-fibre waste material for its sound absorption
properties. Applied Acoustics 70 (1):215–20. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2007.12.005.
Fouladi, M. H., M. H. Nassir, M. Ghassem, M. Shamel, S. Y. Peng, S. Y. Wen, P. Z. Xin, and M. J. Nor. 2013. Utilizing
Malaysian natural fibers as sound absorber. In Modeling and measurement methods for acoustic waves and for
acoustic microdevices, IntechOpen.
Garai, M., and F. A. Pompoli. 2005. Simple empirical model of polyester fibre materials for acoustical applications.
Applied Acoustics 66 (12):1383–98. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2005.04.008.
Grondzik, W. T., and A. G. Kwok. 2014. Mechanical and electrical equipment for buildings. John Wiley & Sons.
United States : Wiley.
Hassan, N. N., and A. Z. Rus. 2013. Influences of thickness and fabric for sound absorption of biopolymer composite.
In Applied Mechanics and Materials 393:102–07. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.393.102.
Huang, K., L. Q. N. Tran, U. Kureemun, W. S. Teo, and H. P. Lee. 2018. Vibroacoustic behavior and noise control of
flax fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites. Journal of Natural Fibers. doi:10.1080/15440478.2018.1433096.
Ismail, L., M. I. Ghazali, S. Mahzan, and A. M. Zaidi. 2010. Sound absorption of Arenga pinnata natural fiber. World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 67:804–06.
ISO B. 354. 2003. Acoustics–measurement of sound absorption in a reverberation room. British Standards
Institution. London, W4 4AL, UK.
ISO IS. 10534-1. 1996. Acoustics–Determination of sound absorption coefficient and impedance in impedance tubes-
Part 1: Method using standing wave ratio. International Standard. London, W4 4AL, UK.
Jayamani, E., S. Hamdan, M. R. Rahman, and M. K. Bakri. 2014. Investigation of fiber surface treatment on
mechanical, acoustical and thermal properties of betelnut fiber polyester composites. Procedia Engineering
97:545–54. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.282.
Khidir, E. A., N. Nikabdullah, M. J. Nor, M. F. Tahir, and M. Z. Nuawi. 2014. A preliminary study on the sound
absorption of self-facing date palm fibers. In Applied Mechanics and Materials 565:25–30. doi:10.4028/www.
scientific.net/AMM.565.25.
Koizumi, T., N. Tsujiuchi, and A. Adachi. 2002. The development of sound absorbing materials using natural bamboo
fibers. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment 25:59. doi:10.2495/HPS020161.
Kumaresan, M., S. Sathish, and N. Karthi. 2015. Effect of fiber orientation on mechanical properties of sisal fiber
reinforced epoxy composites. Journal of Applied Science and Engineering 18 (3):289–94.
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 19

Lee, H. P., B. M. Ng, A. V. Rammohan, and L. Q. Tran. 2017. An investigation of the sound absorption properties of
flax/epoxy composites compared with glass/epoxy composites. Journal of Natural Fibers 14 (1):71–77. doi:10.1080/
15440478.2016.1146643.
Lee, J., and G. W. Swenson Jr. 1992. Compact sound absorbers for low frequencies. Noise Control Engineering Journal
38 (3):109–18.
Lim, Z. Y., A. Putra, M. J. M. Nor, and M. Y. Yaakob. 2018. Sound absorption performance of natural kenaf fibres.
Applied Acoustics 130:107–14.
Liu, X., X. Yan, L. Li, and H. Zhang. 2015. Sound-absorption properties of kapok fiber nonwoven fabrics at low
frequency. Journal of Natural Fibers 12 (4):311–22. doi:10.1080/15440478.2014.919891.
Maderuelo-Sanz, R., J. M. Barrigón Morillas, M. Martín-Castizo, V. Gómez Escobar, and G. Rey Gozalo. 2013.
Acoustical performance of porous absorber made from recycled rubber and polyurethane resin. Latin American
Journal of Solids and Structures 10 (3):585–600. doi:10.1590/S1679-78252013000300008.
Maderuelo-Sanz, R., A. V. Nadal-Gisbert, J. E. Crespo-Amorós, and F. Parres-García. 2012. A novel sound absorber
with recycled fibers coming from end of life tires (ELTs). Applied Acoustics 73 (4):402–08. doi:10.1016/j.
apacoust.2011.12.001.
Na, Y., and G. Cho. 2010. Sound absorption and viscoelastic property of acoustical automotive nonwovens and their
plasma treatment. Fibers and Polymers 11 (5):782–89.
Nor, M. J., N. Jamaludin, and F. M. Tamiri. 2004. A preliminary study of sound absorption using multi-layer coconut
coir fibers. Electronic Journal Technical Acoustics 3:1–8.
Pan, J., and P. Jackson. 2009. Review of test methods for material properties of elastic porous materials. SAE
International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing 2:570–79. doi:10.4271/2009-01-2135.
Peng, L., B. Song, J. Wang, and D. Wang. 2015. Mechanic and acoustic properties of the sound-absorbing material
made from natural fiber and polyester. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. 2015:1-5. doi:10.1155/2015/
274913
Pfretzschner, J. 2002. Rubber crumb as granular absorptive acoustic material. In Proceedings of the Forum Acusticum,
Sevilla.
Putra, A., Y. Abdullah, H. Efendy, W. M. Farid, M. R. Ayob, and M. S. Py. 2013. Utilizing sugarcane wasted fibers as
a sustainable acoustic absorber. Procedia Engineering 53::632–638.
Qingbo, A., W. Jianzhong, T. Huiping, Z. Hao, M. Jun, and B. Tengfei. 2015. Sound absorption characteristics and
structure optimization of porous metal fibrous materials. Rare Metal Materials and Engineering 44 (11):2646–50.
Rwawiire, S., B. Tomkova, J. Militky, L. Hes, and B. M. Kale. 2017. Acoustic and thermal properties of a cellulose
nonwoven natural fabric (barkcloth). Applied Acoustics 116:177–83.
Sakamoto, S., Y. Takauchi, K. Yanagimoto, and S. Watanabe. 2011. Study for sound absorbing materials of biomass
tubule etc. Journal of Environment and Engineering 6 (2):352–64. doi:10.1299/jee.6.352.
Santhanam, S., S. Temesgen, D. Atalie, and G. Ashagre. 2018. Recycling of cotton and polyester fibers to produce
nonwoven fabric for functional sound absorption material. Journal of Natural Fibers 8:1–7. doi:10.1080/
15440478.2017.1418472.
Sathish, S., K. Kumaresan, L. Prabhu, and S. Gokulkumar. 2018. Experimental investigation of mechanical and FTIR analysis
of flax fiber/epoxy composites incorporating SiC, Al2O3 and graphite. Romanian Journal of Materials 48 (4):315–23.
Sathish, S., K. Kumaresan, L. Prabhu, and N. Vigneshkumar. 2017. Experimental investigation on volume fraction of
mechanical and physical properties of flax and bamboo fibers reinforced hybrid epoxy composites. Polymers &
Polymer Composites 25 (3):229–36.
Seddeq, H. S. 2009. Factors influencing acoustic performance of sound absorptive materials. Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences 3 (4):4610–17.
Soltani, P., and M. Zerrebini. 2012. The analysis of acoustical characteristics and sound absorption coefficient of woven
fabrics. Textile Research Journal 82 (9):875–82. doi:10.1177/0040517511402121.
Standard, B. 2001. Acoustics-determination of sound absorption coefficient and impedance in impedance tubes—part
2: Transfer-function method. BS EN ISO:10534-2.
Tayong, R., T. Dupont, and P. Leclaire. 2013. Sound absorption of a micro-perforated plate backed by a porous
material under high sound excitation: Measurement and prediction. International Journal of Engineering &
Technology 2 (4):281.
Thilagavathi, G., S. Neela Krishnan, N. Muthukumar, and S. Krishnan. 2018. Investigations on sound absorption
properties of luffa fibrous mats. Journal of Natural Fibers 15 (3):445–51. doi:10.1080/15440478.2017.1349016.
Tiuc, A. E., H. Vermeşan, T. Gabor, and O. Vasile. 2016. Improved sound absorption properties of polyurethane foam
mixed with textile waste. Energy Procedia 85:559–65.
Voronina, N. 1994. Acoustic properties of fibrous materials. Applied Acoustics 42 (2):165–74.
Wassilieff, C. 1996. Sound absorption of wood-based materials. Applied Acoustics 48 (4):339–56. doi:10.1016/0003-
682X(96)00013-8.
Xiang, H. F., D. Wang, H. C. Liua, N. Zhao, and J. Xu. 2013. Investigation on sound absorption properties of kapok
fibers. Chinese Journal of Polymer Science 31 (3):521–29. doi:10.1007/s10118-013-1241-8.
20 S. GOKULKUMAR ET AL.

Yahya, M. N., M. Sambu, H. A. Latif, and T. M. Junaid. 2017. A study of acoustics performance on natural fibre composite.
In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1:012013. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/226/1/012013.
Yang, W., and Y. Li. 2012. Sound absorption performance of natural fibers and their composites. Science China
Technological Sciences 55 (8):2278–83. doi:10.1007/s11431-012-4943-1.
Zaidi, A., A. Mujahid, M. I. Ghazali, M. N. Yahya, and M. Ismail. 2009. Investigation on sound absorption of rice-
husk reinforced composite. In Proceedings of MUCEET 2009 Malaysian Technical Universities Conference on
Engineering and Technology. Malaysia : Malaysian Technical University Network.
Zakriya, M., and D. G. Ramakrishnan. 2017. Jute and hollow conjugated polyester composites for outdoor & indoor
insulation applications. Journal of Natural Fibers. doi:10.1080/15440478.2017.1410515.
Zulkifli, R., M. M. Nor, M. M. Tahir, A. R. Ismail, and M. Z. Nuawi. 2008. Acoustic properties of multi-layer coir fibres
sound absorption panel. Journal of Applied Sciences 8 (20):3709–14.
Zulkifli, R., Z. Zulkarnain, and M. J. Nor. 2010. Noise absorption properties of coir fiber with porous layer facing.
International Review of Mechanical Engineering 4 (4):405–09.