Rho et al 2023a - Revision history

Tomamil: Tomamil moved page Review 667457076814 to Rho et al 2023a

2023-08-10T22:40:24Z

Tomamil moved page Review 667457076814 to Rho et al 2023a

Zachary.rho at 16:33, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T16:33:22Z

Zachary.rho at 16:16, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T16:16:40Z

Zachary.rho at 16:14, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T16:14:34Z

Zachary.rho at 16:12, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T16:12:36Z

Zachary.rho at 16:11, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T16:11:41Z

Zachary.rho at 16:10, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T16:10:19Z

Zachary.rho at 16:09, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T16:09:44Z

Zachary.rho at 16:09, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T16:09:07Z

Show changes

Zachary.rho at 14:50, 10 August 2023

2023-08-10T14:50:12Z

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 '''Review of Previous Literature'''
-Yan et al (2014) studied the effect of polypropylene/clay composites on suppressing sound. It was found that polypropylene (PP)/clay composites dramatically increased by small quantities of clay filled in PP matrix. In this paper, different types of specimens were made at 0.9, 2.9, 4.8, 6.5, 8.2 and 9.9 wt.% of organically modified clay reinforced PP (100 gram) by solvent based techniques. A heating press and laser cutting process were used to create specimens with thickness 3 mm, diameter 29 mm and 100 mm for high and low sound frequency tests, respectively. The soundproofing property was measured by sound transmission loss (TL) through the impedance tube method. The measured results showed that about 7∼14.8 dB sound TL was increased for 29 mm diameter PP/Clay (6.5 wt.%) composite specimens compared with pure PP at 3200∼6400Hz. And about 3.3∼5.3 dB sound TL was increased for 100 mm diameter PP/Clay (6.5 wt.%) composite specimens compared with pure PP at 520∼640Hz. In addition, mechanical properties of this composite were measured, and TEM images were taken in order to observe the micro-structure for research on the relationship between soundproofing property and micromechanism. [15]
+Yan et al. (2014) studied the effect of polypropylene/clay composites on suppressing sound. It was found that polypropylene (PP)/clay composites dramatically increased by small quantities of clay filled in PP matrix. In this paper, different types of specimens were made at 0.9, 2.9, 4.8, 6.5, 8.2 and 9.9 wt.% of organically modified clay reinforced PP (100 gram) by solvent based techniques. A heating press and laser cutting process were used to create specimens with thickness 3 mm, diameter 29 mm and 100 mm for high and low sound frequency tests, respectively. The soundproofing property was measured by sound transmission loss (TL) through the impedance tube method. The measured results showed that about 7∼14.8 dB sound TL was increased for 29 mm diameter PP/Clay (6.5 wt.%) composite specimens compared with pure PP at 3200∼6400Hz. And about 3.3∼5.3 dB sound TL was increased for 100 mm diameter PP/Clay (6.5 wt.%) composite specimens compared with pure PP at 520∼640Hz. In addition, mechanical properties of this composite were measured, and TEM images were taken in order to observe the micro-structure for research on the relationship between soundproofing property and micromechanism. [15]
-Kim et al (2013) evaluated the effectiveness of clay reinforced polypropylene fiber as soundproofing material. Researchers used a composite made out of clay reinforced polypropylene fiber which is a synthetic fiber that can be found in carpets and blankets due to its good heat insulating properties, and high melting point. 7 different composites were constructed that all varied in clay reinforcement weight. When compared to the control group (pure polypropylene fiber), all reinforced composite had suppressed more sound. It was observed that 6.5 wt.% clay reinforced Polypropylene composites had the best soundproofing performance in comparison with other composites for both low and high sound frequency field. In other words it was the most consistent composite for soundproofing. The set-up these researchers used to test the soundproofing capabilities of the different combinations of clay reinforced polypropylene composites was an impedance tube connected to two different amplifiers, one responsible for transmitting the sound and another for receiving the sound. [16]
+Kim et al. (2013) evaluated the effectiveness of clay reinforced polypropylene fiber as soundproofing material. Researchers used a composite made out of clay reinforced polypropylene fiber which is a synthetic fiber that can be found in carpets and blankets due to its good heat insulating properties, and high melting point. 7 different composites were constructed that all varied in clay reinforcement weight. When compared to the control group (pure polypropylene fiber), all reinforced composite had suppressed more sound. It was observed that 6.5 wt.% clay reinforced Polypropylene composites had the best soundproofing performance in comparison with other composites for both low and high sound frequency field. In other words it was the most consistent composite for soundproofing. The set-up these researchers used to test the soundproofing capabilities of the different combinations of clay reinforced polypropylene composites was an impedance tube connected to two different amplifiers, one responsible for transmitting the sound and another for receiving the sound. [16]
-Cozzarini et al (2023) explored the development of a lightweight thermal and acoustic insulation material derived from a hydrogel-based mixture incorporating renewable biopolymer and recycled fiberglass waste powders. The research emphasized the material's potential for insulating applications in the building and industrial sectors, addressing environmental concerns and promoting sustainable practices. The findings from this study underscore the significance of such innovative materials and warrant further investigation in this field. [17]
+Cozzarini et al. (2023) explored the development of a lightweight thermal and acoustic insulation material derived from a hydrogel-based mixture incorporating renewable biopolymer and recycled fiberglass waste powders. The research emphasized the material's potential for insulating applications in the building and industrial sectors, addressing environmental concerns and promoting sustainable practices. The findings from this study underscore the significance of such innovative materials and warrant further investigation in this field. [17]
 By mimicking these studies, this project aimed to find an alternative to conventional soundproofing using recyclable materials. The purpose of this experiment was to create an effective yet cost-effiicient soundproofing alternative that can reduce noise levels by 15% or more. This percent reduction was calculated by dividing 80 decibels (noise level tolerated by the human ear) by 94 decibels (average noise output in urban centers).  It was hypothesized that foam, binder and cardboard could effectively reduce noise levels by 15% or more. Cardboard should have the lowest average amplitude and the highest percent reduction of sound due to its high density relative to the other materials. The null hypothesis was that foam, binder and cardboard would have no effect on the reduction of noise levels. There will be no difference in the ability of foam, binder, and cardboard to reduce noise levels. The engineering goal of this study was to successfully construct a low cost and effective impedance tube to test the soundproofing capabilities of recyclable materials.

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 Figure 1: Low-Cost Impedance Tube
@@ Line 56: / Line 54: @@
 [[File:Review_667457076814_5227_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.34 AM.png|510x510px]]
 Figure 3: 400 Hertz sound wave - Control (No Material)
 [[File:Review_667457076814_6161_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.40 AM.png|570x570px]]
@@ Line 68: / Line 66: @@
-[[File:Review_667457076814_7205_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.57 AM.png|510x510px]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_7205_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.57 AM.png|536x536px]]
 Figure 6: 400 Hertz sound wave - Cardboard

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 <nowiki>[4] Cai, Z., Al Faruque, M. A., Kiziltas, A., Mielewski, D., & Naebe, M. (2021). Sustainable Lightweight Insulation Materials from Textile-Based Waste for the Automobile Industry. Materials, 14(5), 1241. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/5/1241</nowiki>
-<nowiki>[5] Hahad, O., Prochaska, J. H., Daiber, A., & Muenzel, T. (2019, November 11). Environmental noise-induced effects on stress hormones, oxidative stress, and vascular dysfunction: Key factors in the relationship between cerebrocardiovascular and psychological disorders. Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6878772/ </nowiki>
+<nowiki>[5] Hahad, O., Prochaska, J. H., Daiber, A., & Muenzel, T. (2019). Environmental noise-induced effects on stress hormones, oxidative stress, and vascular dysfunction: Key factors in the relationship between cerebrocardiovascular and psychological disorders. Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6878772/ </nowiki>
 <nowiki>[6] Denisova, L., Klyuchnikova, N., and Emelyanov S., (2020). Soundproofing materials in construction using polymer composites, Materials: Science and Engineering 945(012010) Pages 1-6 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/945/1/012010/pdf</nowiki>
-[7] Franssen, E. A., van Wiechen, C. M., Nagelkerke, N. J., & Lebret, E. (2004). Aircraft noise around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use. Occupational and environmental medicine, 61(5), 405–413.
+[7] Franssen, E. A., van Wiechen, C. M., Nagelkerke, N. J., & Lebret, E. (2004). Aircraft noise around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use. Occupational and environmental medicine, 61(5), 405–413. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2002.005488</nowiki>
-−
 <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2002.005488</nowiki>
 <nowiki>[8] Sambucci, M., & Valente, M. (2021). Influence of Waste Tire Rubber Particles Size on the Microstructural, Mechanical, and Acoustic Insulation Properties of 3D-Printable Cement Mortars. Civil Engineering Journal, 7(6). https://www.civilejournal.org/index.php/cej/article/view/2754</nowiki>
-<nowiki>[9] Interesting Facts about Recycling | Florida Tech. (n.d.). https://www.fit.edu/facilities/sustainability/recycling/interesting-facts-about-recycling/#:~:text=3%2C000%20acres%20per%20hour...,pounds%20less%20of%20air%20pollution. </nowiki>
+<nowiki>[9] Interesting Facts about Recycling | Florida Tech. (2009). https://www.fit.edu/facilities/sustainability/recycling/interesting-facts-about-recycling/#:~:text=3%2C000%20acres%20per%20hour...,pounds%20less%20of%20air%20pollution. </nowiki>
 <nowiki>[10] Cao, L., Qiuxia, F., Si, Y., Ding, B. & Yu, J. (2018). Porous materials for sound absorption. Composites, Communications, 10, 25-35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452213918300433#:~:text=As%20the%20most%20abundantly%20used,the%20field%20of%20sound%20absorption</nowiki>
-[11] Berardi, U., Iannace, G., 2015. Acoustic characterization of natural fibers for sound absorption applications. Build. Environ. 94, 840–852
+[11] Berardi, U., Iannace, G. (2015). Acoustic characterization of natural fibers for sound absorption applications. Build. Environ. 94, 840–852
 <nowiki>[12] Tiuc, A.,  Gabor,T., Sur, I., Vermesan, H., (2017). Recovery of sawdust, recycled rubber particles and textile waste by making sound absorbing materials. SGEM International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference EXPO Proceedings, 43 171-178 https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017h/43/s18.022. </nowiki>

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 ==Results==
-[[File:Review_667457076814_5227_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.34 AM.png|0x0px]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_5227_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.34 AM.png|510x510px]]
 Figure 3: 400 Hertz sound wave - Control (No Material)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Acoustics is the study of sound, its production, transmission, and effects. The distance between each wave and its vertical height display both the frequency of the sound, as well as the pitch [10]. A louder noise has a greater amplitude while a quieter noise has a lower amplitude.. The distance between each wave represents the frequency. Tight and compact waves indicate a higher frequency pitch whereas more spread out waves indicate a lower frequency pitch [11]. Whether it be absorbing or reflecting, all materials have acoustical properties. Upon contact with any given surface, sound waves with higher amplitudes are more likely to be transmitted whereas those with lower amplitudes are more likely to be reflected. The behavior of sound waves are different based on the nature of the surface they come into contact with. The properties of soundproofing materials are heavily influenced by the density of the material being tested. The lower the density the easier absorption of sound waves becomes. If too low, the sound waves would be able to pass through the material. A material with high density would be able to reflect sound waves off of its surface. Soundproofing materials like Mass Loaded Vinyl (MLV), acoustic foam panels, and fiberglass insulation are widely used due to their excellent sound-absorbing properties. However, their high costs and environmental footprints necessitate the exploration of affordable, sustainable alternatives. Potential substitutes include recycled rubber, cork, hemp, flax, and cellulose [12]. These materials are all eco-friendly, with some made from renewable resources and others from recycled products. Despite their promise, they require comprehensive testing to determine their true soundproofing capabilities and market viability [13]. The recyclable materials tested varied in density. Some materials were less dense than others while some were more dense. Not only are these materials widely available and affordable, they also have the densities to be excellent soundproofing materials [14].
-== Review of Previous Literature ==
+'''Review of Previous Literature'''
 Yan et al (2014) studied the effect of polypropylene/clay composites on suppressing sound. It was found that polypropylene (PP)/clay composites dramatically increased by small quantities of clay filled in PP matrix. In this paper, different types of specimens were made at 0.9, 2.9, 4.8, 6.5, 8.2 and 9.9 wt.% of organically modified clay reinforced PP (100 gram) by solvent based techniques. A heating press and laser cutting process were used to create specimens with thickness 3 mm, diameter 29 mm and 100 mm for high and low sound frequency tests, respectively. The soundproofing property was measured by sound transmission loss (TL) through the impedance tube method. The measured results showed that about 7∼14.8 dB sound TL was increased for 29 mm diameter PP/Clay (6.5 wt.%) composite specimens compared with pure PP at 3200∼6400Hz. And about 3.3∼5.3 dB sound TL was increased for 100 mm diameter PP/Clay (6.5 wt.%) composite specimens compared with pure PP at 520∼640Hz. In addition, mechanical properties of this composite were measured, and TEM images were taken in order to observe the micro-structure for research on the relationship between soundproofing property and micromechanism. [15]

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:40, 10 August 2023
(No difference)

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 The purpose of this experiment was to create an effective yet cost-efficient soundproofing alternative that can reduce noise levels by 15% or more. The self-constructed, low-cost impedance tube did introduce some trial-to-trial variation, but these differences were minimal. The tube succeeded in measuring the soundproofing capabilities of the recyclable materials under test, yielding reproducible results with an average variation of just 0.000462 decibels between trials—less than 5% error. The successful construction of this impedance tube enabled efficient and effective data collection for our soundproofing material tests. Impressively, all the materials were capable of reducing noise by 15% or more. The Vernier Sound Probe did limit the accuracy of the results somewhat due to its inability to capture amplitudes greater than 2.5 decibels, resulting in a lower average amplitude for the control group (no composite). Thus, with more sensitive equipment, the actual percentage reduction in noise could potentially be much higher, allowing for a broader data range and increased accuracy.
-Correspondingly, the materials with the highest densities were the most effective at noise suppression. This aligns with fundamental acoustic principles, whereby higher density materials are typically better at reflecting sound. As shown in Figure 11, materials with greater densities outperformed those with lower densities in noise suppression. Lower density materials can absorb sound waves, but if the density is too low, the sound waves may pass through the material, reducing suppression efficiency (Flores et al., 2016; Denisova et al., 2020). In contrast, thicker, higher density materials excelled in noise suppression (Figure 10). The closely packed particles in these denser materials provide a barrier that sound waves find difficult to penetrate, leading to increased reflection (Starodubsteva et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2012). To elaborate, the density of a material significantly influences its acoustic behavior. Sound waves are more likely to be reflected rather than absorbed when encountering denser materials. Thus, density plays a critical role in a material's ability to absorb, transmit, or reflect sound, thereby providing the fundamental explanation for our observed trends.
+Correspondingly, the composites with the highest densities were the most effective at noise suppression. This aligns with fundamental acoustic principles, whereby higher density materials are typically better at reflecting sound. As shown in Figure 11, materials with greater densities outperformed those with lower densities in noise suppression. Lower density materials can absorb sound waves, but if the density is too low, the sound waves may pass through the material, reducing suppression efficiency [20]. In contrast, thicker, higher density materials excelled in noise suppression (Figure 11). The closely packed particles in these denser materials provide a barrier that sound waves find difficult to penetrate, leading to increased reflection [21]. To elaborate, the density of a material significantly influences its acoustic behavior. Sound waves are more likely to be reflected rather than absorbed when encountering denser materials [22]. Thus, density plays a critical role in a material's ability to absorb, transmit, or reflect sound, thereby providing the fundamental explanation for our observed trends [23].
 '''Limitations'''

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 (Equation 1)
-Figures 3-6 are the average amplitudes of each material as well as a control group. (Independent Variable-Time in seconds, Dependent Variable-Average Amplitude in Decibels, n=50). The peaks in the sound curve of Figure 3 plateau because the Vernier Sound Probe cannot measure sound pressures higher than 2.5 decibels. Figure 7 is Figures 3-6 compiled into one graph. Figure 8 is a bar graph comparing the average amplitudes of all the materials, whereas Figure 10 shows the percent reductions of each material. All materials had lower average amplitudes when compared to Control Group 1 and all materials were able to reduce noise levels by 15% or more, with cardboard having the highest percent reduction (87.12%). This was calculated using equation 1. As predicted, foam, binder, and cardboard can effectively reduce noise levels by 15% or more and cardboard had lowest average amplitude and the highest percent reduction of sound due to its high density relative to the other materials (Borlea et al 2012, Mamtaz et al 2016). The data was analyzed by running a One-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc scheffe where p is less than 0.001. Every composite material evaluated in our study showed significant differences when compared to the control. Variation between trials of each composite material was on average 0.000462 decibels (less than 5% of error) supporting the significance of the results
+Figures 4-7 are the average amplitudes of each material as well as a control group. (Independent Variable-Time in seconds, Dependent Variable-Average Amplitude in Decibels, n=50). The peaks in the sound curve of Figure 4 plateau because the Vernier Sound Probe cannot measure sound pressures higher than 2.5 decibels. Figure 8 is Figures 4-7 compiled into one graph. Figure 9 is a bar graph comparing the average amplitudes of all the materials, whereas Figure 10 shows the percent reductions of each material. All materials had lower average amplitudes when compared to Control Group 1 and all composites were able to reduce noise levels by 15% or more, with cardboard having the highest percent reduction (87.12%). This was calculated using equation 1. As predicted, foam, binder, and cardboard composites can effectively reduce noise levels by 15% or more and cardboard had lowest average amplitude and the highest percent reduction of sound due to its high density relative to the other materials [18, 19]. The data was analyzed by running a One-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc scheffe where p is less than 0.001. Every composite material evaluated in our study showed significant differences when compared to the control. Variation between trials of each composite material was on average 0.000462 decibels (less than 5% of error) supporting the significance of the results
 == Discussion ==

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
-[[File:Review_667457076814_7691_impedance.png|383x383px]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_7691_impedance.png|447x447px]]
 Figure 1: Low-Cost Impedance Tube
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
-[[File:Review_667457076814_3728_box_and_binder_2.png|428x428px]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_3728_box_and_binder_2.png|521x521px]]
 Figure 2: Recyclable Materials Used
@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 ==Results==
-[[File:Review_667457076814_5227_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.34 AM.png]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_5227_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.34 AM.png|0x0px]]
 Figure 3: 400 Hertz sound wave - Control (No Material)
-[[File:Review_667457076814_6161_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.40 AM.png]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_6161_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.40 AM.png|570x570px]]
 Figure 4: 400 Hertz sound wave -Soundproofing Material
-[[File:Review_667457076814_4110_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.50 AM.png]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_4110_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.50 AM.png|531x531px]]
 Figure 5: 400 Hertz sound wave - Foam
-[[File:Review_667457076814_7205_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.57 AM.png]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_7205_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.45.57 AM.png|510x510px]]
 Figure 6: 400 Hertz sound wave - Cardboard
-[[File:Review_667457076814_5539_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.46.03 AM.png]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_5539_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.46.03 AM.png|561x561px]]
 Figure 7: All Materials Compared to Control (400 Hertz sound wave)
-[[File:Review_667457076814_3477_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.46.10 AM.png]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_3477_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.46.10 AM.png|552x552px]]
 Figure 8: Average Amplitudes of Recyclable Materials in decibels
@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
-[[File:Review_667457076814_6513_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.46.17 AM.png]]
+[[File:Review_667457076814_6513_Screen Shot 2023-08-10 at 10.46.17 AM.png|577x577px]]
 Figure 9: Percent Reduction vs. Type of Material