Applied Acoustics 129 (2018) 86–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

Technical note

Potential use of cigarette filters as sound porous absorber

Rubén Maderuelo-Sanz a,⇑, Valentín Gómez Escobar b, Juan Miguel Meneses-Rodríguez a
a
Instituto Tecnológico de Rocas Ornamentales y Materiales de Construcción, INTROMAC, Campus Universidad de Extremadura, 10071 Cáceres, Spain
b
Dpto de Física Aplicada, E. Politécnica, Universidad de Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cigarette butts are a common type of litter. This paper reports an investigation of the physical properties
Received 27 June 2017 and acoustical performance of a cellulose acetate material made from cigarette filters. Physical properties
Received in revised form 10 July 2017 measured include porosity, flow resistivity, fiber diameter and skeletal density. The influence of smoking
Accepted 12 July 2017
on these physical properties is explored. The acoustical performance of the cigarette filter derived mate-
Available online 23 July 2017
rial has been assessed according to ISO 10534–2: 1998 and compared to that of other commercial fiber
materials. The comparison shows that, for a given thickness, the performance is similar or better suggest-
Keywords:
ing that the material should be considered as an alternative to commercial products in building
Sound absorber
Cigarette filter
construction.
Acoustical properties Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sustainable material

1. Introduction
Nowadays, one of the most common types of litter in the world
are the cigarette butts. Euromonitor International estimated that
more than 5.8 trillion cigarettes were smoked worldwide in 2104
[1]. These numbers are expected to increase more than 50% in
2025, mainly due to an increase in world population and in tobacco
production [2]. This results in an enormous quantity of tonnes of
toxic waste in the form of cigarette butts. This waste is not easily
biodegradable. Therefore, landfilling [3] or incineration [4] of cigar-
ette butts are not universally sustainable or economically feasible
disposal methods [5] so the problem of the disposal of this kind
of waste is a serious environmental problem.
Cigarette filters are mainly made of highly purified cellulose
fiber, derived from wood pulp through acetylation (reacted with
acetic anhydride) to the secondary acetate by hydrolysis producing
cellulose diacetate fiber, commonly called cellulose acetate [5]. The
photodegradation of this not biodegradable substance takes sev-
eral months, and is only partial even this material is broken into
smaller pieces [6,7]. Thus, recycling of this kind of waste material,
a pending issue particularly in developed countries, can eliminate a
substantial portion of the purchase and disposal costs for new
materials or applications. Focusing on efforts to obtain more envi-
ronmentally respectful new products should be the starting point
for environmental sustainability. In the last years some authors
have proposed some different uses for smoked butts [5,8,9].
This work shows the potential use of used cellulose acetate as
sound absorbent materials, continuing the work developed by
Gomez Escobar and Maderuelo-Sanz [10] for used cigarette filters.
In recent years natural fibers and recycling materials are increas-
ingly gaining attention in diversified engineering end uses instead
of rock or mineral fibers, some of them having natural origin
[11–13] or through the use of recycled materials as cork or rubber
[14,15] to develop new and effective sound porous absorbers. Thus,
the recycling of similar wastes into these new sound absorbent
materials has become a viable option to be considered in building
construction.
The acoustical performance of cigarette filters has previously
studied by these authors, but this work offers the difference with
the previous work that in this case, only the acoustical perfor-
mance from the cellulose acetate, an homogeneous material where
the constitution and pore structure of samples taken from different
regions of a large sample may not vary considerably, was studied,
while in the previous work [10], the samples studied were pre-
pared from intact cigarette butts. It is obvious that the cellulose
acetate thus studied needs to be further treated because of the dif-
ferent carcinogenic components that it presents (there are over
5000 identified chemicals and more than 60 known carcinogens
in cigarette smoke) [16].
2. Measurements
2.1. Materials and sample preparation

⇑ Corresponding author. The materials used in this work are cigarette filters (CFs)
E-mail address: rmaderuelo@intromac.com (R. Maderuelo-Sanz). mainly made of an outer paper (a tipping paper often printed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.07.011
0003-682X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Maderuelo-Sanz et al. / Applied Acoustics 129 (2018) 86–91 87

to look like cork), an inner paper wrapper (having a polyvinyl
acetate emulsion to attach the outer paper and to seam the wrap-
per), and non-biodegradable cellulose acetate. Two different types
of cigarette filters were employed, used and non-used, the former
consisting of different brands and sizes collected from dry recep-
tacles and the latter were purchased. Non-smoked cigarette filters
are used as well as smoked ones to investigate the differences in
physical and acoustical properties that result from their being
smoked.
CFs were dried at 80 °C for 72 h in order to disinfect and to
remove the humidity and then stored in sealed plastic bags. Cellu-
lose acetate was manually separated from the outer and inner
paper and was shredded into short fibers which were subsequently
mixed. The authors proposed this initial treatment in order to
obtain a homogeneous mixture getting more reliable and homoge-
neous physical properties like porosity, flow resistivity or bulk
density for each tested sample. Finally, the blend was compacted
between a grid and the hard back termination of the impedance
tube (Fig. 1) to reach a given bulk density where no specific bond-
ing method was used. Some authors have studied that the bonding
method had little effects on the sound acoustical performance and,
its impact may be indirectly included in the bulk density of the
mixture [17,18].
For non-used Cigarette Filters (CFnu#n), six different bulk den-
sities were prepared with a thickness of 14 mm. In the case of used
Cigarette Filters (CFu#), 3 different thicknesses; 14 mm (CFu#n),
26.5 mm (CFu#2n) and 52 mm (CFu#4n), were studied (where
n = 1–6). For each thickness six different bulk densities were pre-
pared too. The total of different samples used in this work was
24 groups of CF with different bulk densities and thicknesses
(Table 1). In order to obtain and averaged value, 4 specimens for
each group were tested.
2.2. Physical properties
Fibers diameters, mass per unit area, porosity, air flow resistiv-
ity, surface impedance and sound absorption coefficient at normal
incidence were measured and analysed.

Fig. 1. Photograph of samples of non-used (a) and used (b) acetate cellulose fiber from cigarette filter in the sample holder of 29 mm.

Table 1
Physical properties of used (CFu#) and non-used (CFnu#) samples tested.

Sample ID Bulk density (kg m
3) Average mass per area (g m
2) Porosity Flow resistivity (Pa s m
2)
CFnu#1 102.12 1440 0.974 19,201
CFnu #2 110.71 1560 0.972 20,687
CFnu #3 119.30 1680 0.970 19,582
CFnu #4 127.89 1800 0.968 22,104
CFnu #5 136.48 1920 0.965 23,541
CFnu #6 145.07 2050 0.963 24,117
CFu#1 104.04 1470 0.953 23,447
CFu #2 116.91 1650 0.947 24,002
CFu #3 127.42 1800 0.943 26,705
CFu #4 137.93 1950 0.938 27,665
CFu #5 148.44 2100 0.933 29,365
CFu #6 158.95 2240 0.929 34,201
CFu#21 89.75 2380 0.960 20,113
CFu #22 98.04 2600 0.956 21,009
CFu #23 106.43 2820 0.953 23,787
CFu #24 114.60 3040 0.949 23,587
CFu #25 122.60 3250 0.945 23,784
CFu #26 130.66 3460 0.942 28,014
CFu#41 92.61 4820 0.959 21,314
CFu #42 101.41 5270 0.955 23,170
CFu #43 109.56 5700 0.951 22,587
CFu #44 117.83 6130 0.947 23,712
CFu #45 126.82 6600 0.943 26,387
CFu #46 135.09 7030 0.940 28,207
88 R. Maderuelo-Sanz et al. / Applied Acoustics 129 (2018) 86–91
Fig. 2. Optical image of acetate cellulose fiber from used cigarette filter.
Average fibers diameters were determined using a Sensofar Plu
Neox laser scanning confocal microscope, using a 50X (0.80 NA)
objective, with a spatial sampling of 0.26 lm, an optical resolution
of 0.17 lm, a vertical resolution of 3 nm and a z-step interval of 1
mm. At least 30 specimens of fibers were measured and diameters
were averaged (Fig. 2). The average fiber diameters obtained, for
used and non-used CFs, were 39 ± 2 lm and 31 ± 2 lm, respec-
tively. For determining mass per unit area values, four samples,
with a minimum diameter of 8.89 cm, were weighed in grams
using a Mettler Toledo Precision Weighing (AX 205) balance. The
procedure was in accordance with ASTM D 3776–07 Standard Test
Method for Mass per Unit Area (Weight) of Fabric [19].
The total porosity, Xtotal, can be easily calculated from the mea-
sured bulk material density and the solid material density. In this
work, it was measured non-acoustically using a helium stereo-
pycnometer (Quantachrome SPY-3) using a calibrated cell having
a volume of 35.39 cm3. The helium stereo-pycnometer allows us
to perform very accurate measurements of skeletal density and
total porosity, the latter given by the next expression:
qm
Xtotal ¼ 1

qs
where qm is the bulk material density of the sample and qs is the
skeletal density of the fibrous material. For each measurement four
different samples were used, each measured five times and the
results were averaged. All the samples were weighed before each
measurement. The skeletal density obtained for used and non-
used CFs was 2.224 ± 0.068 g cm
3 and 3.940 ± 0.089 g cm
3,
respectively.
The porosity of the fibrous material, thus evaluated, presents
higher values than porosity obtained by the method of water satu-
ration used by Vasina et al. [20] because helium, due to its small
atomic dimensions, could enter into those pores where the air
was not able to penetrate so the value of the total porosity is more
Fig. 3. Experimental arrangement for the measurement of the flow impedance of a porous material (adapted from [26]).
accurate. Porosity alone does not provide a complete picture of the
porous structure and thus some other physical properties are
required. Air flow resistivity is an additional property of the mate-
rial structure that can help to determine the acoustic absorption.
Flow resistivity is one of the most important properties of a
fibrous sound absorber and is determined by the material density,
being inversely proportional to the fiber diameter [21,22]. The
Ingard and Dear method [23] was used for the calculation of the
flow resistivity, r, of the CFs. This method is used in the area of
acoustic characterization of materials as an alternative to the stan-
dardized method, and is based on the standing wave tube with two
microphones. For a circular tube of diameter D (Fig. 3), the wave-
length has to be larger than 1.7 D, and the distance between the
sample and the rigid termination, L, has to be an odd number of
quarter wavelengths, L = (2n
1)k/4, where n = 1, 2, 3,. . . [23]. Flow
resistivity is determined by measuring the sound pressure level
across the sample. Equation (2) was used to evaluate the flow
resistivity of the fiber samples:
q0 c 0
r¼  10ðL1
L2 Þ=20 ð2Þ
d
where q0 is the air density, c0 is the sound propagation velocity in
air, d is the thickness of the sample and, L1 sound pressure level
in front of the sample and L2 sound pressure level at the rigid termi-
nation, behind the sample.
The acoustical properties of the different samples were carried
out through measurements of the surface impedance and sound
absorption coefficient at normal incidence using an impedance
tube and the standard procedure detailed in ISO 10534–2 [24].
The impedance tube method has a great number of advantages:
only a small sample is required for the tests and it allows the sur-
face impedance to be determined in addition to the absorption
coefficient. The disadvantages are that the properties are only mea-
sured for sound at normal incidence although it is possible to apply
a correction; obtaining an approximate value of the random inci-
dence absorption coefficient and those uncertainties are intro-
duced when measuring heterogeneous materials as the
constitution and pore structure of samples taken from different
regions of a large sample may vary considerably.
ð1Þ The acoustical measurements were made using a Brüel & Kjær
Impedance Tube Kit Type 4206, and two ¼” Condenser Micro-
phones Type 4187. The signals were analysed with a portable Brüel
& Kjær PULSE System with four input data channels (type 3560-C).
Sample holders of 100 mm and 29 mm in diameter are provided;
the first was employed for measurements over the range of fre-
quencies from 50 Hz to 1.6 kHz and the latter over the range of fre-
quencies from 500 Hz to 6.4 kHz. For each measurement four
different samples were used and averaged.
3. Results and discussion
In order to determine the acoustical performance between used
(CFu#) and non-used (CFnu#) cigarette filters, six different sam-
 R. Maderuelo-Sanz et al. / Applied Acoustics 129 (2018) 86–91
Fig. 4. Variation of the porosity vs. flow resistivity.
ples of each type were tested. Table 1 shows the physical proper-
ties of the samples. The samples of CFu#, that present lower skele-
tal density than samples of CFnu#, show higher values of flow
resistivity and lower values of porosity so both are inversely pro-
portional (Fig. 4). The fiber increases its mass and diameter once
is smoked so the skeletal density decreases. These differences in
the properties of the samples can provide us different porous
microstructures and consequently different acoustical properties.
All the samples present an open pore structure in which the pores
are interconnected; being this an important factor, although not
the only one, to good sound absorption. For a given homogenous
fibrous layer, a reduction in porosity is followed by an increase
in flow resistivity [14]. Fig. 5 shows the absorption coefficient spec-
trum for samples that present similar bulk densities, samples
CFnu#1 and CFu#1, CFnu#4 and CFu#3, or CFnu#5 and CFu#4.
Generally, CFnu# samples show higher values of sound absorp-
tion coefficient than CFu# samples for low frequencies. For sam-
ples with low densities, like samples CFnu#1 and CFu#1, there
are notable differences for frequencies below 3500 Hz while for
frequencies higher, both samples tend to have the same value of
sound absorption coefficient. In the case of samples that have
higher bulk densities, CFnu#4, CFu#3, CFnu#5 and CFu#4, these
differences in the sound absorption coefficient for low frequencies,
are lower and for frequencies up to 2100 Hz, CFu# samples show
Fig. 5. Sound absorption coefficient for the samples CFnu#1, CFnu#4, CFnu#5,
CFu#1, CFu#3 and CFu#4.
89
Fig. 6. Sound absorption coefficient for CFu# samples with a thickness of 26.5 mm.
higher values of the sound absorption coefficient. This is due to
the higher values of porosity and lower values of flow resistivity
that show CFnu# samples respect CFu# samples with similar bulk
density.
Fig. 6 shows the sound absorption results for samples 26.5 mm
thick. There is a similar sound absorption performance for all the
samples for frequencies below 1200 Hz, where this is slightly
higher for samples that have higher values of flow resistivity and
lower values of porosity. For frequencies up to 4800 Hz, all the
samples tend to show the same value of the sound absorption coef-
ficient, showing values higher than 0.90. In the range of 1200–
4800 Hz, the value of the sound absorption coefficient is different
for each sample, where the bulk density for each sample results
in a progressively increased value of the absorption coefficient
throughout this frequency range. Samples CFu#21 and CFu#22
show a first maximum value of the absorption coefficient, 0.9922
and 0.9784, respectively, achieved at 2320 Hz. In the case of the
samples CFu#23 and CFu#24, the first maximum is at 2560 Hz
having values of 0.9404 and 0.9118, respectively, while for samples
CFu#25 and CFu#26, the first maximum was not found in this fre-
quencies range.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the values of the real and imaginary parts of
the normal acoustic impedance, Zs, for the samples that have a
thickness equal to 26.5 mm. The real part is the resistance
Fig. 7. Real part of the normal acoustic impedance for CFu#2 samples.
90 R. Maderuelo-Sanz et al. / Applied Acoustics 129 (2018) 86–91
Fig. 8. Imaginary part of the normal acoustic impedance for CFu#2 samples.
associated with energy losses and the imaginary parts, the reac-
tance, associated with phase changes and indicate the sound atten-
uation and reflection capacity of the materials, respectively. Both
parameters give the sound absorption character of the samples.
The real parts of the surface impedance for all the samples show
values relatively small. Only the samples CFu#21, CFu#22,
CFu#23 and CFu#24 show a well defined maximum in the real part
of the surface impedance in accordance with the sound absorption
spectrum being its amplitude reduced. The sample CFu#21 has the
lower value and indicates that its attenuation capacity is strongest
among the other samples in the vicinity of the maximum of sound
absorption coefficient as we can see in Fig. 6. The attenuation
effects in this range are so high and are in accordance with the
weak reflection effect where values of the imaginary part of the
impedance, close to the value of zero, can be seen in the Fig. 8. This
results in high values of acoustic absorption almost throughout the
entire frequency range of these samples.
Through change the thickness of the samples, the sound absorp-
tion spectrum and the first interference maximum, if the latter
exists, are shifted toward low frequencies. Fig. 9 shows the sound
absorption spectrum for CFu#4 samples that have a thickness
equal to 52.0 mm. All the samples show a similar sound absorption
performance for frequencies below 400 Hz. Over the range of fre-
quencies from 400 Hz to 6.4 kHz, samples that have lower values
Fig. 9. Sound absorption coefficient for CFu#4 samples.
Fig. 10. Sound absorption coefficient for samples CFu#1, CFu#21 and CFu#41.
of bulk density, enclosed with high porosity and low flow resistiv-
ity, show higher values of sound absorption coefficient, shifting to
values of 0.957 for frequencies up to 6400 Hz. For this samples,
only sample CFu#41 shows a first interference maximum at
960 Hz.
If we compare CFu# samples that present the best acoustical
performance for the different thicknesses studied in this work,
samples CFu#1, CFu#21 and CFu#41 (Fig. 10), it can see that when
the thickness increases, the absorption increases at low frequen-
cies, while at higher frequencies the thickness has insignificant
effect, tending asymptotically to the value of 0.95, and the first
maximum shift toward low frequencies decreasing the value of
the sound absorption coefficient. This is due to the lower values
of the real part of the normal acoustic impedance for samples with
higher thickness, where the maximums in the real part of the sur-
face impedance tend to shift to lower frequencies and the widths of
these maximums in the surface impedance become reduced
(Fig. 11), so the attenuation capacity of the sample will be
decreased when the impedance is reduced, and the reflection of
the sample will go down greatly.
In order to compare with some commercial sound porous
absorbers, four different materials made of glass wool (GW-Y-5,
GW-B-4.3 and GW-G-4) and fiber glass (FG-4), have been tested.
Fig. 11. Real part of the normal acoustic impedance for samples CFu#1, CFu#21 and
CFu#41.
 R. Maderuelo-Sanz et al. / Applied Acoustics 129 (2018) 86–91
Fig. 12. Sound absorption coefficient for samples CFu#21, CFu#41 and commercial
sound porous absorbers used in this work.
The bulk densities of these samples were 30.37, 102.03, 109.99 and
69.34 kg m
3, respectively, having a fiber diameter ranging from
8 lm to 12 lm for the glass wool and 12 lm for the fiber glass.
Fig. 12 shows the normal sound absorption coefficient for the sam-
ples with similar thickness of commercial sound porous absorbers
and the samples CFu#21 and CFu#41 used in this.
These results show that the best acoustic performance for the
glass wool is for the sample GW-Y-5 with a thickness of 5 cm.
The sample CFu#41, with a similar thickness than this last sample
(5.2 cm), shows an acoustic performance better than the sample
GW-Y-5 for frequencies below 1100 Hz. Samples CFu#21, GW-B-
4.3, GW-G-4 and FG-4, have similar acoustic performance, showing
a high sound absorption value over the frequency range of interest,
with values up to 0.80.
4. Conclusions
This work shows an investigation of the acoustical performance
of the cellulose acetate coming from used Cigarette Filters as sound
porous absorber and it is a preliminary study carried out in sam-
ples prepared from cellulose acetate. Cellulose acetate was manu-
ally separated of the outer and inner paper and was shredded into
short fibers which were subsequently mixed, obtaining a homoge-
neous mixture where no specific bonding method was used. Poros-
ity, flow resistivity and sound absorption coefficient were studied
and compared with non used cellulose acetate and some commer-
cial sound porous absorbers. Bulk density, porosity and flow resis-
tivity have an important effect on acoustic properties. The results
obtained show that the acoustical performance of used and non
used Cigarette filters are similar, being the latter the material that
present a slightly better performance for low frequencies, mainly
due to a higher porosity and a lower flow resistivity than used
cigarette filters. As might be expected, the data show that sound
absorption is increased by increasing the bulk density, increasing
porosity and reducing flow resistivity.
91
The values of the normal sound absorption coefficient spectra
for samples with relatively low thickness made of cellulose acetate
coming from used Cigarette Filters could be good broadband sound
absorbers. These materials, used as sound porous absorbers, can
adequately compete with commercially available acoustical prod-
ucts and, in some cases, show better performance than conven-
tional porous absorbers in terms of their acoustical properties,
being a viable option to be considered in building construction or
noise barriers. Further studies are needed to reduce the odour
and to treat the potentially harmful constituents.
References
[1] Euromonitor International. Passport: Global Market Information Database
(2016) http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/topic/cigarette-use-globally. Accesed 15
february 2017.
[2] Mackay J, Eriksen M, Shafey O. The Tobacco Atlas 2nd Edition. In: American
Cancer Society. 2000:pp 32–33.
[3] Ruan AD, Min H, Peng X, Huang Z. Isolation and characterization of
Pseudomonas sp. strain HF-1, capable of degrading nicotine. Res Microbiol
2005;156:700–6.
[4] Knox A. An overview of incineration and EFW technology as applied to the
management of municipal solid waste (MSW). ONEIA Energy Subcommittee.
2005.
[5] Mohajerani A, Kadir AA, Larobina L. A practical proposal for solving the world’s
cigarette butt problem: recycling in fired clay bricks. Waste Manage
2016;52:228–44.
[6] Ach A. Biodegradable Plastics Based on Cellulose Acetate, Journal of
Macromolecular. J Macromol Sci Part A: Pure Appl Chem 2006;30:733–40.
[7] Brodof TA. The mechanisms of cellulose acetate degradation and their
relationships to environmental weathering. In: 50th Tobacco Chemists-
Research Conference - Conference Proceedings.
[8] d’Heni Teixeira MB, Duarte MAB, Raposo Garcez L, Camargo Rubim J, Hofmann
Gati T, Suarez PAZ. Process development for cigarette butts recycling into
cellulose pulp. Waste Manage 2017;60:140–50.
[9] Zhang J, Zhao J, Zhang N, Qu C, Zhang X. Synergized action of CuCl on recycled
cigarette butts as corrosion inhibitor for N80 steel at 90 & #xB0;c in 15% HCl.
Ind Eng Chem Res 2011;50:7264–72.
[10] Gómez Escobar V, Maderuelo-Sanz R. Acoustical performance of samples
prepared with cigarette butts. Appl Acoust 2017;125:166–72.
[11] Hee Or K, Azma P, Zulkefli Selamat M. Oil palm empty fruit bunch fibres as
sustainable acoustic absorber. Appl Acoust 2017;119:9–16.
[12] Oldham DJ, Egan CA, Cookson RD. Sustainable acoustic absorbers from the
biomass. Appl Acoust 2011;72:350–63.
[13] Putra A, Abdullah Y, Efendy H, Mohd Farid W, Sajidin Pi M. Utilizing Sugarcane
Wasted Fibers as a Sustainable Acoustic Absorber. Proc Eng 2013;53:632–8.
[14] Maderuelo-Sanz R, Nadal-Gisbert AV, Crespo-Amorós JE, Parres-García F. A
novel sound absorber with recycled fibers coming from end of life tires (ELTs).
Appl Acoust 2012;73:402–8.
[15] Khan A, Mohamed M, Al Halo N, Benkreira H. Acoustical properties of novel
sound absorbers made from recycled granulates. Appl Acoust 2017;127:80–8.
[16] Peterson LA, Urban AM, Hecht SS. Carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoke on
the respiratory tract. Comprehensive Toxicol. 2010;8:351–77.
[17] Lee Y, Joo C. Sound absorption properties of recycled polyester fibrous
assembly absorbers. Autex Res J 2003;3:78–84.
[18] Maderuelo-Sanz R, Martín-Castizo M, Vilchez-Gómez R. The performance of
resilient layers made from recycled rubber fluff for impact noise reduction.
Appl Acoust 2011;72:823–8.
[19] ASTM D 3776 07: Standard Test Methods for Mass Per Unit Area (Weight) of
Fabric. American Society for Testing and Materials; 2007.
[20] Vasina M, Hughes DC, Horoshenkov KV, Lapcík Jr L. The acoustical properties of
consolidated expanded clay granulates. Appl Acoust 2006;67:787–96.
[21] Kucuk M, Korkmaz Y. Sound absorption properties of bilayered nonwoven
composites. Fiber Polym 2016;16:941–8.
[22] Yang Y, Chen Z, Chen Z, Fu R, Li Y. Sound insulation properties of sandwich
structures on glass fiber felts. Fiber Polym 2015;16:1568–77.
[23] Ingard KU, Dear TA. Measurement of acoustic flow resistance. J Sound Vib
1985;103:567–72.
[24] ISO 10534–2. Acoustics: determination of sound absorption coefficient and
impedance in impedances tubes. Part 2: transfer-function method.
Switzerland; 1998.