materials

Article
Waste Utilization: Insulation Panel from Recycled
Polyurethane Particles and Wheat Husks
Štěpán Hýsek 1, * , Pavel Neuberger 2 , Adam Sikora 1 , Ondřej Schönfelder 1
and Gianluca Ditommaso 1
1 Department of Wood Processing and Biomaterials, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences,
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic;
sikoraa@fld.czu.cz (A.S.); schonfelder.ondrej@seznam.cz (O.S.); ditommaso@fld.czu.cz (G.D.)
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague,
Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic; neuberger@tf.czu.cz
* Correspondence: hyseks@fld.czu.cz; Tel.: +420-607-501-858




Received: 8 August 2019; Accepted: 19 September 2019; Published: 20 September 2019


Abstract: This study provides a solution for the utilization of two waste materials, namely the
residues of soft polyurethane foam from the production of mattresses and winter wheat husks.
Thermal insulation panels with a nominal density of 50–150 kg/m3 , bonded one-component
moisture curing polyurethane adhesive, were developed, and the effect of the ratio between recycled
polyurethane foam and winter wheat husk on internal bond strength, compressive stress at 10%
strain, water uptake, coefficient of thermal conductivity, and volumetric heat capacity was observed.
The developed composite materials make use of the very good thermal insulation properties of
the two input waste materials, and the coefficient of thermal conductivity of the resulting boards
achieves excellent values, namely 0.0418–0.0574 W/(m.K). The developed boards can be used as
thermal insulation in the structures of environmentally friendly buildings.

Keywords: heat insulation; polyurethane; husk; recycling; waste

1. Introduction
Nowadays, energetic efficiency, thermal insulation, and eco-compatibility are fundamental
properties of modern buildings. Energy efficiency is strongly connected to the development of
a building and the thermal insulation is one of the keys to increasing it. Scientific research is not
focusing solely on the low value of thermal conductivity, but also on the development and use of
natural materials. A new trend in this field is the use of recycled materials, for their convenience on
the market and especially for their potential to be used for insulation panels in new buildings and
reconstructions. The largest part of a building’s energy consumption can be attributed to the operating
phase, influenced by several factors, such as window and door thermal insulation [1,2] and opaque
wall thermal performance [3]. When thinking about insulation materials, it can be assumed that inside
the wall structure these are the layers that contribute most to the overall thermal behavior of the
walls during the warmest and coldest months. This is directly linked to the external conditions with
its specific thermo-physical properties [4]. The increased investments in near-zero buildings is also
promoting the use of passive solutions for the envelope, resulting in increased insulation thicknesses
of walls [5].
In terms of consumption of resources and waste generation, the construction sector is among
those of the economy with the highest impact on the environment. In a sustainable construction
approach, choosing the right insulating material must include a correct analysis of the entire life-cycle
of the product. Nowadays, the use of natural fillers for the reinforcement of composites has received

Materials 2019, 12, 3075; doi:10.3390/ma12193075 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 3075 2 of 11

increasing interests from academics and industry. Many kinds of natural resources have been analyzed
for industrial utilization, such as: flax, hemp, wood, wheat, barley, and oats [6–8]. These studies
are now evolving quickly as reasonable alternatives to synthetic materials for different applications,
for example in building materials or automotive components [9–12].
Husk material (husk from rice or wheat) can be suitable for the fabrication of different types
of panels for building applications [8]. Its acoustic and thermal behavior can be compared to many
other panels with a different filler–matrix. If we think about husk as filler, we can assume that it has
many advantages over mineral fillers; because it is a non-abrasive material, it requires less energy for
processing, and it can reduce the density of the final furnished products. The physical and mechanical
properties of a natural filler are strongly dependent on the matrix type, content, and properties
of the fillers used for reinforcement. One of the most important reasons to use a natural fiber or
filler-reinforced composite materials is susceptibility to moisture absorption and the resultant effect
of this on the physical, mechanical, and thermal properties [13]. However, the effect of moisture
absorption leads to the degradation of the filler–matrix interface region, creating poor stress transfer
efficiencies and ending in a reduction of the mechanical properties of the panel [8,14].
In this paper, husks are combined with polyurethane (PUR) recycled particles, and we hypothesize
that through a combination of husks and PUR particles, the disadvantages of wheat husks can be
eliminated. This study is focused on the production of heat insulation panels from recycled materials
and analyses from different points of view to better understand the thermal and moisture behavior of
this innovative composite material. The effect of the ratio between wheat husks and PUR particles on
the observed properties is studied.

2. Materials and Methods

Recycled open cell flexible polyurethane (PUR) foam with a density of 24 kg/m3 and a bulk density
of 11.3 kg/m3 and winter wheat husks were used to produce insulating boards. One-component
moisture-curing polyurethane adhesive NEOPUR M 2238 R Agglu was used as an adhesive, and the
weight of the adhesive ratio in all the boards was 20%. According to the technical data sheet, the density
of used adhesive was 1.13 g/m3 and the viscosity at 25 ◦ C was 2500 mPas. The mutual ratio of husks and
PUR particles was variable and the individual variants are shown in Table 1. In Table 2 are presented
actual production parameters. The plan dimensions of one board were 400 mm × 400 mm and the
required thickness was 50 mm. The moisture content of each material was measured using the OHAUS
MB 23 device (Ohaus Corporation, Parsippany, NJ, USA) in order to determine the correct amount of
dry matter. The moisture content of the PUR particles was 2.3% and moisture content of the husks was
7%. The adhesive was applied using a laboratory adhesive applicator. The resulting mixture of PUR
particles, husks, and adhesive was uniformly layered into the wooden mold covered by polyethylene
film. The boards were pressed for one day under laboratory conditions. The target thickness parameter
of 50 mm was affixed to all of the produced boards. Due to the higher bulk density of the husks than
the PUR particles, boards with a higher proportion of husks achieved a higher average board density.

Table 1. Insulation board variants.

Variant a b c d e
Ratio of foam: husks: adhesive 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
Weight of PUR (g)* 320 240 160 160 0
Weight of husks (g)* 0 80 160 480 900
Weight of adhesive (g)* 80 80 80 160 225
Total weight (g) 400 400 400 800 1125
Target thickness (mm) 50 50 50 50 50
* Weight dry matter.
Materials 2019, 12, 3075 3 of 11

Table 2. Actual production parameters.

Variant a b c d e
Weight of PUR (g) 320.49 240.53 163.19 163.72 0
Weight of husks (g) 0 80.46 171.28 513.78 968.37
Weight of adhesive (g) 82.715 80.44 81.25 165.65 230.77
Total weight (g) 403.455 401.43 415.72 843.15 1199.13
Resulting density (kg/m3 ) 52.8 51.71 51.64 93 156.16
Resulting thickness (mm) 47.79 48.59 50.32 56.71 48
Pressing pressure (kPa) 1.25 1.25 0.3125 0.3125 0.3125

2.1. Measuring Thermal Insulation Properties

Thermal insulation properties were measured at 23 ◦ C and relative humidity (RH) 36% using
device Isomet 2104 (Applied Precision, Ltd., Bratislava, Slovakia). A total of 4 boards were measured
from each variant and 3 measurements were carried out on each board. The measurements were carried
out using a needle probe (measuring range 0.015–2 W/(m.K)), and the probe was used in accordance
with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The monitored characteristics were the coefficient of
thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity.

2.2. Determination of Short-Term Water Absorption at Partial Submersion

In order to test the short-term water uptake at partial submersion according to [15], ten samples
were prepared from each insulation board variant, each having plan dimensions of 100 mm × 100 mm,
the thickness being the same as the thickness of the produced boards. After weighing the samples
m0 , they were placed in a test tank on a grid that allowed water to pass through. The specimens were
encumbered in such a way that they did not float in the water and water was added so that the bodies
were submerged 10 mm below the surface. The level was checked regularly, and water was topped up
as necessary. After 24 h, the specimens were removed from the tank and placed on a grid that was at
an inclination angle of 35◦ –40◦ . Here the samples were allowed to drain for 10 min. The weight m24
was then measured for the samples. Water uptake per square meter of board (kg/m2 ) and water uptake
per dry mass of board (%) were determined according to the following formulas:

m24 − m0
Wsq = (1)
Ap

m24 − m0
Wm = ·100% (2)
m0
Wsq is the water uptake per square meter of board (kg/m2 )
Wm is the water uptake per dry mass of board (%)
m24 is the weight of the test specimen after 24 h of partial submersion (kg)
m0 is the initial weight of the test specimen (kg)
Ap is the lower surface area of the test specimen (m2 )

2.3. Determination of Tensile Strength Perpendicular to the Level of the Board

From each insulation board variant, ten test specimens with dimensions of 50 mm × 50 mm were
designed to test the board internal bond strength. The tensile strength perpendicular to the plane of
the boards was determined according to [16] using universal tensile testing machine TIRA test 2850
(TIRA GmbH, Schalkau, Germany).

2.4. Determination of Compressive Strength Perpendicular to the Level of the Board

Ten specimens from each 100 mm × 100 mm board variant were tested for compressive strength
at 10% compression from the original height. The samples loaded into the test machine were initially
 Materials 2019, 12, 3075 4 of 11
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

tensile testing
encumbered machine
with TIRA test
2 N preload and2850.
theCompressive
test was thenstress at 10%
started. strain
The was calculated
determination according to
of compressive
the following formula:
strength perpendicular to the level of the board was carried out according to [17] using universal
tensile testing machine TIRA test 2850. Compressive stress
𝐹10 at 10% strain was calculated according to
the following formula: 𝜎10 = (3)
𝐴0
F10
σ10 = (3)
𝜎 is compressive stress at 10 % strain (MPa) A0
10
σ𝐹1010isiscompressive
force at 10%stress
deformation (N) (MPa)
at 10 % strain
F𝐴100 isisforce
the initial
at 10%cross-sectional
deformation (N) area of the test specimen (mm2)
A0 is the initial cross-sectional area of the test specimen (mm2 )
2.5. Statistical Analysis
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used to characterize the data. The Tukey
post-hocDescriptive
test wasstatistics
used toand analysis ifofany
determine variance
of thewere used tobetween
differences characterize the data. means
the pairwise The Tukey
were
post-hoc test was used to determine if any of the differences between the pairwise means
statistically significant. A significance level of α = 0.05 was selected. The impact of factor PUR: husks were
statistically
ratio on thesignificant. A significance was
observed characteristics of α = graphically,
levelshown 0.05 was selected.
and theThe impactcolumns
vertical of factorrepresent
PUR: husksthe
ratio on the confidence
95 percent observed characteristics
intervals. was shown graphically, and the vertical columns represent the
95 percent confidence intervals.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
Figure 1 shows a cross-section of the manufactured panels showing a different proportion of
PURFigure 1 shows
particles a cross-section
and husks. of the manufactured
Table 3 shows panels showingofa the
the measured characteristics different proportion
manufactured of PUR
insulation
particles
boards. and husks. Table 3 shows the measured characteristics of the manufactured insulation boards.

Figure 1. Cross section of the panels. Ratio foam: husks: adhesive: (a) 80:0:20; (b) 60:20:20; (c) 40:40:20;
Figure 1. Cross section of the panels. Ratio foam: husks: adhesive: (a) 80:0:20; (b) 60:20:20; (c)
(d) 20:60:20; (e) 0:80:20.
40:40:20; (d) 20:60:20; (e) 0:80:20.
Table 3. Parameters of insulation boards.
Characteristic
Table 3. Parameters of insulation boards.
Arithmetic Mean Standard Deviation
Ratio foam: husks: adhesive 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
Characteristic
Density (kg/m3 ) 55.9 Arithmetic
53.4 mean
55.5 92.2 153.4 1.9 4.9 Standard
8.8 deviation
16.2 6.9
Internal
Ratio foam: husks:bond strength (kPa) 31.1 21.5 3.4 2.3 5.8 5.9 3.0 1.4 0.8 2.3
Compressive stress80:0:20
at 10 % 60:20:20
2.9
40:40:20
2.7
20:60:20 5.5
1.4
0:80:20
18.3
80:0:20
0.2
60:20:20
0.6 0.2
40:40:202.1 20:60:20
5.0
0:80:20
adhesive strain (kPa)
55.92 )
Water3)uptake (kg/m
Density (kg/m 4.32
53.4 4.30
55.5 3.91 92.2 3.82 3.75
153.4 0.75
1.9 0.894.9 0.47 8.8 0.26 0.63
16.2 6.9
Water uptake (%) 132.4 131.2 123.6 55.1 46.2 21.8 29.7 18.9 7.2 7.9
Internal bond
Coef. of thermal conductivity
31.1 21.5
0.0418 3.4
0.0434 0.0452 2.3 0.0497 5.8
0.0574 5.9
0.0011 3.0
0.0003 0.0009 1.4 0.0027 0.8
0.0030 2.3
strength (kPa) (W/(m.K))
Volumetric heat capacity
Compressive 1.05 × 1.08 × 1.13 × 1.54 × 2.37 × 5.19 × 4.12 × 1.45× 3.22 × 2.42×
(J/(m3 K)) 105 105 105 105 105 103 103 104 104 104
stress at 10 % 2.9 2.7 1.4 5.5 18.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 2.1 5.0
strain (kPa)
Water uptake 4.32 4.30 3.91 3.82 3.75 0.75 0.89 0.47 0.26 0.63
 (kg/m2)
Water uptake (%) 132.4 131.2 123.6 55.1 46.2 21.8 29.7 18.9 7.2 7.9
Coef. of thermal
conductivity 0.0418 0.0434 0.0452 0.0497 0.0574 0.0011 0.0003 0.0009 0.0027 0.0030
(W/(m.K))
Materials 2019, 12, 3075 5 of 11
Volumetric heat
1.05 × 105 1.08 × 105 1.13 × 105 1.54 × 105 2.37 × 105 5.19 × 103 4.12 × 103 1.45× 104 3.22 × 104 2.42× 104
capacity (J/(m3K))

Figure 2 shows the results of the thermal conductivity coefficient (λ). The results show that the
Figure 2 shows the results of the thermal conductivity coefficient (λ). The results show that the
overall thermal conductivity coefficient increased with increasing husks, which also corresponds to
overall thermal conductivity coefficient increased with increasing husks, which also corresponds to
the density of the individual materials. The best variant was therefore the type of boards without
the density of the individual materials. The best variant was therefore the type of boards without
added husks (λ = 0.0418 W/(m.K)). Boards with 20% husks achieved higher values on average by
added husks (λ = 0.0418 W/(m.K)). Boards with 20% husks achieved higher values on average by
3.83% (λ = 0.0434 W/(m.K)) compared to the variant without added husks. For boards with 40%
3.83% (λ = 0.0434 W/(m.K)) compared to the variant without added husks. For boards with 40%
husks, higher values were measured relative to the reference board by 8.13% (λ = 0.0452 W/(m.K)).
husks, higher values were measured relative to the reference board by 8.13% (λ = 0.0452 W/(m.K)).
From a statistical point of view (Table 4), it can be stated that there is no statistically significant
From a statistical point of view (Table 4), it can be stated that there is no statistically significant
difference between variants without added husks and with 20% husks. The same is true for boards
difference between variants without added husks and with 20% husks. The same is true for boards
with 20% versus 40% husks. For materials with a higher proportion of husks than foam, the thermal
with 20% versus 40% husks. For materials with a higher proportion of husks than foam, the thermal
conductivity coefficient increased significantly. For material with 60% husks, an increase in value
conductivity coefficient increased significantly. For material with 60% husks, an increase in value
relative to the reference material by 18.9% (λ = 0.0497 W/(m.K)) was recorded. For material made up
relative to the reference material by 18.9% (λ = 0.0497 W/(m.K)) was recorded. For material made up
of husks only, the measured values reached an average of 37.32% (λ = 0.0574 W/(m.K)) higher value
of husks only, the measured values reached an average of 37.32% (λ = 0.0574 W/(m.K)) higher value
relative to the reference material. The described trend is closely related to the density of the individual
relative to the reference material. The described trend is closely related to the density of the
variants, in general the thermal conductivity coefficient decreases with the decrease of the foam density
individual variants, in general the thermal conductivity coefficient decreases with the decrease of
down to ca. 80 kg/m3 [18,19]. Increasing the proportion of husks in the composition of the material
the foam density down to ca. 80 kg/m3 [18,19]. Increasing the proportion of husks in the composition
significantly increases the coefficient of thermal conductivity; nevertheless, this material is comparable
of the material significantly increases the coefficient of thermal conductivity; nevertheless, this
to other commonly used materials such as cork boards, c-flute panels, etc. [20]. The measured thermal
material is comparable to other commonly used materials such as cork boards, c-flute panels, etc.
conductivity coefficients are comparable to commercial wood fiber heat insulation boards, for example,
[20]. The measured thermal conductivity coefficients are comparable to commercial wood fiber heat
from Steico company.
insulation boards, for example, from Steico company.
0,062

0,060

0,058

0,056

0,054

0,052
λ (W/(m.K))

0,050

0,048

0,046

0,044

0,042

0,040

0,038
80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20

Ratio foam:husks:adhesive

Figure 2. Influence of panel composition on the thermal conductivity coefficient.

Figure 2. Influence of panel composition on the thermal conductivity coefficient.
Table 4. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in Figure 2.
Table 4. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in
Ratio 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
Figure 2.
80:0:20 0.226941 0.000722 0.000129 0.000129
60:20:20 0.226941 0.193619 0.000129 0.000129
40:40:20 0.000722 0.193619 0.000131 0.000129
20:60:20 0.000129 0.000129 0.000131 0.000129
0:80:20 0.000129 0.000129 0.000129 0.000129
 Ratio 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
80:0:20 0.226941 0.000722 0.000129 0.000129
60:20:20 0.226941 0.193619 0.000129 0.000129
40:40:20 0.000722 0.193619 0.000131 0.000129
20:60:20
Materials 2019, 12, 3075 0.000129 0.000129 0.000131 0.000129
6 of 11
0:80:20 0.000129 0.000129 0.000129 0.000129

A similar trend to that of the thermal conductivity can also be seen in volumetric heat capacity.
ThisAtrend
similar
cantrend to that
be seen in of the thermal
Figure 3. Theconductivity can alsoheat
lowest volumetric be seen in volumetric
capacity heat measured
values were capacity.
This trend can
in materials be seen
without in Figure
added husks, 3. and
The with
lowest20%volumetric
and 40% heathuskscapacity
added. values wereno
There was measured in
statistically
materials without added husks, and with 20% and 40% husks added. There
significant difference between these materials (Table 5). However, it was found that as the volume was no statistically
significant
of husks indifference
the boards between
increases,thesethematerials
volumetric(Table 5).capacity
heat However, it was
also found that
increases. For as the volume
boards with 20%of
husks
husks in (Cpthe boards
= 0.108 MJ/mincreases, the volumetric
3 K), an increase in values heat
wascapacity
recorded also increases.
relative to theFor boards
boards withhusks
without 20%
husks (C p = 0.108 3MJ/m 3K), an increase in values was recorded relative to the boards without husks
(Cp = 0.105 MJ/m K) at an average of 2.86%. For boards with 40% husks (Cp = 0.113 MJ/m K), relative 3
(C = 0.105
topthe boardsMJ/m 3K) at an average of 2.86%. For boards with 40% husks (Cp = 0.113 MJ/m3K), relative
without husks, an increase in values was recorded at an average of 7.62%. For boards with
to the(Cboards without 3husks, an increase in values was recorded at an average of 7.62%. For boards
p = 0.154 MJ/m K) and 80% husks (Cp = 0.237 MJ/m K), the increase was statistically significant.
60% 3
with 60% (C p = 0.154 MJ/m3K) and 80% husks (Cp = 0.237 MJ/m3K), the increase was statistically
For boards with 60% husks, relative to the boards without added husks, the increase was at an average
significant.
of 46.67%, andFor boards withwith
for boards 60%80% husks, relative
husks, to the boards
the increase was atwithout added
an average of husks, theThe
125.71%. increase was
measured
at an average of 46.67%, and for boards with 80% husks, the increase was at an average
volumetric specific heat capacities of the board without added husks correlates to the results specified of 125.71%.
The measured
in the work of volumetric
Incropera etspecific
al. [21].heat capacities
Boards of the
containing board
husks without
had generallyadded husks
higher correlates
values to the
of volumetric
results specified
heat capacity in an
with theincreasing
work of Incropera
proportion et of
al.husks
[21]. Boards containing
in the board. husksboards
However, had generally
containinghigher
80%
values of volumetric heat capacity with an increasing proportion of husks
husks achieved much lower volumetric heat capacity values than boards from the husks specified in the board. However,
boards containing
in the work 80% husks
of Czajkowski et al.achieved
[22]. Themuch
reason lower volumetric
for this differenceheatmaycapacity values in
be a difference than
the boards
density
from the husks specified
of the boards (Table 3). in the work of Czajkowski et al. [22]. The reason for this difference may be a
difference in the density of the boards (Table 3).
2,8E+05

2,6E+05

2,4E+05

2,2E+05

2,0E+05
Cp (J/m3K)

1,8E+05

1,6E+05

1,4E+05

1,2E+05

1,0E+05

8,0E+04

6,0E+04
80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
Ratio foam:husks:adhesive

Figure 3. Impact of the composition of the panel on volumetric heat capacity.

Figure 3. Impact of the composition of the panel on volumetric heat capacity.
Table 5. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in Figure 3.
Table 5. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in
Figure 3. Ratio 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
80:0:20 0.998793 0.893436 0.000130 0.000129
Ratio 80:0:20
60:20:20
60:20:20
0.998793
40:40:20
0.969250 0.000131
20:60:20
0.000129
0:80:20
40:40:20 0.893436 0.969250 0.000159 0.000129
20:60:20 0.000130 0.000131 0.000159 0.000129
0:80:20 0.000129 0.000129 0.000129 0.000129
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12

80:0:20 0.998793 0.893436 0.000130 0.000129

60:20:20 0.998793 0.969250 0.000131 0.000129
40:40:20 0.893436 0.969250 0.000159 0.000129
Materials 2019, 12, 3075
20:60:20 0.000130 0.000131 0.000159 7 of 11
0.000129
0:80:20 0.000129 0.000129 0.000129 0.000129
The results of internal bond strength are shown in Figure 4. The highest values were measured for
The results of internal bond strength are shown in Figure 4. The highest values were measured
boards without added husks (31.1 kPa) and with the increasing number of husks, internal bond strength
for boards without added husks (31.1 kPa) and with the increasing number of husks, internal bond
also decreased significantly, but this drop was only true for boards with less than 40% husks. There was
strength also decreased significantly, but this drop was only true for boards with less than 40%
no statistically significant increase or decrease in values from this threshold (Table 6. Compared to the
husks. There was no statistically significant increase or decrease in values from this threshold (Table
boards without husks, boards with 20% husks (21.5 kPa) decreased on average by 30.87%. Compared
6. Compared to the boards without husks, boards with 20% husks (21.5 kPa) decreased on average
to the boards without husks, in boards with 40% husks (3.4 kPa), the decrease was at an average of
by 30.87%. Compared to the boards without husks, in boards with 40% husks (3.4 kPa), the decrease
86.17%. Boards with 60% husks (2.3 kPa) showed a decrease at an average of 92.60% and boards with
was at an average of 86.17%. Boards with 60% husks (2.3 kPa) showed a decrease at an average of
80% husks (5.8 kPa) showed a decrease in values at an average of 81.35%. Due to the fact that the
92.60% and boards with 80% husks (5.8 kPa) showed a decrease in values at an average of 81.35%.
internal bond strength of boards with a higher proportion of husks and higher density was lower than
Due to the fact that the internal bond strength of boards with a higher proportion of husks and
for boards with significantly lower density, it can be stated that the interaction of the adhesive, foam,
higher density was lower than for boards with significantly lower density, it can be stated that the
and husks significantly negatively affects the internal bond strength values. This trend is explained
interaction of the adhesive, foam, and husks significantly negatively affects the internal bond
by the diametrically different adhesive properties of foam and husks. With an increasing proportion
strength values. This trend is explained by the diametrically different adhesive properties of foam
husks, the internal bond strength values stabilized at values corresponding to boards consisting of 80%
and husks. With an increasing proportion husks, the internal bond strength values stabilized at
husks. Similar results were achieved in the work [23]; however, wood fibers were used in this work.
values corresponding to boards consisting of 80% husks. Similar results were achieved in the work
If we compare our result with high density binderless insulation boards made from coconut husks
[23]; however, wood fibers were used in this work. If we compare our result with high density
and bagasse in work [24], it can be seen that results in this work are very similar. It follows that it is
binderless insulation boards made from coconut husks and bagasse in work [24], it can be seen that
possible to produce an insulation material only from husks without adhesive, but at the expense of
results in this work are very similar. It follows that it is possible to produce an insulation material
higher board density.
only from husks without adhesive, but at the expense of higher board density.
35

30

25
Internal bond strength (kPa)

20

15

10

0
80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
Ratio foam:husks:adhesive

Figure 4. Impact of the composition of the panel on internal bond strength.

Figure 4. Impact of the composition of the panel on internal bond strength.
Table 6. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in Figure 4.
Table 6. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in
Figure 4. Ratio 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
80:0:20 0.000131 0.000131 0.000131 0.000131
Ratio 80:0:20
60:20:20 0.00013160:20:20 40:40:20
0.000131 0.000131 20:60:20
0.000131 0:80:20
80:0:20 40:40:20 0.000131 0.000131
0.000131 0.0001310.946138 0.000131
0.538191 0.000131
20:60:20 0.000131 0.000131 0.946138 0.183404
0:80:20 0.000131 0.000131 0.538191 0.183404
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12

60:20:20 0.000131 0.000131 0.000131 0.000131

40:40:20 0.000131 0.000131 0.946138 0.538191
20:60:20
Materials 2019, 12, 3075 0.000131 0.000131 0.946138 0.183404
8 of 11
0:80:20 0.000131 0.000131 0.538191 0.183404

The results of the compressive stress at 10% stress can be seen in Figure 5. From these results,
The results of the compressive stress at 10% stress can be seen in Figure 5. From these results,
there is an apparent trend of increasing stress at 10% strain with increasing husks content. The highest
there is an apparent trend of increasing stress at 10% strain with increasing husks content. The
stress values were measured for boards with 80% husks (18.3 kPa). Boards without husks (2.9 kPa)
highest stress values were measured for boards with 80% husks (18.3 kPa). Boards without husks
achieved lower values relative to boards with 80% husks at an average of 84.15%. Using the statistical
(2.9 kPa) achieved lower values relative to boards with 80% husks at an average of 84.15%. Using the
evaluation in Table 7, it can be seen that there was a statistically insignificant difference (for boards
statistical evaluation in Table 7, it can be seen that there was a statistically insignificant difference
with 60% and 40% husks, there was a slight statistically significant difference) between boards without
(for boards with 60% and 40% husks, there was a slight statistically significant difference) between
husks and boards with up to 60% husks. Boards with 20% husks (2.7 kPa) achieved lower values
boards without husks and boards with up to 60% husks. Boards with 20% husks (2.7 kPa) achieved
relative to the boards without added husks on average by only 7.41%. Boards with 40% husks (1.4 kPa)
lower values relative to the boards without added husks on average by only 7.41%. Boards with 40%
achieved lower values compared to boards without husks at an average of 51.72%. Adversely, boards
husks (1.4 kPa) achieved lower values compared to boards without husks at an average of 51.72%.
with 60% husks (5.5 kPa) achieved higher average values compared to the boards without husks
Adversely, boards with 60% husks (5.5 kPa) achieved higher average values compared to the boards
by 89.66%. These results are comparable to those specified in the work [25]. This work dealt with
without husks by 89.66%. These results are comparable to those specified in the work [25]. This work
bio polyurethane foams. However, there were significant differences in board density between our
dealt with bio polyurethane foams. However, there were significant differences in board density
materials and those presented in this work.
between our materials and those presented in this work.
25

20

15
σ10 (kPa)

10

0
80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20

Ratio foam:plevy:lepidlo

Figure 5. Impact of the composition of the panel on stress at 10% compression.

Figure 5. Impact of the composition of the panel on stress at 10% compression.
Table 7. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in Figure 5.
Table 7. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in
Ratio 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
Figure 5.
80:0:20 0.999730 0.647655 0.136628 0.000134
Ratio 80:0:20
60:20:20 0.99973060:20:20 40:40:200.091390
0.760578 20:60:20
0.0001340:80:20
80:0:20 40:40:20 0.647655 0.760578
0.999730 0.647655 0.004316 0.000134
0.1366280.000134
60:20:20 20:60:20
0.999730 0.136628 0.091390 0.004316
0.760578 0.000134
0.0913900.000134
0:80:20 0.000134 0.000134 0.000134 0.000134
40:40:20 0.647655 0.760578 0.0043160.000134
20:60:20 0.136628 0.091390 0.004316 0.000134
Figure
0:80:20 6 show the results
0.000134 of the short-term
0.000134 water uptake
0.000134 of the boards at
0.000134 partial submersion.
Two approaches were used for evaluation. The first approach (Figure 6 left) according to standard [15]
is the expression of water uptake relative to the area in kg/m2 . These results show no statistically
significant difference for all of the tested materials (Table 8). The water uptake values averaged values
ranging from 4.32–3.75 kg/m2 . The water uptake was also reduced with the number of husks added.
The measured results are comparable, for example, to wood fiber-based materials with the addition of
 Figures 6a and 6b show the results of the short-term water uptake of the boards at partial
submersion. Two approaches were used for evaluation. The first approach (6a) according to
standard [15] is the expression of water uptake relative to the area in kg/m2. These results show no
statistically significant difference for all of the tested materials (Table 8). The water uptake values
Materials 2019, 12, 3075 9 of 11
averaged values ranging from 4.32–3.75 kg/m2. The water uptake was also reduced with the number
of husks added. The measured results are comparable, for example, to wood fiber-based materials
with the addition
a mediator of a mediator
(low molecular (lowmaterial
weight molecular weight materialacid
4-hydroxybenzoic 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (HBA)
(HBA) with a chemical withof
purity a
chemical purityinofthe
99%) specified 99%) specified
work of Kirschin the work
et al. [23].ofDue
Kirsch et al. [23]. Due
to inconclusive to inconclusive
evidence, we decided evidence, we
to express
decided
the watertouptake
express asthe water uptake
a proportion of theas board
a proportion
dry matter,of the
and board dry matter,
the results can beandseenthe
in results
Figure 6can be
right.
seen
Fromin Figure 6b.point
a statistical Fromofaview,
statistical
it canpoint of view,
be stated it canwere
that there be stated that theresignificant
no statistically were no statistically
differences
significant
after the 40% differences
proportion after the 40%
of husks, butproportion
there was aof husks, butsignificant
statistically there wasdecrease
a statistically
in valuessignificant
(Table 9)
decrease
for the transition between 40% and 60% husks. For boards without added husks, the averagewithout
in values (Table 9) for the transition between 40% and 60% husks. For boards values
added husks,132.4%.
were around the average valueswith
For boards were20%around
husks132.4%.
(131.2%)For boards
there was awith 20% husks
decrease relative(131.2%) there
to the boards
was a decrease relative to the boards without added husks by 0.91%, and for
without added husks by 0.91%, and for boards with 40% husks (123.6%) there was a decrease of 6.65%. boards with 40% husks
(123.6%)
Boards with there60%washusks
a decrease
(55.1%) ofachieved
6.65%. Boards
a more with 60% husks
significant (55.1%)
decrease achieved
relative a more
to the boardssignificant
without
decrease
added husks relative to the The
by 58.38%. boards without
biggest addedwas
difference husks by 58.38%.
measured The with
for boards biggest
80%difference was
husks (46.2%).
measured for boards with 80% husks (46.2%). Mixing the open cell polyurethane
Mixing the open cell polyurethane foam with husks (components with lower content of opened cells) foam with husks
(components
reduced the ratio withoflower
open content of opened
cells to closed cellscells)
and thusreduced the ratio
generally of open
reduced the cells
watertouptake
closed[26,27].
cells and
thus generally reduced the water uptake [26,27].
5,0 160

4,8
140

4,6
120
4,4
Water uptake (kg/m2)

Water uptake (%)

100
4,2

4,0 80

3,8
60
3,6

40
3,4

3,2 20
80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20
Ratio foam:plevy:lepidlo Ratio foam:plevy:lepidlo

Figure 6.
Figure Impact of
6. Impact of the
the composition
composition of
of the
the panel
panel on
on short-term
short-term absorption.
absorption.

Table 8. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in Figure 6 left.
Table 8. p-values of Tukey post-hoc test: statistical significance of the differences in the graph in
Figure 6a. Ratio 80:0:20 60:20:20 40:40:20 20:60:20 0:80:20

Ratio 80:0:20
80:0:20 0.999993 0.621564
60:20:20 40:40:20 0.421637 0.296578
20:60:20 0:80:20
60:20:20 0.999993 0.669087 0.467136 0.335045
80:0:20 40:40:20 0.621564 0.999993
0.669087 0.621564 0.997587 0.421637
0.980673 0.296578
60:20:20 0.999993
20:60:20 0.421637 0.467136 0.997587 0.669087 0.467136
0.999394 0.335045
40:40:20 0.621564
0:80:20 0.2965780.669087
0.335045 0.980673 0.999394 0.997587 0.980673
20:60:20 0.421637 0.467136 0.997587 0.999394
0:80:20
Table 9. p-values0.296578 0.335045
of Tukey post-hoc test: 0.980673
statistical significance of the differences 0.999394
in the graph in Figure 6 right.

Table 9. p-values Ratio 80:0:20 test:

of Tukey post-hoc 60:20:20 40:40:20
statistical 20:60:20
significance of the 0:80:20 in the graph in
differences
Figure 6b. 80:0:20 0.999907 0.840856 0.000134 0.000134
60:20:20 0.999907 0.901473 0.000134 0.000134
Ratio 80:0:20
40:40:20 0.84085660:20:20
0.901473 40:40:20
0.000134 20:60:20
0.000134 0:80:20
80:0:20 20:60:20 0.000134 0.000134 0.000134
0.999907 0.840856 0.836946
0.000134 0.000134
60:20:20 0:80:20
0.999907 0.000134 0.000134 0.000134 0.9014730.836946
0.000134 0.000134
40:40:20 0.840856 0.901473 0.000134 0.000134
20:60:20
The microscopic 0.000134 0.000134
images in Figure 7a–c show the 0.000134 0.836946
observed characters of rupture in the material
after0:80:20 0.000134
the tensile strength 0.000134
test perpendicular 0.000134
to the plane of the board. Both0.836946
adhesion errors and cohesion
errors were observed. Adhesion failure occurred when the husks and PUR particles came into contact
(Figure 7a,c). Cohesive failure occurred in PUR particles (Figure 7b). The separation of the adhesive
from the particle surface is an undesirable phenomenon in the composites—in our case it is caused by
waxy substances on the surface of the husks and this adhesion error could be eliminated by a suitably
chosen surface pre-treatment [8].
 The microscopic images in Figures 7a–7c show the observed characters of rupture in the
material after the tensile strength test perpendicular to the plane of the board. Both adhesion errors
and cohesion errors were observed. Adhesion failure occurred when the husks and PUR particles
came into contact (Figures 7a and 7c). Cohesive failure occurred in PUR particles (Figure 7b). The
separation
Materials of the adhesive from the particle surface is an undesirable phenomenon in the10 of 11
2019, 12, 3075
composites—in our case it is caused by waxy substances on the surface of the husks and this
adhesion error could be eliminated by a suitably chosen surface pre-treatment [8]

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 7. Nature
7. Nature of bond
of bond failure
failure after
after internal
internal bond
bond strength
strength test:(a)(a)adhesive
test: adhesivefailure
failurebetween
between the
the husk
husk and PUR particle; (b) cohesion failure in PUR particle; (c) adhesive failure between
and PUR particle; (b) cohesion failure in PUR particle; (c) adhesive failure between the adhesive and the adhesive
and husks surface.
husks surface.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
The developed waste material panels showed excellent thermal insulation properties. The
The developed waste material panels showed excellent thermal insulation properties. The thermal
thermal conductivity coefficient increased with increasing husks, and its maximum value of 0.0574
conductivity coefficient increased with increasing husks, and its maximum value of 0.0574 W/(m.K) was
W/(m.K) was achieved by boards only from husks with a density of 153 kg/m 3. However, with the
3 . However, with the increasing thermal
achieved by boards only from husks with a density of 153 kg/m
increasing thermal conductivity coefficient, the heat capacity also increased, which can be seen as
conductivity
positive. coefficient,
The effect ofthe
theheat capacity
PUR/husks alsoonincreased,
ratio which
internal bond can bewas
strength seenshown
as positive.
to haveThe effect of
a poor
the PUR/husks ratio onhusks
interaction between internal
and bond strengthIn
PUR adhesive. was shown
general, to have
it can a poor
be stated that interaction between
with the increase in thehusks
and PUR
husk adhesive.
ratio, there In
wasgeneral, it can be
a significant stated in
decrease that with the
internal bond increase
strengthin values.
the huskTheratio, there
results of was
compressive stress at 10% strain correlated with density. Boards with increasing
a significant decrease in internal bond strength values. The results of compressive stress at 10% strain density thus
achieved
correlated withhigher values
density. of compressive
Boards stress atdensity
with increasing 10% strain.
thusThe developed
achieved boards
higher exhibited
values high
of compressive
water uptake, which makes them suitable for use as thermal insulation in wall compositions,
stress at 10% strain. The developed boards exhibited high water uptake, which makes them suitable where
they will be protected against moisture by structural protection.
for use as thermal insulation in wall compositions, where they will be protected against moisture by
structural
Authorprotection.
Contributions: Conceptualization, Štěpán Hýsek; Data curation, Ondřej Schönfelder; Formal analysis,
Gianluca Ditommaso; Investigation, Štěpán Hýsek and Ondřej Schönfelder; Methodology, Štěpán Hýsek and
Author Contributions:
Pavel Conceptualization,
Neuberger; Writing—original Š.H.;
draft, Data
Adam curation,
Sikora O.S.; Formal
and Gianluca analysis,Writing—review
Ditommaso; G.D.; Investigation,
and Š.H.
and O.S.; Methodology,
editing, Š.H.
Štěpán Hýsek andand P.N.;
Pavel Writing—original draft, A.S. and G.D.; Writing—review and editing, Š.H.
Neuberger.
and P.N.
Funding: This research was funded by the OP RDE grant number CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000803. The APC
Funding: This research
was funded was funded
by the Czech byofthe
University OP
Life RDE grant
Sciences, number CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000803. The APC
Prague.
was funded by the Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the support of “Advanced research supporting the forestry
Acknowledgments: The sector’s
and wood-processing authorsadaptation
are grateful for the
to global support
change and of
the“Advanced
4th industrialresearch supporting
revolution”, OP RDE the forestry
(Grant
and wood-processing sector’s adaptation to global change and the 4th industrial revolution”, OP RDE (Grant
No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000803).
No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000803).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
References
1. Gugliermetti, F.; Bisegna, F. Saving energy in residential buildings: The use of fully reversible windows.
1. Gugliermetti, F.;32,
Energy 2007, Bisegna, F. Saving energy in residential buildings: The use of fully reversible windows.
1235–1247.
Energy 2007, 32, 1235–1247. [CrossRef]
2. Pisello, A.L. Thermal-energy analysis of roof cool clay tiles for application in historic buildings and cities.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 19, 271–280. [CrossRef]
3. Asdrubali, F.; D’Alessandro, F.; Baldinelli, G.; Bianchi, F. Evaluating in situ thermal transmittance of green
buildings masonries—A case study. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2014, 1, 53–59. [CrossRef]
4. Gori, P.; Bisegna, F. Thermophysical parameter estimation of multi-layer walls with stochastic optimization
methods. Int. J. Heat Technol. 2010, 28, 109–116.
5. Papadopoulos, A. State of the art in thermal insulation materials and aims for future developments.
Energy Build. 2005, 37, 77–86. [CrossRef]
6. Bledzki, A. Composites reinforced with cellulose based fibres. Prog. Polym. Sci. 1999, 24, 221–274. [CrossRef]
Materials 2019, 12, 3075 11 of 11

7. Hýsek, Š; Wimmer, R.; Böhm, M. Optimal processing of flax and hemp fibre nonwovens. BioResources 2016,
11, 8522–8534. [CrossRef]
8. Hýsek, Š.; Podlena, M.; Bartsch, H.; Wenderdel, C.; Böhm, M. Effect of wheat husk surface pre-treatment on
the properties of husk-based composite materials. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 125, 105–113. [CrossRef]
9. Nourbakhsh, A.; Ashori, A.; Tabari, H.Z.; Rezaei, F. Mechanical and thermo-chemical properties of
wood-flour/polypropylene blends. Polym. Bull. 2010, 65, 691–700. [CrossRef]
10. Nourbakhsh, A.; Baghlani, F.F.; Ashori, A. Nano-SiO2 filled rice husk/polypropylene composites:
Physico-mechanical properties. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2011, 33, 183–187. [CrossRef]
11. Jeffrey, K.J.T.; Tarlochan, F.; Rahman, M.M. Residual Strength of Chop Strand Mats Glass Fiber/Epoxy
Composite Structures: Effect of Temperature and Water Absorption. Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng. 2011, 4,
504–519. [CrossRef]
12. Hýsek, Š.; Gaff, M.; Sikora, A.; Babiak, M. New composite material based on winter rapeseed and his elasticity
properties as a function of selected factors. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 153, 108–116. [CrossRef]
13. Dhakal, H.; Zhang, Z.; Richardson, M. Effect of water absorption on the mechanical properties of hemp fibre
reinforced unsaturated polyester composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2007, 67, 1674–1683. [CrossRef]
14. Tulashie, S.K.; Kotoka, F.; Mensah, D.; Kwablah, A.K. Investigation of the compressive strength of pit sand,
and sea sand mortar prisms produced with rice husk ash as additive. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 151, 383–387.
[CrossRef]
15. British Standards Institution. Thermal Insulating Products for Building Applications. Determination of Short-Term
Water Absorption by Partial Immersion; B S I Standards: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
16. British Standards Institution. Particleboards and Fibreboards. Determination of Tensile Strength Perpendicular to
the Plane of the Board; B S I Standards: Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
17. British Standards Institution. Thermal Insulating Products for Building Applications. Determination of Compression
Behaviour; B S I Standards: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
18. Muthuraj, R.; Lacoste, C.; Lacroix, P.; Bergeret, A. Sustainable thermal insulation biocomposites from rice husk,
wheat husk, wood fibers and textile waste fibers: Elaboration and performances evaluation. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2019,
135, 238–245. [CrossRef]
19. Kim, C.J.; Youn, J.R. Environmentally friendly processing of polyurethane foam for thermal insulation.
Polym.-Plast. Technol. Eng. 2007, 39, 163–185. [CrossRef]
20. Asdrubali, F.; Pisello, A.L.; D’Alessandro, F.; Bianchi, F.; Fabiani, C.; Cornicchia, M.; Rotili, A. Experimental
and numerical characterization of innovative cardboard based panels: Thermal and acoustic performance
analysis and life cycle assessment. Build. Environ. 2016, 95, 145–159. [CrossRef]
21. Incropera, F.P.; Dewitt, D.P.; Bergman, T.L.; Lavine, A.S. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 6th ed.;
John Wiley and Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK, 2007.
22. Czajkowski, Ł.; Wojcieszak, D.; Olek, W.; Przybył, J. Thermal properties of fractions of corn stover.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 210, 709–712. [CrossRef]
23. Kirsch, A.; Ostendorf, K.; Euring, M. Improvements in the production of wood fiber insulation boards using
hot-air/hot-steam process. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 1233–1240. [CrossRef]
24. Panyakaew, S.; Fotios, S. New thermal insulation boards made from coconut husk and bagasse. Energy Build.
2011, 43, 1732–1739. [CrossRef]
25. Gama, N.V.; Soares, B.; Freire, C.S.; Silva, R.; Neto, C.P.; Barros-Timmons, A.; Ferreira, A. Bio-based
polyurethane foams toward applications beyond thermal insulation. Mater. Des. 2015, 76, 77–85. [CrossRef]
26. KAIRYTĖ, A.; Vėjelis, S. Evaluation of forming mixture composition impact on properties of water blown
rigid polyurethane (PUR) foam from rapeseed oil polyol. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 66, 210–215. [CrossRef]
27. Tondi, G.; Zhao, W.; Pizzi, A.; Du, G.; Fierro, V.; Celzard, A. Tannin-based rigid foams: A survey of chemical
and physical properties. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5162–5169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.