Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40857-020-00186-2

TECHNICAL NOTE

The Absorption Characteristics of Empty Water Bottles

Ahmed Elkhateeb1,3 · Soha Eldakdoky2

Received: 30 January 2020 / Accepted: 13 April 2020 / Published online: 11 May 2020
© Australian Acoustical Society 2020

Abstract
This work examines experimentally the absorption characteristics of empty plastic water bottles. It focuses on the three
common sizes of bottles widely available in the Saudi market (1500, 600 and 330 ml). Measurements were performed
according to ISO 354 and ISO 9613-1 standards in the reverberation chamber. Three systematic groups of measurements
were performed, each of which examined only one of the three categories. Each group included four tests with a predetermined
density (number of bottles per square meter) and alignment. The impact of combining the three sizes of the bottles in one
configuration was tested as well. Then, the impact of filling the best absorptive bottle with sand and the impact of the bottles’
position and alignment were investigated. Results demonstrated that water bottles are not a true Helmholtz resonator, as there
is more than one resonance frequency for each category. Nevertheless, their fundamental frequencies can be predicted with
a certain degree of accuracy, by applying the equation for true Helmholtz resonators. Results showed that the absorption is
directly proportionate to the density and the bottle volume. Using either medium or small water bottles alone does not yield a
remarkable absorption, unlike large or mixed bottles, which give the best results. Sand has almost no effect on the absorption
of sound. Finally, results demonstrate that a remarkably higher level of absorption is achieved in the mid- and high-frequency
ranges by placing the 1500-ml bottles onto the floor of the room at random. Although the values of the different measures of
absorption are not too high, results of the combined volumes seem promising. Further investigation to improve this absorption
is required.

Keywords Empty water bottles · Helmholtz resonators · Absorption coefficient · Reverberation chamber

1 Introduction this context, the works of Nizamuddin [1], D’Alessandro and

Due to the increasing concern with environmental issues and
their implications, researchers in the field of acoustics around
the world are paying close attention to the recycling and
reproduction of specific acoustic materials that are inexpen-
sive and eco-friendly. Such activities have a twofold impact;
on the one hand, they help to get rid of tonnes of waste mate-
rial, and on the other they can provide affordable materials
that can be easily utilized to improve the quality of life. In
B Ahmed Elkhateeb
ahmed_elkhateeb@eng.asu.edu.eg
Soha Eldakdoky
Scometd@yahoo.com
1 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Ain
Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Helwan
University, Helwan, Egypt
3 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Environmental
Design, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Pispola [2], Seddeq et al. [3], Aly et al. [4], Bansod et al. [5]
and Chen and Jiang [6] are good examples for this booming
trend.
Basically, sound can be absorbed via two techniques: fric-
tion and resonance. The first applies to porous materials,
while the last occurs in resonant absorbers or resonators.
Commonly, resonators are found in two types: Helmholtz
(or cavity) absorbers and panel absorbers [7]. The absorp-
tion of resonators depends on their resonance frequency
which, in turn, depends on their geometrical characteristics.
In Helmholtz resonators (HR), for example, resonance fre-
quency depends mainly on their volume, neck area and depth.
Due to their important applications in many disciplines,
the different acoustic aspects of HRs have frequently been
studied. The works of French [8], Patton [9], Han [10], Bal-
achandran et al. [11], Elliott [12] and Klaus et al. [13] are few
examples from a considerable body of research in this area.
Helmholtz resonance occurs in a wide range of cavities
with necks, when air is blown across those necks. It has

123
296
many applications in noise and reverberation control [14].
An empty water bottle resembles an HR in that it is a con-
tainer (cavity) of gas (usually air) connected to the outside air
via a neck (or an open hole). However, due to its special form,
the effective depth of the bottle neck cannot be determined
precisely, in contrast with a true Helmholtz resonator.
1.1 Objective
This work investigates the absorption characteristics of
empty water bottles (PET or PETE) aiming at developing
an eco-friendly wide-band sound absorber. It is hoped that
these absorbers will be inexpensive, which will encourage
their massive application in the educational spaces of the
developing countries to improve their acoustic performance.
2 Materials and Methodology
In the Saudi market, there are some seven brands of PET
water bottles. All can be obtained in four different volumes
(or categories): 1500, 600, 330 and 250 ml. The last kind
(250 ml) is usually packed in cubes, not bottles, so it does
not act as a resonator; therefore, it was excluded. For the
other three volumes, the total number of the required bottles
per volume, all from the same brand, were collected from
their manufacturer and shipped to the Acoustic Research and
Tests Unit (ARTU), Faculty of Environmental Design, King
Abdulaziz University KAU, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
All the bottles under consideration have an unflanged outer
end. While the three categories of bottles have the same
neck depth (l  20.63 mm) and diameter (d 1  24.80 mm),
and thus the same area (a  483 mm2 ), the air volume V
(contained in each category) is varied. Accordingly, each
category will generate a specific resonance, therefore absorp-
tion. Initially, and in order to check/calculate the physical
specifications of the examined bottles, a three-dimensional
scanner was utilized to generate 3D-CAD models for each
bottle, from which the actual physical specifications were
calculated. Table 1 lists and represents the architecture and
physical specifications of the bottles being tested.
On the floor of the reverberation chamber, 10 modules
were marked, each of which had an area of 1.00 m2 . Dur-
ing measurements, the total number of bottles (of a given
volume) determined for each test was equally distributed
between these predetermined modules.
Three systematic groups of tests were performed. Each
group was specified for only one category of bottles. The
first group included bottles of volume 1500 ml, the second
included bottles of volume 600 ml, and the last was specified
for a volume of 330 ml. Each group included four tests with a
predetermined density (number of bottles per square meter)
and alignment see Fig. 1a–c. Moreover, two additional tests
123
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307
were performed. The first examined the effect of combin-
ing (mixing) different volumes on their absorption. In this
test, each module contained 78 bottles [24 of 1500 ml, 24 of
600 ml and 30 of 330 ml, alignment 24/24/30(a)], see Fig. 1d.
The second examined the effect of filling the 1500-ml bot-
tles with 250 ml of sand. All measurements were performed,
while the bottles were vertically positioned (on their bases)
and aligned in semi-regular rows inside each module. To
examine the effect of the bottles’ position and alignment on
their absorption, one additional test was performed in which
the 1500-ml bottles were placed at random in the predeter-
mined modules with a density of 24 bottles/m2 . Table 2 lists
the densities and alignments of the examined bottles.
The reverberation chamber in the ARTU has an almost
rectangular plan, though the walls are not perfectly parallel.
The room has a net floor area S F of 33.74 m2 , a total sur-
face area S t of 195.37 m2 , and a net volume V of 163.84 m3 .
The room has fixed plastic sheets of different sizes as dif-
fusing elements. These sheets are slightly curved, oriented
randomly and suspended throughout the room. The area (both
sides) of the diffusers is about 40 m2 (20%) of the total surface
area of the room. The longest straight-line, I max , in the room
(in this case, the longest diagonal of the room) is 10.22 m,
which (according to room volume) satisfies condition (1) of
the standards [15]. Because V is less than the 200 m3 stated
in the standards, the maximum permissible sound absorption
of the empty room, AMPA , was calculated by multiplying
the values given in Table 1 of the standards by (V /200)2/3
[15]. Then, the calculated AMPA was compared to the mea-
sured equivalent sound absorption area of the empty room
A1 ; result shows that A1 fulfills the standards.
In practice, the reverberation times in the unoccupied
room T 1 and the occupied room T 2 were measured (at one-
third octave band center frequencies, 50 Hz–10 kHz) and
recorded. The sound absorptions of the room in both cases,
unoccupied A1 and occupied A2 , were calculated based on
the measured reverberation times according to the standards.
The total absorption of the bottles in each alignment AT was
calculated as the difference between A2 and A1 . Finally, the
absorption coefficient α s of each alignment was calculated
as:
AT
αS  (1)
10
Measurements of the reverberation time were performed
using the interrupted noise method. The instrumentation was
based on products by Brüel & Kjær (B&K); these include
inter alia application BZ7227 version 4.6.1, sound level meter
type 2250 with a ½” microphone type 4189, Omni-sound
source type 4292-L and power amplifier type 2734. A Pink
noise signal was used as a stimulus, and the signal was preav-
eraged 3 times for each position. For each alignment, 12
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307 297

Table 1 The physical specifications of the examined bottles

Bottle volume (ml) Weight (g) h, Full Neck Diameters (mm) Vertical
Height (mm) dimensions cross-
(mm) sectional
Area,
Nominal Actual Empty Filled d1 l d2 d3 d4 Average (d 3 d5 d6 without the
and d 4 ) neck, mm2

1500 1513.50 31.70 1545.20 323.50 24.80 20.63 86.00 75.86 82.88 79.37 80.31 88.83 232.60
600 608.56 16.98 625.54 236.50 24.80 20.63 66.65 58.15 62.65 60.40 60.09 62.65 125.15
330 338.73 12.85 351.58 185.00 24.80 20.63 56.19 47.68 52.55 50.11 51.48 56.57 82.49

123
298
a 1500 ml, 18 boles/m 2
c 330 ml, 40 boles/m 2
Fig. 1 Bottles under test, different alignments
decay curves were collected, 4 positions for the microphone
and 3 for the sound source. Positions of both microphone and
sound source obeyed the standards [15].
During measurements, the ambient atmospheric temper-
ature T A , relative humidity ht and ambient atmospheric
pressure Pa were monitored and recorded to calculate both c
(the propagation speed of sound in air, m/s) and 4 mV (Air
absorption, where m is the sound attenuation coefficient in
m−1 ). Values of m were calculated at one-third octave inter-
vals based on α pt (pure-tone sound attenuation coefficient in
decibels per meter) where α pt was calculated by applying
Eqs. (3, 4, 5, B.1, B.2 and B.3) of the standard ISO 9613-1
[16].
For ease of comparison, the values of αS were averaged for
the three frequency ranges (low, mid, and high). Moreover,
the four matrices: noise reduction coefficient (NRC) [17],
sound absorption average (SAA) [17], the higher mid-range
value (α i.M ) and the weighted sound absorption coefficient
(α W ) [18] were calculated based on α S .
For each volume, the resonance frequency f o of an
undamped resonator was calculated as [8, 19, 20]:
123
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307
b 600 ml, 32 boles/m 2
d Combinaon, 24/24/30, close-up view

c a
fo  (Hz) (2)
2π lV
Determination of l (bottle neck depth) was always prob-
lematic. So, a correction factor was introduced in Eq. 2 to
count for the effective neck depth l’ that is longer than the
physical depth l due to its radiation mass loading. l can be
calculated either as [21]:
l   l + 1.50r (m), unflanged outer end(UOE) (3)
Or
l   l + 1.70r (m), flanged outer end(FOE) (4)
where c: Speed of sound, m/s; a: cross-sectional area of bottle
neck, m2 ; V : bottle volume, m3 ; l, l  : bottle neck depth and
bottle effective neck depth respectively, m; r: neck radius, m
As can be concluded from Eq. 2, the larger the volume
and the longer the neck, the lower the resonance frequency.
In contrast, the larger the cross-sectional area, the higher the
resonance frequency.
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307 299

Table 2 Density and alignment of the examined bottles

Volume/category Density Alignment Total number of bottles

ml Bottles/m2 Type Bottles position Arrangement Code

1. Empty bottles
1500 24 (a) Vertical Semi-regular rows 1500/24(a) 240
1500 18 (a) 1500/18(a) 180
1500 12 (a) 1500/12(a) 120
1500 6 (a) 1500/06(a) 60

600 32 (a) Vertical Semi-regular rows 600/32(a) 320

600 24 (a) 600/24(a) 240
600 16 (a) 600/16(a) 160
600 8 (a) 600/08(a) 80

330 40 (a) Vertical Semi-regular rows 330/40(a) 400

330 30 (a) 330/30(a) 300
330 20 (a) 330/20(a) 200
330 10 (a) 330/10(a) 100

Combined (24 of 1500, 24 of 78 (a) Vertical Semi-regular rows 24/24/30(a) 780

600, and 30 of 330)
2. Bottles filled with 250 ml of sand
1500 24 (a) Vertical Semi-regular rows 1500/24/S/(a) 240
3. Empty bottles
1500 24 (b) Variable Placed at random 1500/24(b) 240

To measure the repeatability of the collected reverberation
curves, the standard error δ of the 95% confidence level, the
repeatability r e , and the relative standard deviation ε20(T)
according to ISO 354 [15] were calculated for each group of
the measured decay curves.
The standard error δ for the empty room ER was found to
be ± 0.40 s, ± 0.13 s, and ± 0.04 s in the low-, mid- and high-
frequency bands, respectively. The mean δ in the occupied
room had almost the same values with only slight differ-
ences. For example, the mean δ for the 1500-ml bottles
was found to be ± 0.35, ± 0.12, and ± 0.03 in the low-, mid-
and high-frequency bands, respectively. The relatively high
δ in the low-frequency range could be a consequence of the
small room volume. However, in the mid- and high-frequency
ranges, all values were within the accepted ε20(T) according
to ISO 354 except for limited cases. This very small δ in
the mid- and high-frequency bands reflects a high level of
confidence in the results obtained at those bands.
3 Results
Results show that there are two main factors affecting the
absorption of bottles. The first is that the absorption, in the
same category, is directly proportional to the density (number
of bottles per square meter) regardless of bottle size; thus, the
higher the density, the higher the absorption. For example,
in alignment 1500/24(a), α W  0.20, class E (NRC 0.25,
SAA 0.20, and α i.M 0.19). The value of α W falls to 0.05(L),
not classified (NRC 0.10, and 0.06 for both SAA and α i.M )
for alignment 1500/6(a). The same conclusion applies also
to the other two categories 600 ml and 330 ml. It can also
be said that increasing the density is more efficient in the
larger bottles (volumes) than the small ones. Figure 2 com-
pares between the values of α W for the examined categories.
Table 3 summarizes the technical specifications, mean α S ,
NRC, SAA, α i.M , α W , and the absorption class for all tests.
The second result is that larger volumes absorb more than
smaller ones, see Figs. 2 and 3. Thus, the 1500-ml bot-
tles absorb more than the 600-ml bottles. In the case of
1500-ml bottles, the differences in the absorption are much
pronounced in the low-frequency range that exceeds three
times the absorption of the 600-ml bottles and around five
times the absorption of the 330-ml bottles. However, such
differences are not that clear between the two categories 600
and 330 ml, perhaps because the difference in both volumes
is not that large. For example, in alignment 600/32(a), α W 
0.15(L) class E (NRC  0.10, SAA  0.14, and α i.M  0.11).
Very similar results were obtained for alignment 330/40(a),
α W  0.15 class E (NRC  0.15, SAA  0.14, and α i.M 
0.11).

123
300
0.45
1500 ml 600 ml
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
αW
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Alignment and Occupaon
Fig. 2 αW for the examined categories (volumes)
All bottles in the test showed a multi-resonant response.
In the case of 1500-ml bottles, six frequencies can be clearly
distinguished at which the absorption increases remarkably.
The first (fundamental f o ) occurs at the center 160 Hz, while
the last occurs at 8000 Hz where the maximum absorption
occurs. The two volumes 600 and 330 ml have five reso-
nance frequencies, and their maximum absorption occurs at
the second resonance frequency (f r 315 Hz and 1000 Hz,
respectively). In the case of 600-ml bottles, the fundamental
resonance frequency f o occurs at the center 200 Hz while it
happens at 400 Hz for the 330-ml bottles. Figure 4 illustrates
the resonance frequencies f r for the three examined bottles.
The other fact that can be deduced from these results is that
the highest absorption, for each category, does not necessarily
correspond to the fundamental frequency, f o . For example,
in the 1500-ml bottles, the highest absorption occurs at the
highest resonance frequency (8 kHz), while in the 600-ml
and 300-ml bottles, it corresponds to the second resonance
frequency (315 and 1000 Hz, respectively) as mentioned pre-
viously: see Fig. 3. However, these resonance frequencies are
almost constant per each category, but some deviations may
occur by decreasing the density, see Fig. 5.
While Eq. 2, modified with the correction factor for the
unflanged outer end UOE (Eq. 3), successfully predicts f o
for the 1500-ml bottle, this equation, either modified (for
the flanged, FOE, or unflanged outer end, UOE) or unmod-
ified, failed to predict f o accurately for both bottles (600
and 330 ml). In the case of the 600-ml bottle, Eq. 2 overesti-
mates f o (41.15% higher than the actual value). Nevertheless,
Eq. 2 corrected with Eq. 4 (FOE) yields a much closer value
(16.31% higher). Conversely, for the 330-ml bottles, f o cal-
123
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307
330 ml Different alignments
culated by Eq. 2 is much closer to the actual value (12.2%
higher), while Eq. 2 either corrected with Eq. 3 (UOE) or
Eq. 4 (FOE) underestimates f o for this bottle (− 21.10 and
− 24.87% lower, respectively). However, Eq. 2 holds true
in that f o of the bottles is inversely proportionate to their
volumes. For the bottles under consideration, Table 4 lists
the actual and predicted f o as calculated according to Eq. 2
corrected with Eq. 3 (UOE) and Eq. 4 (FOE). This table
also shows the subsequent actual resonance frequencies f r
for each category.
The best absorption is achieved by combining bottles of
different volumes together. For the combination that was
examined in this work, alignment 24/24/30(a), α W reaches
0.40 class D (NRC  0.40, SAA  0.38, and αi.M 
0.33). Five resonance frequencies exist in this case at the
centers 250, 1000, 1600, 2500, and finally at 10,000 Hz
where the maximum absorption occurs. These frequencies
are generally located between the resonance frequency of all
categories. Figure 6 compares α S for alignment 1500/24(a)
with the combined case; the difference between the two align-
ments is obvious.
Another interesting result demonstrates that a remarkably
better absorption is achieved in the mid- and high-frequency
ranges for the alignment 1500/24(b) (placed at random) in
comparison with the alignment 1500/24(a). The value of α W
increases to 0.35 class D [vs. 0.20 class E for alignment
1500/24(a)]. The other values are NRC  0.30, SAA  0.28,
and α i.M  0.28 versus NRC  0.25, SAA  0.20, and α i.M 
0.19 for alignment 1500/24(a). For alignment 1500/24(b), the
resonance frequencies are too close to those existing in align-
ment 1500/24(a) with two alternations at 250 and 800 Hz
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307 301

Table 3 Technical specifications, mean α S , NRC, SAA, α i.M , α W , and absorption class of the examined bottles
Alignment Density Alignment type Total number of α S (Mean) NRCa SAAb α ci.M α dw Classe
bottles
Bottles/m2 Low Mid High

1. Empty bottles
1500/24(a) 24 (a) 240 0.126 0.190 0.244 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.20 E
1500/18(a) 18 (a) 180 0.103 0.156 0.183 0.20 0.16 0.15 0.15(L) E
1500/12(a) 12 (a) 120 0.081 0.111 0.128 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.15(L) E
1500/06(a) 6 (a) 60 0.050 0.059 0.061 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.05(L) NC
600/32(a) 32 (a) 320 0.041 0.145 0.141 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.15(L) E
600/24(a) 24 (a) 240 0.052 0.124 0.107 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.15 E
600/16(a) 16 (a) 160 0.038 0.080 0.076 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.10 NC
600/08(a) 8 (a) 80 0.026 0.059 0.046 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05(L) NC
330/40(a) 40 (a) 400 0.027 0.152 0.129 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.15 E
330/30(a) 30 (a) 300 0.021 0.125 0.092 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.15 E
330/20(a) 20 (a) 200 0.009 0.086 0.057 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.10 NC
330/10(a) 10 (a) 100 0.012 0.047 0.032 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 NC
24/24/30(a) 78 (a) 780 0.152 0.380 0.407 0.40 0.38 0.33 0.40 D
2. Bottles filled with 250 ml of sand
1500/24/S/(a) 24 (a) 240 0.098 0.217 0.239 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.20 E
3. Empty bottles
1500/24(b) 24 (b) 240 0.097 0.325 0.319 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.35 D
a Noise reduction coefficient, the average of the 4 third values at 250, 500, 1000 and 2000 Hz. The result is rounded in increments of 0.05, see [17]
b sound absorption average, the average of the absorption coefficients for the twelve one-third octave bands from 200 to 2500 Hz, see [17]
c Arithmetic mean, the 18 third values (100–5000 Hz) are added and divided by 18
d Rated sound absorption, see [18]
e Rating of sound absorption, ≥ 0.90 (A), 0.80–0.85 (B), 0.60–0.75 (C), 0.30–0.55 (D), 0.15–0.25 (E), ≤ 0.10 (NC  not classified), see [18]

1500/24(a) 600/32/(a) 330/40(a)

0.400

0.350

0.300

0.250

0.200
αS

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000

-0.050

-0.100
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 3 Comparison between α S values for the three alignments: 1500/24(a), 600/32(a) and 330/40(a)

123
302 Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307

1500 mL 600 mL 330

10000

fr

Frequency (Hz)

fr
1000

fr
fr

fr
fo
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Order of resonance frequency, Hn
Fig. 4 The measured resonance frequencies (f r ), the first one is the fundamental (f o )

α (24 per sqm, T20) α (18 per sqm, T20) α (12 per sqm) α (6 per sqm)

0.400

0.350

0.300

0.250

0.200
αS

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000

-0.050

-0.100
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 5 αS and resonance frequencies f r for the 1500-ml bottles

where the maximum absorption at these frequencies in align- Figure 7 compares αS for the three alignments: 1500/24(a),
ment 1500/24(a) corresponds to the minimum absorption of 1500/24(b) and 24/24/30(a). As can be concluded from this
alignment 1500/24(b). The maximum absorption exists at figure, the absorption of alignment 1500/24(b) is comparable
1 kHz for the bottles examined in alignment 1500/24(b). to the absorption of alignment 24/24/30(a) especially in the

123
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307 303

high-frequency range; see also Table 3 for the values of other

measures.

correction Eq. 4
In comparison with the empty bottles in alignment

With neck
1500/24(a), sand has almost no effect on the absorption of

− 5.61

− 24.87
16.31
sound. Results showed that α W  0.20 class E (vs. 0.20 class
E for the empty bottles) while NRC  0.20, and the two mea-
sures SAA and α i.M both equal 0.19; these values are slightly
Variations (f o measured/f o calculated) %

less than that recorded for the empty bottles. Although both
correction Eq. 3
the fundamental and the highest resonance frequencies are
With neck

exactly the same (160 and 8000 Hz, respectively), there are
− 2.42

− 21.10
18.84
clear alternations in the other resonance frequencies. This
means that the high absorption values of the bottles with
sand correspond to the low absorption values of the empty
bottles; see Fig. 8.
Without neck
correction

25.73
41.15
12.19
correction applying

4 Discussion
Eq. 4, FOE
With neck

Results demonstrate that empty water bottles are not a true

151.51
238.99
320.33

(real) Helmholtz resonator as they have multi-resonance fre-

quencies. This conclusion is in complete agreement with
the findings of Balachandran et al. [11] and Elliott [12].
correction applying

Nevertheless, their fundamental frequencies are inversely

proportional to their volumes and can be predicted with a
Eq. 3, UOE

certain degree of accuracy by applying the equation of a true

With neck

156.22
246.43
330.30

Helmholtz resonator (Eq. 2) or Eq. 2 corrected with either

Eq. 3 or Eq. 4. The main factor that controls f o in this equa-
Table 4 Measured f o and f r versus calculated f o for the three examined volumes

tion is l (the depth of bottle neck) which cannot be precisely

calculated. This depth seems to be not simply the apparent
correction Eq. 2

depth of the neck but could expand to occupy part of the bot-
Without neck
Calculated f o

tle cavity. The findings of this work suggest that the “shape
of the shoulders of a bottle determines whether or not the
215.44
339.84
455.51

resonance can be modeled by the Helmholtz equation” [12].

A deeper cavity reduces spring stiffness [22] and reso-
8000

nance frequency (see Eq. 2), where peak absorption exists.

5th

–
–

Because stiffness increases impedance (that is, inversely pro-

2000
10,000
10,000

portional to the absorption [13]), the amount of absorption

4th

gained from a bottle of a certain volume increases by increas-

ing its volume. This may clarify why absorption of the large
800
2500
6300
3rd

bottle is higher than the smaller one.

In all of the examined cases, there is no clear rhythm gov-
Measured f o and f r

500
1000
3150
2nd

erning the relation between f o and f r . The accuracy of the

predicted f o depends completely on the accuracy of measur-
250
315
1000

ing the two variables: d 1 (hole diameter) and l (neck depth)

1st
fr

in addition to the shape of the bottle shoulders. Nevertheless,

160
200
400
Hz

based on the findings of this work and using the least square
fo

method, empirical equations were developed from which the

Volume

subsequent resonance frequencies of a bottle can be predicted

1500
600
330
ml

with a high degree of accuracy if the bottle(s) has/have the

123
304 Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307

24/24/30(a) 1500/24(a)

0.600

0.500

0.400
αS

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 6 Comparison between α S for the two alignments: 1500/24(a) and 24/24/30(a) (the combined case)

1500/24(a) 1500/24(b) 24/24/30(a)

0.600

0.500

0.400
αW

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 7 Comparison between α S for the three alignments: 1500/24(a), 1500/24(b) and 24/24/30(a)

123
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307
1500/24(a)
0.400
0.350
0.300
0.250
αS
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
Fig. 8 Comparison between α S for the two alignments: 1500/24(a) and 1500/24/S/(a) (1500-ml bottles filled with 250 ml sand)
same physical characteristics as those examined in this work.
For the 1500-ml bottle, the following equation can be applied:
f r  17.417Hn5 − 221.25Hn4 + 1062.1Hn3
− 2328.7Hn2 + 2420.5Hn − 790.
For the 600-ml bottle, the following equation can be
applied:
f r  207.75Hn4 − 2044.3Hn3 + 7380.2Hn2 − 10878Hn + 5580
And, for the 330-ml bottle, the following equation can be
applied:
f r  −83.333Hn3 + 1264.3Hn2 − 2602.4Hn + 1820
where f r is the resonance frequency, H n is an integer (> 0)
standing for the number of the subsequent resonance fre-
quencies, and H n  1 indicates the fundamental resonance
frequency, f o .
Results of bottles with sand show how the filling materials
can alter the resonance frequencies of the bottle. This means
that the acoustic performance of the bottle is affected not
only by its physical properties but also by the properties of
the filling material(s). One of the apparent reasons for this
effect is that using (a) filling material(s) other than air will
305
1500/24/S/(a)
Frequency (Hz)
change the volume of the bottle. However, this fact needs
more investigation. On the other hand, and for the combined
bottles, it is not clear if the values of αS depend on the high
density or the combination of bottles, or both.
The relatively high absorption values in the case of bottles
(5)
placed at random (alignment b), contrary to the semi-regular
distribution (alignment a), can be explained by the fact that in
alignment (b) the necks are better distributed throughout the
area (there are necks almost everywhere); thus, the chances
of their penetration by sound waves, to start the process of
(6) absorption, increase.
For all sizes under consideration, the values of the absorp-
tion measured in this experiment are significantly lower than
that expected from a true Helmholtz resonator, as men-
tioned in textbooks and recent research [19, 23]. This can
(7) be explained by the dimensions of the neck (d 1 , a and l) that
seems large in comparison with a true Helmholtz resonator
[23].
Nevertheless, the results obtained from the combined vol-
umes seem promising and still need more investigation in
order to achieve better absorption and eliminate those peaks
that appear at certain frequencies, so as to get a flat absorption
curve. The results of the bottles placed at random also reflect
a potential for a good absorption. Such a method may facili-
tate the application of this technique in the real world. So, in
the future work, more research will be oriented to investigate:
123
306
• The effect of combining different volumes while they are
placed at random
• The methods that can be applied to improve the absorption
of the combined bottles
• The effect of the filling; it is suggested that cheap and eco-
friendly absorbers (such as natural fibers) be added inside
the bottles in the hope that this may achieve a uniform and
significantly high absorption
There are many materials that are specifically manufactured
to modify and improve the acoustical properties of a room.
However, these materials are too expensive for them to be
applied large scale in buildings such as school and university
classrooms, especially in the developing countries that are
either poor or face severe economic difficulties. This fact
may add a special value to the results of this work.
5 Conclusions
This work investigates experimentally the acoustical char-
acteristics of empty PET water bottles, hoping to develop
inexpensive, eco-friendly wide-band sound absorbers. For
this purpose, three systematic groups of measurements were
performed, each of which examined only one of the three
categories (volumes) of bottles widely available in the Saudi
market; these were the 1500-, 600- and 330-ml bottles. All
bottles in the test have unflanged outer ends, the same neck
depth (l  20.63 mm) and radius (r  12.40 mm) and thus
area (a  483 mm2 ), but different air volumes V. Accord-
ingly, each category will generate a specific resonance, thus
absorption. Each group includes 4 tests with a predetermined
density and alignment. Two additional tests were performed.
The first examined the effect of combining (mixing) differ-
ent volumes on their absorption. The second investigated the
effect of filling the 1500-ml bottles with 250 ml of sand. All
measurements were performed while the bottles were verti-
cally positioned and aligned in semi-regular rows on room
floor. Furthermore, one test was performed to examine the
effect of the bottles’ position and alignment on their absorp-
tion where the 1500-ml bottles were placed at random on
the floor of the room. Measurements were carried out in the
reverberation chamber. All of the examined bottles showed
a multi-resonant behavior which again confirmed that water
bottles are not a true Helmholtz resonator. Nevertheless, their
fundamental frequencies f o are inversely proportionate to
their volumes and can be predicted with a certain degree of
accuracy by applying the equation of a true Helmholtz res-
onator. Results demonstrated that the bottles’ absorption is
directly proportionate to density (regardless of the bottles’
volume) and bottle volume. For each category, the highest
absorption does not necessarily correspond to the fundamen-
tal frequency. The best absorption is achieved by combining
123
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307
bottles of different volumes together. Sand has almost no
effect on the absorption of sound. Finally, results demon-
strate that a remarkably higher level of absorption is achieved
in the mid- and high-frequency ranges by placing at random
the 1500-ml bottles on the floor of the room. Although the
values of α S and the other measures of absorption for each
category are not too high, the results obtained from the com-
bined volumes seem promising. The problem needs further
investigation in order to achieve better absorption; this will
be the subject of the future work.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their gratitude to Prof.
Dr. Maged Attia, Mrs. Hala Ali Ezzat, Dr. Mostafa Sabbagh, Prof. (A)
Dr. Ahmed Adel, Dr. Ahmed Abdol Hameed, Prof. Dr. Tamer Elnady
and his team at CVS3-ASUGARDS, Mr. Yahya Elkhateeb and finally
Arch Zinub Najeeb for their help and continuous support.
References
1. Ahmed, N.: Acoustic design to correct poor listening conditions
of some buildings in Dhaka with locally available materials. In:
International Symposium on Noise Control and Acoustics for Edu-
cational Buildings, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey,
24–25 May (2000)
2. D’Alessandro, F., Pispola, G.: Sound absorption properties of sus-
tainable fibrous materials in an enhanced reverberation room. In:
2005 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 07–10 August (2005)
3. Seddeq, H.S., Aly, N.M., Ali Marwa, A., Elshakankery, M.H.:
Investigation on sound absorption properties for recycled fibrous
materials. J. Ind. Text. 43(1), 56–73 (2012)
4. Aly, O.A.A., Doumiati, S., Moselhy, M.: Testing of non-traditional
acoustical materials. In: 17th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical
Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 13–16 April (2014)
5. Bansod, P.V., Mittal, T., Mohanty, A.R.: Study on the acoustical
properties of natural jute material by theoretical and experimental
methods for building acoustics applications. Acoust. Aust. 44(3),
457–472 (2016)
6. Chen, S., Jiang, Y.: The acoustic property study of polyurethane
foam with addition of bamboo leaves particles. In: Polymer Com-
posites (2018)
7. Zainulabidin, M.H., AbdulRani, M.H., Nezere, N., Al, MohdTobi:
Optimum sound absorption by materials fraction combination. Int.
J. Mech. Mechatron. Eng. IJMME-IJENS 14(2), 118–121 (2014)
8. French, R.: A POP BOTTLE As A HELMHOLZ resonator. Exp.
Tech. 29(3), 67–68 (2005)
9. Patton, K.: Studying the effects of filling a Helmholtz resonator
with spheres (2007). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/
Studying-the-Effects-of-Filling-a-Helmholtz-with-Patton/b6b9a6
42b8551733a94469b785751e03f820dd78#references. Accessed
July 2019
10. Han, M.: Sound reduction by a Helmholtz resonator. Lehigh Uni-
versity, Bethlehem (2008)
11. Balachandran, A., Watanabe, F., Lim, J.: Helmholtz resonance in
a water bottle. J. Phys. 5(1), 1–4 (2011)
12. Elliott, A.: Resonance in bottles with different shapes. ISB J. Phys.
6(1) (2012)
13. Klaus, T.B., Herold, S., Heuss, O., Sabirin, C.R.: Noise reduction of
a sound field inside a cavity due to an adaptive Helmholtz resonator.
In: Proceedings of international conference on noise and vibra-
Acoustics Australia (2020) 48:295–307
tion engineering ISMA-USD, Leuven, Belgium, 17–19 September
(2012)
14. The University of New South Wales UNSW, Sydney, Australia,
“Helmholtz Resonance,” [Online]. Available: https://newt.phys.
unsw.edu.au/jw/Helmholtz.html. [Accessed August 2019]
15. British Standard Institute, “ISO 354:2003(05-15), Acoustics-
Measurement of sound absorption in a reverberation room.,” 2003
16. British Standard Institute: ISO, 9613-l, Acoustics—Attenuation of
Sound During Propagation Outdoors: Part 1: Calculation of the
Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere, 1st edn, p. 1993-06-01
17. American Society for Testing and Materials: ASTM C423-17,
Standard Test Method for Sound Absorption and Sound Absorption
Coefficients by the Reverberation Room Method (2017)
18. International Organization for Standardization: ISO 11654:1997,
Acoustics—Sound absorbers for Use in Buildings–Rating of Sound
Absorption (1997)
307
19. Cox, T.J., D’Antonio, P.: Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers:
Theory, Design and Application, 2nd edn, p. 209. Spon Press,
Oxfordshire (2009)
20. Ginn, K.B.: Architectural Acoustics, 2nd edn, pp. 56–57. Nærum,
Brüel & Kjær (1978)
21. Raichel, D.R.: The Science and Applications of Acoustics,
pp. 145–146. Springer, New York (2006)
22. David, M., Howard, J.A.: Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 1st edn,
p. 322. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)
23. Komkin, A.I., Mironov, M.A., Bykov, A.I.: Sound absorption by a
Helmholtz resonator. Acoust. Phys. 63(4), 385–392 (2017)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123