Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Insulation materials for the building sector: A review

and comparative analysis
S. Schiavoni a, F. D'Alessandro a,b, F. Bianchi a, F. Asdrubali a,c,n
a
CIRIAF-Inter University Research Centre for Environment and Pollution Mauro Felli, University of Perugia, via G. Duranti 67, 06125 Perugia, Italy
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Perugia, via G. Duranti 93, 06125 Perugia, Italy
c
Department of Engineering, University of Rome Tre, via V. Volterra 62, 00146 Rome, Italy

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The energy consumption of a building is strongly dependent on the characteristics of its envelope. The
Received 18 September 2015 thermal performance of external walls represents a key factor to increase the energy efciency of the
Received in revised form construction sector and to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. Thermal insulation is undoubtedly one of
16 March 2016
the best ways to reduce the energy consumption due to both winter heating and summer cooling.
Accepted 2 May 2016
Insulation materials play an important role in this scenario since the selection of the correct material, its
Available online 18 May 2016
thickness and its position, allow to obtain good indoor thermal comfort conditions and adequate energy
Keywords: savings. Thermal properties are extremely important, but they are not the only ones to be considered
Building materials when designing a building envelope: sound insulation, resistance to re, water vapor permeability and
Insulation materials
impact on the environment and on human health need to be carefully assessed too.
Thermal insulation
The purpose of the paper is to provide a review of the main commercialized insulation materials
Sound insulation
Life cycle assessment (conventional, alternative and advanced) for the building sector through a holistic and multidisciplinary
approach, considering thermal properties, acoustic properties, reaction to re and water vapor resis-
tance; environmental issues were also taken into account by means of Life Cycle Assessment approach. A
comparative analysis was performed, considering also unconventional insulation materials that are not
yet present in the market. Finally a case study was conducted evaluating both thermal transmittance and
dynamic thermal properties of one lightweight and three heavyweight walls, with different types of
insulating materials and ways of installation (external, internal or cavity insulation).
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989
2. Characterization of insulation materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
2.1. Thermal characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
2.2. Acoustic characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990
2.3. Environmental characterization: Life Cycle Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
2.4. Reaction to re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 991
2.5. Water vapor resistance factor (-value) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
3. Survey on commercialized insulation materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
3.1. Conventional materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
3.1.1. Stone wool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 992
3.1.2. Glass wool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
3.1.3. Expanded polystyrene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
3.1.4. Extruded polystyrene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
3.1.5. Phenolic foam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
3.1.6. Polyurethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993

n
Corresponding author at: Department of Engineering, University of Rome Tre, via V. Volterra 62, 00146 Rome, Italy.
E-mail address: francesco.asdrubali@uniroma3.it (F. Asdrubali).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.045
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011 989

3.1.7. Polyisocyanurate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993

3.1.8. Cellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993
3.1.9. Cork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
3.1.10. Wood bers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994
3.1.11. Mineralized wood bers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
3.1.12. Lightweight expanded clay aggregate (LECA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
3.1.13. Expanded vermiculite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
3.1.14. Expanded perlite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
3.2. Alternative materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
3.2.1. Hemp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
3.2.2. Kenaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
3.2.3. Flax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
3.2.4. Sheep wool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996
3.2.5. Coir ber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996
3.2.6. Recycled rubber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996
3.2.7. Jute ber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 996
3.2.8. Cardboard based panels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997
3.3. Advanced materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997
3.3.1. Vacuum insulation panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997
3.3.2. Gas lled panels (GFP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997
3.3.3. Aerogel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998
4. Survey on unconventional insulation materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998
5. Comparative analysis between commercial and unconventional materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998
5.1. General overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998
5.2. Thermal properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999
5.3. Reaction to re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999
5.4. Environmental performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000
5.4.1. Insulators analyzed through cradle to gate approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000
5.4.2. Insulators analyzed through cradle to grave approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000
6. Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003
Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008

1. Introduction represents a large amount [20], so the use of adequately insulated

In the last decades the attention towards energy and environ-
mental issues has grown exponentially and many international and
national policies have been developed in order to guarantee a more
sustainable future to the planet. Within this context, the European
Union [1] paid particular attention to the building sector, since it is
responsible for 40% of the total energy consumption in Europe. Fur-
thermore, the unrealized energy efciency potentials in the building
sector are enormous and the massive adoption of energy savings
measures in this sector could represent a solution for a strong
decrease of greenhouse gases emissions [2]. The external envelope of
a building plays an important role since it strongly affects the sur-
rounding microclimate [35] and it is a border between the internal
and the external environment, inuencing the thermal comfort of the
inhabitants [6,7] and the energy losses during the operating
phase [8,9]. In the context of sustainability, Life Cycle Assessment of
buildings components and also of entire buildings has become more
and more important, in order to take into account the whole energy
uses starting from the construction up to the demolition [10,11].
Several environmental buildings assessment protocols such as LEED or
BREEAM [12] are now widespread in order to rate the actual sus-
tainability of a building. The largest part of buildings energy con-
sumption can still be attributed to the operating phase, which is
inuenced by several factors like the efciency of the HVAC systems
[13], windows and door thermal insulation [1417], losses through
thermal bridges [18] and opaque wall thermal performance [19]. The
development of the latter feature in the last decades has led to opti-
mum thermal performance of vertical walls in terms of thermal
transmittance. Moreover the incidence of the thermal losses through
the opaque walls on the whole energy losses of the building
walls has become essential. Within this context, the insulation
material is the layer that mainly contributes to the overall thermal
behavior of the opaque walls during winter and summer seasons,
responding to the external conditions with its specic thermo-
physical properties [21]. Insulating materials must guarantee accep-
table performance throughout the whole life cycle of the building, but
thermal performance is not the only parameter that should be
addressed when selecting an insulator; the choice of these materials
in the building sector is starting to be inspired by a holistic approach,
which considers also non-thermal features such as sound insulation,
resistance to re, water vapor permeability and impact on the envir-
onment and on human health. Consequently the market of eco-
friendly, local and sustainable insulation materials, characterized by
decent insulation performance and low embodied energy [22], is
rapidly growing [23]. At the same time innovative insulators, such as
VIP (Vacuum Insulation Panels), GFP (Gas Filled Panels) and aerogels,
which combine thinness, lightness and extremely low values of
thermal conductivity, are entering in the market [24]. Furthermore
several studies have showed that the use of PCM (Phase Change
Materials) as thermal storage systems in buildings can bring to sig-
nicant energy savings [25,26]; however this class of materials has not
been analyzed in the present paper.
The main goal of the paper is to provide an overview of the
insulation materials for the building sector taking into account the
main commercialized products that cover three areas: conventional,
alternative, advanced. Each material was described considering sev-
eral features, in order to give a global view of the products. A review of
the main international standards for the evaluation of the product
characteristics constitutes the rst part of the paper; thermal and
acoustic properties, water vapor resistance, reaction to the re and
990 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
environmental characterization are considered. The results of a com-
parative analysis concerning the dynamic thermal performance are
reported in order to show the inuence of the insulation material on
the thermal performance of the whole wall. In addition to commer-
cialized materials, unconventional products [27] (not or scarcely
commercialized) were also taken into account in the comparative
analysis.
2. Characterization of insulation materials
2.1. Thermal characterization
The main parameters that express the thermal performance of an
insulation material are the thermal conductivity for the steady state
and the thermal diffusivity D for the unsteady state. Thermal con-
ductivity is the heat ow that passes through a unit area of a 1 m thick
homogeneous material due to a temperature gradient equal to 1 K; it
is expressed in W/m K. The unsteady or dynamic conditions are to be
considered when the heat ow rate or the temperature varies on one
or both of the boundaries of the considered component. The thermal
diffusivity is the ratio between thermal conductivity, i.e. the ability to
conduct thermal energy, and the product of density and specic heat
capacity Cp, which express the ability of the material to store thermal
energy: so thermal diffusivity describes the propagation of thermal
waves inside the media. It is expressed in m2/s and it is a derived
quantity composed by intrinsic properties of the material. The afore-
mentioned quantities can be measured or evaluated with a number of
methods; Table 1 reports a list of the most used international stan-
dards.
For a multi-layer wall, thermal properties are expressed by thermal
transmittance [42], or U-value, which is the heat ow that passes
through a unit area of a complex component or inhomogeneous
material due to a temperature gradient equal to 1 K; it is expressed in
W/m2 K. The inverse of thermal transmittance is the thermal resis-
tance, or R-value. Thermal transmittance considers also the thickness
of an insulator and the heat transfer due to convection and radiation.
A more detailed thermal characterization of building components
for unsteady state conditions can be performed using the procedures
dened in ISO 13786 [43]. The standard denes the calculation
method to evaluate a heat transfer matrix of the component that
describes its thermal behavior when temperature and density of heat
ow vary with a sine function of the time. The heat transfer matrix
correlates the variation of a quantity in one side of the component (m)
with the consequent variation in the other side (n) and it depends on
thermal conductivity, density, heat specic capacity, thickness and
period of the oscillation. For a multi-layer wall the following para-
meters are used to dene thermal insulation in unsteady conditions:
Table 1
List of methods for the evaluation of thermal conductivity, transmittance and diffusivity.
Parameter S.I. unit of measurement
Thermal conductivity, W/m K
Density kg/m3
Specic heat capacity J/kg K
Thermal diffusivity m2/s

Periodic thermal transmittance Ymn (W/m2 K): Considering that
the analyzed component separates the zones m and n, it is the
correlation between the amplitude of the variation of the den-
sity of heat ow rate through the surface of the component
adjacent to zone m with the amplitude of the variation of the
temperature in zone n; the temperature varies as a sinusoidal
function in zone n and is held constant in zone m [43];

Decrement factor f (dimensionless): It is the ratio of the mod-
ulus of the periodic thermal transmittance to the steady-state
thermal transmittance U [43] and expresses the reduction of the
heat ow through the wall due to thermal inertia respect to
steady state behavior;

Time shift t (h): It is the time period required by the heat wave
to pass throughout the analyzed wall, i.e. it represents the time
delay between the maximum values of the heat ow observed
in the m side and the maximum values observed in the n side of
the analyzed wall.
2.2. Acoustic characterization
From an acoustic point of view, building materials can be char-
acterized in terms of their ability to contrast sound transmission and
to absorb impinging sound waves. In the rst case airborne and
structural (impact) sound insulation properties are considered. Sound
absorption, on the other hand, denes the part of the acoustic energy
dissipated inside a material because of friction or thermal loss (porous
materials) or of resonance phenomena (perforated and membrane
absorbers). While porous sound absorbers are usually good thermal
insulators, the vice versa is not always true: sound absorbers requires
the presence of air moving inside the material, so open porosity is
essential; on the contrary closed porosity is usually benecial for
thermal insulators because of the presence of still air inside the cav-
ities. As far as airborne sound insulation, this characteristic is strongly
dependent on the mass of the materials: lightweight materials are
commonly poor sound insulators. The sound insulation of a massive
structure depends mainly on the performance of the heaviest com-
ponents, such as masonry or concrete. If a double wall is concerned,
the presence of a sound absorbing material in the gap allows to limit
cavity resonances and consequently to increase the sound insulation
of the wall. Sound absorbers are used to reduce the reverberation time
of rooms, with a benecial effect on acoustic comfort and on speech
comprehension. Optimal values of reverberation time are dened
according to the activities to be performed inside the room and to its
volume.
If sound insulation of oors is concerned, impact sound insulation
must be considered, i.e. the ability to contrast the transmission of
impact sounds (footsteps, falling objects, etc.) through the oor
structure. In this case the solutions to achieve good performance are
Evaluation method Note
EN 12664 [28] Low thermal resistance
EN 12667 [29] High thermal resistance
EN 12939 [30] Thick materials
ASTM C518 [31] Heat ow meter apparatus
ASTM C177 [32] Guarded hot plate apparatus
ISO 8990 [33] Hot box method
EN 1602 [34]
ASTM C303 [35]
ISO 11357 [36]
ASTM E1269 [37]
ISO 22007-1 [38] General principles
ISO 22007-2 [39] Transient plane heat source (hot disc) method
ISO 22007-3 [40] Temperature wave analysis method
ISO 22007-4 [41] Laser ash method
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011 991

the following: (i) install a false ceiling in the disturbed lower room, (ii)
lay a resilient layer on the pavement of the disturbing upper room,
such as vinyl or carpet, or (iii) create a oating oor in the upper
room, i.e. a oor separated by the structural slab by means of a resi-
lient layer. The most important parameter to consider for selecting an
effective resilient layer is dynamic stiffness s, which should be com-
prised between 4 (best value) and 50 MN/m3.
Unlike thermal properties, that are expressed as single numbers,
acoustic performance are commonly reported as spectra in an inves-
tigated frequency range, mainly in octave or third octave bands. This is
due to the fact that both sound absorption and sound insulation are
frequency dependent. Single number indexes, such as Rw and STC
(Sound Transmission Class) for sound insulation or w and SAA (Sound
absorption average) for sound absorption, can be used for compar-
isons between different materials, but can be misleading about their
actual performance, because they do not contain any spectral infor-
mation.
Acoustic insulation can be assessed for airborne and impact sound
for real-sized or small samples; in the rst case measurements can be
performed in laboratory or in situ. Concerning impact sound insula-
tion, an estimation of the sound insulation performance of a oating
oor can be made using the results of dynamic stiffness measure-
ments performed on small sized samples (0.04 m2).
Sound absorption of materials can be measured in a number of
ways; most commonly it is measured in diffuse sound eld inside a
reverberation room or in an impedance tube in a plane wave eld.
A list of methods used for the assessment of sound insulation is
reported in Table 2; LW and Ln can be also calculated from the
dynamic stiffness value using the equation reported in [44].
A list of methods used for the assessment of sound absorption
properties is reported in Table 3.
2.3. Environmental characterization: Life Cycle Assessment
are calculated in terms of kilograms of CO2 equivalent. The indicator
can be expressed in three time horizons: 20, 50 and 100 years. Another
method used in LCA studies is the Eco-indicator: it allows to assess the
damage caused during the life cycle of a product to ecosystem quality,
human health and resources. Usually the LCA of a product/system is
performed using one of the two following approaches:

Cradle to grave: evaluation performed taking into account the
entire life cycle of the product/service, from the extraction of
the raw materials to the disposal of the product;

Cradle to gate: the analysis does not consider the life of the
product/service after the transportation to consumers, i.e. the
use phase and the disposal.
All the environmental impacts are normalized to a functional unit,
f.u., which, according to the Council for European Producers of
Materials for Construction, in building thermal applications is dened
as the mass in kg of material needed to have a value of thermal
resistance equal to 1 m2 K/W for a 1 m2 panel. For this reasons CED
and IPCC GWP 2007 are expressed in terms of MJ/f.u. and kg CO2,eq/
f.u., respectively.
2.4. Reaction to re
The behavior of insulation materials under re may be responsible
of serious safety issues. Several studies proved that toxic fumes are the
most important causes in re deaths [5759]; as a consequence, when
selecting a building material, both the ignition temperature and the
production of smoke should be considered. The European standard EN
Table 3
List of methods for the assessment of sound absorption. All the listed parameters
are dimensionless quantities.

Parameter Method Note

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a well-dened methodology to assess
the environmental impact of services or products. The procedures to Sound absorption coef- ISO 354 [52]
perform this evaluation are specied in the ISO standards 14040 [55] cient,
and 14044 [56]. LCA allows to measure the environmental burden Sound absorption coef- ASTM C423-
cient, 09a [53]
through several indicators; the most used ones are the Cumulative
Sound absorption coef- ISO 10534-2
Energy Demand (CED) and the Global Warming Potential (IPPC GWP cient, [54]
2007). CED is the primary energy consumed directly and indirectly Noise reduction coef- ASTM C423-
during the considered life cycle of the assessed product. IPPC GWP cient, NRC 09a [53]
Sound absorption aver- ASTM C423-
2007 is used to evaluate the impact to the global warming of a product
age, SAA 09a [53]
during its life cycle; it takes into account all the gas emissions, which
Reverberation room, real-sized
sample
Reverberation room, real-sized
sample
Impedance tube, small samples
Single number, reverberation
room, real-sized sample
Single number, reverberation
room, real-sized sample

Table 2
List of methods for the assessment of sound insulation.

Parameter Unit of measurement Evaluation method Note

Weighted sound reduction index, Rw dB ISO 717-1 [45] Single number, reverberation room measurements, real sized
sample
0
Apparent Weighted sound reduction index, R w dB ISO 717-1 [45] Single number, in situ measurements, real sized sample
Sound reduction index, R dB ISO 10140 [46] Reverberation room, real sized sample
EN 12354-1 [47] Estimation
Apparent sound reduction index, R0 dB ISO 16283-1 [48] In situ measurements, real sized sample
Transmission Loss, TL dB Not standardized Impedance tube, small samples
Weighted improvement of impact sound insulation, LW dB ISO 717-2 [49] Single number, reverberation room measurements, real sized
sample
EN 12354-2 [44] Estimation
Improvement of impact sound insulation, L dB ISO 10140 [46] Reverberation room, real sized sample
Weighted normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln,w dB ISO 717-2 [49] Single number, reverberation room measurements, real sized
sample
Normalized impact sound pressure level, Ln dB ISO 10140 [46] Reverberation room, real sized sample
EN 12354-2 [44] Estimation
Weighted apparent normalized impact sound pressure dB ISO 717-2 [49] Single number, in situ measurements, real sized sample
level, L0 n,w
Apparent normalized impact sound pressure level, L0 n dB ISO 16283-2 [50] In situ, real sized sample
Dynamic stiffness MN/m3 ISO 9052-1 [51] Laboratory, small samples
992 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011

13501-1 [60] denes a rating system based on the parameters listed in resistance, also the equivalent air layer thickness sd is sometimes
Table 4. Table 5 species the conditions required for belonging to each used: it represents the equivalent thickness of air characterized by
class for building materials (oorings, electrical cables and pipe the same resistance to water vapor diffusion of the analyzed
insulations excluded). The additional classication denes smoke material. It is calculated by multiplying the -value with material
development and dropping while burning. The quantity of smoke thickness reported in meters. A material is considered as a vapor
produced rises from s1 to s3, while the quantity of droplets rises from barrier if sd Z 10001500 m and as a vapor retarder if sd Z 10 m.
d1 to d3. The -value for insulation materials can be determined by means
of EN 12086 [61] and EN 12088 [62], which dene the procedures
2.5. Water vapor resistance factor (-value) to quantify the amount of water absorbed by diffusion in a long-
term.
Water vapor resistance factor is a dimensionless parameter
used to evaluate the vapor permeability of building materials in
comparison to the unitary value assigned to air; the higher the - 3. Survey on commercialized insulation materials
value the lower the permeability. In addition to the water vapor
Fig. 1 reports the list of the commercial insulation materials
Table 4 analyzed in the paper. Data collected in this section are obtained
Parameters involved in reaction to re classication [60]. by the analysis of scientic literature, thermal and acoustic insu-
lator manufacturers websites, market analysis and the outcomes
Code Brief description
of several research projects, including some measurements and
DT Temperature increase evaluations carried out by the authors. The references for each
Dm Mass loss cited product are reported in Table 6.
Tf Time of sustained aming of the specimen
PCS Gross caloric potential
FIGRA Fire grown rate index
3.1. Conventional materials
THR600s Total heat release
LFS Lateral ame spread 3.1.1. Stone wool
SMOGRA Smoke Growth Rate index Stone wool [6367] is manufactured by melting at 1600 C
Fs Flame spread
several kinds of rocks, such as dolostone, basalt and diabase,
TSP600S Total smoke production
obtaining bers that are then bound together using binders,

Table 5
Reaction to re classication [60].

Class Test method(s) Classication criteria Additional classication

A1 EN ISO 1182 (1); and DTr 30 C; and

Dmr 50%; and
tf 0 (i.e. no sustained aming)
EN ISO 1716 PCSr 2.0 MJ kg  1 (1) and
PCSr 2.0 MJ kg  1 (2) (2a) and
PCSr 1.4 MJ m  2 (3) and
PCSr 2.0 MJ kg  1 (4)
A2 EN ISO 1182 (1) or DTr 50 C; and
Dmr 50%; and
tf r 20 s
EN ISO 1716 and PCSr 3.0 MJ kg  1 (1) and
PCSr 4.0 MJ m  2 (2) and
PCSr 4.0 MJ m  2 (3) and
PCSr 3.0 MJ kg  1 (4)
EN 13823 (SBI) FIGRAr 120 W s  1; and Smoke production (5), and aming droplets/particles (6)
LFSo edge of specimen and
THR600 s r 7.5 MJ
B EN 13823 (SBI) and LFSo edge of specimen; and Smoke production (5), and aming droplets/particles (6)
THR600 s r 7.5 MJ
EN ISO 11925-2(8): Exposure30 s Fsr 150 mm within 60 s
C EN 13823 (SBI) and FIGRAr 250 W s  1; and Smoke production (5), and aming droplets/particles (6)
LFSo edge of specimen; and
THR600s r15 MJ
EN ISO 11925-2(8): Exposure 30 s Fsr 150 mm within 60 s
D EN 13823 (SBI) and FIGRAr 750 W s  1 Smoke production (5), and aming droplets/particles (6)
EN ISO 11925-2(8): Exposure 30 s Fsr 150 mm within 60 s
E EN ISO 11925-2(8): Exposure15 s Fsr 150 mm within 20 s Flaming droplets/particles (7)
F No performance determined

(1) For homogeneous products and substantial components of non-homogeneous products.

(2) For any external non-substantial component of non-homogeneous products.
(2a) Alternatively, any external non-substantial component having a PCS o 2.0 MJ m  2, provided that the product satises the following criteria of EN 13823(SBI):
FIGRAo 20 W s  1, LFS o edge of specimen, THR600so 4.0 MJ, s1 and d0.
(3) For any internal non-substantial component of non-homogeneous products.
(4) For the product as a whole.
(5) s1 SMOGRAo 30 m2 s  2 and TSP600 s o 50 m2; s2 SMOGRA o 180 m2 s  2 and TSP600s o 200 m2; s3 not s1 or s2.
(6) d0 No aming droplets/particles in EN13823 (SBI) within 600 s; d1 No aming droplets/particles persisting longer than 10 s in EN13823 (SBI) within 600 s; d2 not
d0 or d1; Ignition of the paper in EN ISO 11925-2 results in a d2 classication.
(7) Pass no ignition of the paper (no classication); Fail ignition of the paper (d2 classication).
(8) Under conditions of surface ame attack and, if appropriate to enduse application of product, edge ame attack.
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
usually resins, food-grade starches and oils. Stone wool is com-
mercialized as panels, felts, pipe sections, or rolls. These com-
mercialized materials are usually characterized by values of ther-
mal conductivity ranging from 0.033 to 0.040 W/m K, density from
40 to 200 kg/m3 and specic heat from 0.8 to 1.0 kJ/kg K. Moreover
they are quite cheap and can be easily handled by operators
without losing thermal performance. Researches demonstrated
that the thermal insulation performance of stone wool materials
for building application is negatively affected by water vapor cond-
enses [68]. Stone wool can be considered a good sound absorber
and it is often used for cavity insulation. Stone wool mat-
erials can be recycled by the producing manufacturers or disposed
into landlls.
3.1.2. Glass wool
Glass wool [63,65,67,69] is produced mixing natural sand and
glass (usually recycled) at 13001450 C. The transformation in
bers occurs thanks to centrifugation and blowing processes; then
bers are bound thanks to the addition of resins. Thermal prop-
erties are similar to those of stone wool. Researches demonstrated
that the thermal insulation performance of glass wool materials
for building application seems to be not affected by high tem-
perature and moisture conditions [70]. Used glass wool can be
recycled by the producing manufacturers. An innovative product
made of glass wool with dynamic stiffness between 8 and 11 MN/
m3 is currently commercialized [71].
3.1.3. Expanded polystyrene
Expanded polystyrene (EPS, [63,6567,69,72,73]) is usually
obtained by evaporating the pentane added into polystyrene grains.
This process allows the realization of a white, rigid and closed-cell
foam characterized by thermal conductivity from 0.031 to 0.037 W/
mK, density from 15 to 75 kg/m3 and specic heat about 1.25 kJ/kgK;
the higher the density, the higher the insulation performance.
Researches demonstrated that thermal conductivity of EPS is affected
by moisture in such a way: keeping dry EPS materials in a climatic
chamber with relative humidity at 90% for 4 h, a thermal conductivity
increase between 1.4% and 2.1% was detected [74]. EPS shows no
signicant acoustic property, because of the closed porosity and low
density. Since the material is easily ammable and burning releases
dangerous gases, a re retardant is often added in the manufacturing
process. They are usually commercialized as panels, which can be
easily handled and cut without losing their performance. The
Fig. 1. List of the commercial insulation materials analyzed in the paper.
993
recycling process of these kinds of materials is performed by specia-
lized industries.
3.1.4. Extruded polystyrene
The extruded polystyrene (XPS, [65,67,69,73,75,76]) is pro-
duced by melting the polyester grains into an extruder, with the
addition of a blowing agent. XPS has insulation properties similar
to EPS, but it absorbs less moisture (0.3% vs. 24%) and it is also
characterized by higher specic heat (between 1.3 and 1.7 kJ/kg K).
Moisture affects negatively the values of thermal conductivity.
Nevertheless XPS costs usually 1030% more than EPS. Concerning
recycling and combustion issues, there are the same problems
reported for EPS.
3.1.5. Phenolic foam
The phenolic foam (PF, [7780]) is an organic material character-
ized by low thermal conductivity values, 0.018-0.028 W/mK, and a
density higher than other plastic foams (up to 160 kg/m3). Thermal
conductivity of phenolic foam materials may increase with water
content [81]. The specic heat is about 1.3-1.4 kJ/kgK. These materials
are usually characterized by good reaction to re even if they tend to
release smoke under re.
3.1.6. Polyurethane
Polyurethane (PUR or PU, [6567,69,76,82,83]) is produced
through an exothermic reaction between di- or polyisocyanate with a
polyether polyol. Polyurethane can be used to produce panels and
pipe sections or it can be expanded in the building site as a foam.
Thermal conductivity varies from 0.022 to 0.040 W/m K, density from
15 to 45 kg/m3 and specic heat is between 1.3 and 1.45 kJ/kg K.
Thermal conductivity is inuenced by the cell size and decreases
when the cell size decreases [84]. Concerning recycling and com-
bustion issues, there are the same problems reported for EPS, even if
ame-retardant PUs are being studied in the last years [85].
3.1.7. Polyisocyanurate
Polyisocyanurate (PIR, [76,78,8692]) is created by a chemical
reaction similar to the one of polyurethane, but using a polyester-
derived polyol and a higher proportion of methylene diphenyl diiso-
cyanate. PIR materials are characterized by a higher re resistance in
comparison to PUR ones (B class, better than the E of polyurethane
insulator) and, among foam plastics, PIR materials are the ones with
the best re resistance. In comparison to PUR insulator, they are
characterized by a lower thermal conductivity, between 0.018 and
0.027 W/m K, and by similar values of density (15-45 kg/m3) and
specic heat (about 1.4 kJ/kg K). The recycling of these insulators
should be performed by specialized industries. Open cell PIR nano-
forms with morphology similar to those of silica aerogels and other
polymeric aerogels are currently under study [93].
3.1.8. Cellulose
Cellulose [66,9498] for thermal and acoustical insulation pur-
poses is produced grounding in a mill recycled papers, wood bers
and some chemical composites aiming at improving its vermin, re
and rotting resistance. Even if panels and mats can be manufactured,
it is more widely commercialized as a loose material to be blown in
wall cavities. Cellulose is characterized by a thermal conductivity
between 0.037 and 0.042 W/m K, a density between 30 and 80 kg/m3
and a specic heat between 1.3 and 1.6 kJ/kg K. The quality of the
source newsprint can affect thermal performance of the material [99].
Concerning the acoustic performance, if panels are used, their elasti-
city allows the use as resilient materials in oating oors, while por-
osity and ow resistivity values are adequate for sound absorption
and cavity insulation. Further details about the acoustic properties of
cellulose materials are briey collected in [100]. These materials
should not be compressed after the blowing operation to avoid
994 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011

Table 6
Thermal insulation performance, reaction to re classication and m-value of commercial and unconventional products.

Density (kg/ Thermal conductivity Specic heat Fire classication Water vapor diffusion References
m3) (W/m K) (kJ/kg K) resistance factor, m-value

Commercial materials
Stone wool 40200 0.0330.040 0.81.0 A1A2Ba 11.3 [6368]
Glass wool 1575 0.0310.037 0.91.0 A1A2 11.1 [63,65,67,69,70]
Expanded Polystyrene 1535 0.0310.038 1.25 E 2070 [63,65,66,67,69,72,73,74]
Extruded Polystyrene 3240 0.0320.037 1.451.7 E 80150 [65,67,69,73,75,76]
Phenolic foam 40160 0.0180.024 1.31.4 BC 35 [7781]
Polyurethane 1545 0.0220.040 1.31.45 E 30170 [6567,69,76,100]
Polyisocyanurate 3045 0.0180.028 1.41.5 B 55150 [76], [78], [88],
Cellulose 3080 0.0370.042 1.31.6 BCE 1.73.0 [8992]
Cork 110170 0.0370.050 1.51.7 E 530 [66,9598]
Wood bers 50270 0.0380.050 1.92.1 E 15 [66,102105]
Mineralized wood bers. 320600 0.0600.107 1.82.1 B 5 [66,97,98,104,108]
LECA 290750 0.080.200 0.91.0 A1 5.08.0 [66,67,111]
Expanded vermiculite 30150 0.0620.100 0.81.1 A1 2.03.0 [80,98,112,113]
Expanded perlite 80150 0.0400.052 0.91.0 A1 2.03.0 [116,118120]
Hemp ber 2090 0.0380.060 1.61.7 E 1.02.0 [98,125,126]
Hemp ber and chips 2982 0.0390.049 N.A. N.A. 2.14 [66,131134]
Kenaf 30180 0.0340.043 1.61.7 D-Eb 1.22.3 [137]
Flax 20100 0.0380.075 1.41.6 E 1.02.0 [104142]
Sheep wool 1025 0.0380.054 1.31.7 E 1.03.0 [98,125]
Coir ber 75125 0.0400.045 1.31.6 D-Eb 5.030 [119,139,148150]
Recycled rubber 500930 0.1000.140 N.A. D-Eb 14 [104,119]
Jute ber 35100 0.0380.055 2.3 E 12 [156159]
VIP 160230 0.00350.008 0.8 A1c Up to 340,000 [98,119,134,141]
GFP N.A. 0.010 (Krypton) N.A. N.A. Very high [78,166171]
0.035 (air)
Aerogel (rolls, panels) 70150 0.0130.015 1.0 C 5.05.5 [174176]
Aerogel (granular) 120180 0.022 N.A. N.A. N.A. [67,177179,191]
Unconventional materials
Bagasse 70350 0.0460.055 N.A. N.A. N.A. [153155]
Cotton (recycled denim) NA 0.036-0.038 N.A. N.A. N.A. [197]
Cotton (stalks) 150450 0.0590.082 N.A. N.A. N.A. [198]
Cotton (recycled) 2545 0.0390.044 1.6 E 1-2 [199]
Date palm 187389 0.0720.085 N.A. N.A. N.A. [200,201]
Durian 357907 0.0640.185 N.A. N.A. N.A. [202]
Oil palm 20120 0.0550.091 N.A. N.A. N.A. [154]
Pineapple leaves 178232 0.0350.042 N.A. N.A. N.A. [203]
Reeds 130190 0.0450.056 1.2 E 1-2 [204207]
Recycled glass ber 450 0.031 0.83 N.A. (probably A1 N.A. [208]
or A2)
Recycled glass ber (commercial) 100165 0.0380.05 1.0 A1 Very high [209,210]
Recycled PET 30 0.036 N.A. N.A. N.A. [211]
Recycled PET (commercial) 1560 0.0340.039 1.2 B 3.1 [139]
Recycled textile (commercial) 3080 0.0360.042 1.21.6 E, F 2.2 [139,140,212,213]
Recycled textile bers (polyester 440 0.044 N.A. N.A. N.A. [214]
and polyurethane)
Recycled textile bers (synthetic) 200500 0.0410.053 N.A. N.A. N.A. [215]
Rice 154168 0.0460.566 N.A. N.A. N.A. [216]
Sunower (pitch) 36152 0.0390.050 N.A. N.A. N.A. [217]
Straw bale 50150 0.0380.067 0.6 N.A. N.A. [218220]

N.A. not available.

a
Class B assigned to stone wool mixed with other material (aerogel, mineralized wool).
b
Uncertain classication: original class given in compliance with another standard (DIN 4102).
c
The majority of manufacturers declare A1 class, but some research works such as [192] observe that the incombustible silica may be covered by highly inammable
multi-layered polymer lm.

unwanted decreases in insulation properties. These materials can be
recycled but are not suitable for composting purposes due to the
content of boron salts.
3.1.9. Cork
Cork can be used in many applications [101]. Cork oak materials
[66,102107] are commonly used in the building sector thanks to
their thermal and acoustic performance. The thermal conductivity of
these materials is comprised between 0.037 and 0.050 W/m K, the
density between 110 and 170 kg/m3 while the specic heat is between
1.5 and 1.7 kJ/kg K. Materials made of cork grains are also chara-
cterized by good acoustic properties for impact insulation, air-
borne insulation and sound absorption [100]. This material is
commercialized in panels, stripes, loose or added to plaster, and it can
be easily recycled.
3.1.10. Wood bers
Wood [66,97,98,104,108,109] harvested from sustainable forestry
and residues of sawmill industry and of forest maintenance opera-
tions can be used in the production of wood bers for insulation
purposes. A binder can be added; alternatively the lignin of wood can
be activated using aluminum sulfate. The latter agent acts also as
pesticide and anti-moth. The thermal conductivity of these materials
varies from 0.038 to 0.050 W/m K, the density from 50 to 270 kg/m3
and the specic heat from 1.9 to 2.1 kJ/kg K. The thermal conductivity
increases with increasing values of temperature and moisture content
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
[110]. Resilient materials made of wood bers are characterized by
dynamic stiffness between 30 and 50 MN/m3. Wood bers can be
easily recycled.
3.1.11. Mineralized wood bers
These materials [66,67,111] are obtained by applying a miner-
alizing process to wood materials, derived from poplar, r (or
others fast growing plants) or residues of sawmill industry. The
process improves the resistance of the bers to re, rodents and
insects. Portland cement is used as binder to create panels that are
quite heavy (density between 320 and 600 kg/m3). The thermal
conductivity is comprised between 0.060 and 0.107 W/m K and
the specic heat between 1.8 and 2.1 kJ/kg K. Concerning the
acoustic insulation properties, there are systems using mineralized
wood bers having a weighted sound reduction index of 58 dB.
These materials could be recycled even as concrete aggregates.
3.1.12. Lightweight expanded clay aggregate (LECA)
LECA [80,98,112114] is a cellular material produced exploiting
the clay expansion processes at high temperatures. The granular
material can be used loose or mixed with plaster. It is also used to
produce lightweight concrete [115]. The thermal conductivity of
these materials is quite high (0.08-0.20 W/m K), but the high
density (290750 kg/m3) allows to obtain low thermal diffusivity
levels. LECA specic heat is comprised between 0.9 and 1.0 kJ/kg K.
LECA can be used efciently as sound absorber over a broad fre-
quency range [116]. LECA can be recycled as aggregate for concrete
or disposed into landlls.
3.1.13. Expanded vermiculite
It is produced by heating at 8001100 C the vermiculite, a
phyllosilicate, causing its exfoliation and expansion. Expanded
vermiculite [117121] is inert and it does not release dangerous
gases if heated. It can be used loose (grain size 0.115 mm), in
bricks [122] and lightweight concretes [123], or mixed with a
binder [124], and its thermal insulation performance is stable for a
long period. Moreover it cannot be damaged by rodents and
insects like each mineral material. The thermal conductivity of the
expanded vermiculite is between 0.062 and 0.090 W/m K, while
the one of its mixture with the binder is between 0.080 and
0.100 W/m K. The density of the loose material is comprised
between 85 and 105 kg/m3 and the specic heat between 0.8 and
1 kJ/kg K. As for other granular materials, good acoustic perfor-
mance of this class of porous media can be achieved selecting
accurate grain sizes and using accurate binder concentration and
thicknesses [124]. After disposal it can be re-used or recycled as
aggregate for concrete.
3.1.14. Expanded perlite
Expanded perlite [98,125127] is produced using procedures
similar to the ones of LECA and expanded vermiculite. This
material can be used loose, mixed with a binder to create panels,
and in bricks [128,129]. The density of the loose materials is
between 80 and 150 kg/m3, the thermal conductivity between
0.040 and 0.052 W/m K and the specic heat between 0.9 and
1.0 kJ/kg K. Expanded perlite is characterized by the lowest value
of thermal conductivity compared to others mineral materials. The
panels made with expanded perlite have higher density (150
280 kg/m3) but the same thermal insulation properties. The sound
absorption coefcient is similar to the one of other granular
materials, such as LECA and expanded vermiculite [124,130].
995
3.2. Alternative materials
3.2.1. Hemp
Hemp [66,131134,136] is a textile ber produced from Can-
nabis sativa that is used for building application usually mixed
with polyester ber and re retardants. The thermal conductivity
of the commercialized materials is between 0.038 and 0.060 W/
m K, the density between 20 and 90 kg/m3 and the specic heat
between 1.6 and 1.7 kJ/kg K. Hemp-based materials, like every
natural material, tend to absorb great quantity of water from air,
with a consequent increase in thermal conductivity. Zach et al.
tested the effects of several hydrophobic additives and treatments,
showing that they can contain the increase of moisture to 3134%
(less than the 41% increase observed on the untreated samples)
[135]. A market and performance comparative analysis performed
by Kymlinen et al. proved the potential of hemp ber materials
as thermal insulators due to the low thermal conductivity and for
some ecological aspects, rst of all their biodegradability that
allows a better end-of-life treatment [136]. Nevertheless these
materials need to be protected by moisture, rodents, insects and
free water. Samples made of hemp bers (64% and 48%) and chips
(respectively 16% and 32%) kept together by a binder were also
tested by Korjenic et al. [137]; the lowest value of thermal con-
ductivity was 0.039 W/m K, measured for the 82 kg/m3 dense
material. An innovative material realized mixing hemp chips,
binder and water was developed and studied by Gl et al. The
authors obtained a value of thermal conductivity about 0.060 W/
m K and sound absorption coefcient about 0.5 over 150 Hz for the
most performing mixture [138]. Exhaust hemp-based materials
can be recycled, treated in energy plants or disposed into landlls.
3.2.2. Kenaf
Kenaf bers [104,139142] are obtained from the Hibiscus
cannabinus, a fast growing plant able to reach 3.5 m of height in
2 years. Fibers are usually mixed with polyester and re retar-
dants; the absence of protein makes kenaf not attractive for
rodents or insects. Thermal conductivity is between 0.034 and
0.043 W/m K, the density between 30 and 180 kg/m3 and the
specic heat between 1.6 and 1.7 kJ/kg K. The acoustic absorption
coefcient of some commercialized kenaf-based materials is over
0.2 for frequencies higher than 500 Hz, and over 0.4 for fre-
quencies higher than 1000 Hz. Moreover dynamic stiffness can be
as low as 27.7 MN/m3. Xu et al. tested the thermal insulation and
acoustic absorption properties of an innovative kenaf panel man-
ufactured without binder. The thermal conductivity of these
panels depends on its density, varying from 0.040 W/m K (density
equal to 100 kg/m3) to 0.060 W/m K (250 kg/m3). The absorption
coefcient is similar to the one observed for the commercial
materials [143]. Lighter materials are characterized by better
acoustic absorbing performance [144]. Concerning the environ-
mental impacts, a LCA study of a kenaf ber insulation board,
related to Italy, proved that if the plants are cultivated near the
factory and the disposal scheme of the exhaust panels consists of
an incineration with energy recovery, this material is less
impacting than glass wool and mineral wool [145].
3.2.3. Flax
Flax bers [98,136] are produced from Linum usitatissimum, a
plant already used from Egyptians since 5000 B.C. The plant con-
tains about 70% of cellulose and its bers have a strong ability to
hold air, with resulting good insulation properties. Fibers elasticity
also allows the use as impact sound insulators. The density of
commercial ax panels and rolls is between 20 and 100 kg/m3, the
thermal conductivity between 0.038 and 0.075 W/m K and the
specic heat capacity between 1.4 and 1.6 kJ/kg K. Some producers
sell ax rolls to be used as resilient materials in oating oors that
996 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
are characterized by a dynamic stiffness of 55 MN/m3. Flax bers
are usually mixed with polyester to improve mechanical resistance
and with additives like boron salts to improve re and moth
resistance. El Hajja et al. evaluated the thermal and acoustic per-
formance of an innovative material made of some residues of ax
production, the ax-tow (short bers). The tested material does
not contain synthetic binders and it has a thermal conductivity of
0.060 W/m K and a density about 170 kg/m3. The sound absorbing
properties of this new material are very interesting: the sound
absorption coefcient is higher than 0.4 for frequency higher than
500 Hz for a 2 mm thick panel [146]. Flax and hemp can be mixed
together to produce high performance thermal insulators. Some
interesting works on these materials are collected in [125]: the
most performing one is characterized by a thermal conductivity of
0.033 W/m K [147]. Finally, measurements performed on a 32 kg/
m3 dense sample made of ax ber, chips and a synthetic binder
showed a thermal conductivity of 0.043 W/m K and a water vapor
resistance factor of 2.9 [137]. The exhaust products can be re-used,
recycled and also used for compost production, in case polyester
bers are not used in addition to ax.
3.2.4. Sheep wool
Virgin and recycled wools are used for the production of
building insulation materials; bers can be mixed with polyester
or xed to a polypropylene grid [119,139,148150]. The material is
usually commercialized in rolls and its elasticity allows the use as
resilient material in oating oors (dynamic stiffness about 5 MN/
m3). The density of sheep wool materials are comprised between
10 and 25 kg/m3, the thermal conductivity between 0.038 and
0.054 W/mK and the specic heat between 1.3 and 1.7 kJ/kg K; so,
even if sheep wool materials are useful for winter thermal insu-
lation, their performance for unsteady states in summer condi-
tions are rather poor. The acoustic absorption of these materials
are very interesting; Ballagh measured values of sound absorption
higher than 0.8 for frequencies above 500 Hz for a sample of
thickness equal to 75 mm; the same sample allowed to increase
the sound reduction index of a wall of 6 dB [151]. Similar acoustic
performance can be achieved with current commercialized
materials. Zach et al. evaluated thermal, acoustic and hygro-
thermal performance of several samples of sheep wool materials,
varying thickness and density. As expected, the higher the
moisture content, the higher the thermal conductivity (from 0.036
to 0.081 W/m K). The tested samples of sheep wool were char-
acterized by high hygroscopicity values (up to 35%) [152]. The high
hygroscopicity of wool makes this material an optimal humidity
regulator. Before using in building application, sheep wool must be
treated with re retardants, anti-moth and parasiticides. The
exhaust material can be reused, recycled, stocked in landll or
used for compost production; the latter solution is possible only if
plastics can be separated from wool.
3.2.5. Coir ber
The bers are obtained from the mesocarp of coconut husks
(about 80 g of bers for each coconut) treated to remove their
putrescible organic components. This material [104,119] is a by-
product of the coconut industry and it is currently used for com-
bustion or fertilization purposes. Coconut is mainly cultivated in
India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, so transportation is the main factor
inuencing the environmental impacts of these products. Never-
theless it should be noted that coir bers are produced from by-
products using low quantity of energy and synthetic materials. The
bers have high mechanical resistance, they are insect and rot
proof and they do not attract rodents; re retardants are com-
monly added. Some studies were carried out to evaluate the
thermal properties of this material. One of the rst attempts was
made by Manohar that evaluated the thermal conductivity at
15.6 C and at 21.8 C of coir ber sample varying the density from
40 to 90 kg/m3; for the most performing material a -value of
0.049 W/m K at 24 C was estimated [153]. This thermal con-
ductivity value was conrmed by further measurements per-
formed by the same author in a later research [154]. Other studies
were performed considering denser (250-350 kg/m3) coir-based
binderless particleboards; the thermal conductivity of the less
dense sample was 0.046 W/mK [155]. At current panels and rolls
realized using coir ber for thermal and acoustic insulation pur-
poses are already available on the market. The thermal con-
ductivity of commercial panels and rolls made of coir ber are
between 0.040 and 0.050 W/m K, the density between 50 and
160 kg/m3 and the specic heat capacity between 1.3 and 1.7 kJ/
kg K. A detailed analysis of the acoustic properties of coir ber
based materials is reported in [100]. Some commercial products
have a declared value of dynamic stiffness about 15 MN/m3. The
exhaust material can be recycled, reused and employed for com-
post production.
3.2.6. Recycled rubber
Recycled rubber [156159] can be used in buildings, in parti-
cular for impact sound insulation. The density is usually between
500 and 930 kg/m3 and the dynamic stiffness between 15 and
60 MN/m3; the higher the thickness the lower the dynamic stiff-
ness. The abundance of end of life tires fostered researches aiming
at nding innovative uses. In [160,,161] innovative materials
derived from end of life tires were tested; the most performing
one was characterized by a dynamic stiffness of 61 MN/m3 and a
measured value of the weighted improvement of impact sound
insulation of 26 dB. The commercial materials using recycling
rubber are characterized by thermal conductivity between 0.100
and 0.140 W/mK. Lower values are available for materials made of
virgin rubber or combining rubber with other materials. Thermal
and acoustic performance of samples made of elastomeric waste
residues were evaluated in [162]. The materials characterized by
an open porosity have the best acoustic absorption properties
(acoustic absorption coefcient higher than 0.5 for frequencies
over 500 Hz) but also high thermal conductivity values (1 W/m K);
on the contrary samples having a close porosity structure shown a
low thermal conductivity, 0.034 W/m K, but they are ineffective
for acoustic purposes. Generally the sound absorption coefcient
of recycled rubber based materials depends on the grain size, the
type and amount of binder, the compaction ratio and the thickness
[163]. The exhaust material can be recycled.
3.2.7. Jute ber
The plant from which jute ber is produced is mainly cultivated
in India and in Bangladesh so transport deeply affects the envir-
onmental impact related to the use of this material. Nevertheless
the elasticity of the bers make them suitable to be used as resi-
lient materials in oating oors, its most common commercial
use [98,119,134,141]. The thermal conductivity of jute-based
commercial materials is between 0.038 and 0.055 W/m K, while
the dynamic stiffness is similar to the one of hemp layers [164]. A
commercial insulator made of 8590% jute bers, polyethylene
bers and soda is characterized by a high specic heat value,
2.35 kJ/kg K, but also by a low density, 3540 kg/m3, that nega-
tively counterbalances the positive effects of the rst parameter on
the dynamic thermal insulation performance. Moreover, Korjenic
et al. measured a thermal conductivity of 0.046 W/m K for a
sample made of jute ber, chips and a synthetic binder, char-
acterized by a density of 26 kg/m3 and a water vapor diffusion
resistance factor of 2 [137].
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
3.2.8. Cardboard based panels
The authors have recently performed a multi-parametric assess-
ment of cardboard panels commonly used for low-cost packaging
[165]. Thermal, acoustic and environmental performance were
assessed both experimentally and numerically. Cardboard panels are
prepared by overlapping a variable number of single boards, consist-
ing of two facings, adhered to one inner uted medium which can
have different standardized heights. The height of the utes deter-
mines the size of the air gaps of the panels, which, in turn, inuence
the thermal properties of the material. Two types of utes were
analyzed: C and E utes, 4.1 and 1.9 mm thick respectively. E-ute
panels show the worse overall performance. Thickness being equal, E-
ute panels are heavier and include less air, resulting in higher ther-
mal conductivity and environmental impact, mainly because a larger
amount of resources is needed for the production. The thermal con-
ductivity of these panels was measured with a guarded hot plate
apparatus and the results were 0.053 and 0.058 W/m K for the C and
the E-ute samples, respectively. Cardboard panels are not good
sound absorbers, since the air is trapped inside the utes and no open
porosity exists. So they are more similar to membrane absorbers than
to porous ones. On the contrary cardboard panels show good sound
insulation properties. Because of the higher density, E-ute panels are
more sound insulating than the C-ute ones between 900 and
1600 Hz, with measured values of Transmission Loss of 60 dB against
about 30 dB of the C-ute.
3.3. Advanced materials
Recently, several innovative materials and systems have been
developed by researchers and manufacturers in order to obtain
extremely low values of thermal conductivity together with reduced
weight and thickness. Examples of these materials are vacuum insu-
lation panels, gas lled panels and aerogels. The cost of these systems
and some issues, such as the uncertain service life, the poor
mechanical strength and their inexibility, still limit their widespread
diffusion in the current building market.
3.3.1. Vacuum insulation panels
Vacuum insulation panels (VIP, [78,166171]) are constituted by a
core material installed with getters, desiccants and opaciers and
covered by a multilayer envelope (Fig. 2). Vacuum is created inside the
panel, increasing its thermal resistance. The core is made of a porous
material with low thermal conductivity. The material should be
characterized by small pores (diameter about 10 nm), open cell
structure, adequate resistance to compression and impermeability to
infrared radiations [172]. Usually fumed silica is the material most
Fig. 2. Section of a VIP [173].
997
commonly used for VIP core, even if some open cell foams (poly-
urethane and expanded polystyrene), powders (silica aerogels,
expanded perlite and their mixtures) and also glass ber (suitable for
high temperature applications) can be used [173]. The design of the
envelope is one of the most important VIP issues because it is
requested to have good mechanical strength, to protect the vacuum
inside the core and to limit thermal bridging effects. Moreover the
envelope deeply inuences the service life and the global insulation
performance of the VIP panel [172]. Usually three kinds of materials
are used for the envelope: metal foils, metallized lms and polymer
lms; the latter solution is scarcely employed because of its short
lifetime. Getters and desiccants are installed to adsorb respectively
gases and water, whereas opaciers hinder the propagation of infra-
red radiation. The vacuum insulation panel can reach thermal con-
ductivity values down to 0.004 W/m K with a thickness of 5 mm and
a service life between 60 and 160 years (Fig. 3 [172]). Nevertheless
further studies and developments are needed to optimize the real life
performance of VIPs: in particular the panels are very vulnerable to
perforation, because a simple nail hammered into a wall with VIP can
dramatically reduce its thermal conductivity, and cannot be cut in site
during construction. Furthermore VIPs are almost completely water
impermeable and this can lead to condensation problems. Jelle per-
formed a comparison between the cost of a mineral wool insulation
(20 /m2 per 35 cm thick layers) and of an equivalent insulating VIP
system (200 /m2 per 6 cm thick layers). If the market value of the
area in which the thermal insulator is installed is at least 3000 /m2,
the increase of the house value due to the area gained replacing 35 cm
of mineral wool with 6 cm of VIP is greater than the difference of cost
between these two systems [24]. Currently VIPs are commercialized
for building purposes by several manufacturers (listed in Table 6).
3.3.2. Gas lled panels (GFP)
Gas lled panels [174176] are made of a reective structure
(bafe) containing a gas insulated from the external environment
by an envelope less permeable as possible. An example of GFP is
reported in Fig. 4. The gas can be air, but gases with lower thermal
conductivity are preferred. The lling gas should be selected
considering cost, environmental impact, toxicity, re resistance
and dew-point temperature. Baetens et al. realized and tested two
prototypes of GFP, lled respectively with air and argon. The
thermal conductivity of the two systems was 0.046 W/m K for the
air lled panel and 0.040 W/m K for the argon lled one; however
the use of the noble gas doubles the costs of a 45 mm panel [174].
Better thermal insulation performance were observed by other
authors; for instance Grifth et al. measured a thermal con-
ductivity of 0.012 W/m K for a 44.5 mm krypton lled panel [175].
998 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
The thickness of the sample inuences the cost and the thermal
conductivity of the panel; the thicker the GFP, the higher the gas
quantity and the cost, the lower the thermal conductivity.
3.3.3. Aerogel
Aerogel [67,177179] is a solid foam characterized by an high open
porosity with pores ranging from 2 to 50 nm in diameter. They are
usually produced drying a gel containing silica at supercritical tem-
perature; the production process is detailed in [180]. Silica aerogel
porosity is between 85% and 99.8%, [181]. Its thermal conductivity is
very low: Baetens et al. report that this parameter ranges from 0.0131
to 0.0136 W/m K for a monolithic material [182]. The extremely high
porosity can lead to a density as low as 3 kg/m3; however the density
of aerogels for building applications is usually 70150 kg/m3 (Fig. 5).
Granular aerogel shows higher values of thermal conductivity;
nevertheless a recent study by Neugebauer et al. demonstrated that
the thermal conductivity of these materials can be decreased through
a compression operation. The thermal conductivity, measured with
the hot wire method, decreases from 0.024 W/m K for a 88 kg/m3
dense sample to 0.013 W/m K for a 150 kg/m3 dense one [183].
Granular aerogel can be used inside the cavity of double glazed
windows to substantially reduce their U-value without affecting
excessively their visible transmittance [184,185]. Ricciardi et al. mea-
sured a 60 dB sound attenuation for a 7 cm thick multilayer silica
aerogel sample; even if the results seem to be overestimated, never-
theless they conrm the acoustic potential of this material [185].
Further details about the acoustic properties of silica aerogel are col-
lected in [186]. New aerogel materials are currently being tested and
developed in order to improve the thermal insulation and to simplify
their production and handling; an example is reported by Hayase
et al. [187], which developed an innovative material characterized by a
Fig. 3. Thermal conductivity of several kind of VIPs [172].
Fig. 4. Example of Gas lled panels [174].
value of thermal conductivity of 0.015 W/m K and a density of 20 kg/
m3. Finally, an innovative material produced mixing stone wool and
aerogel showed a thermal conductivity of 0.019 W/m K [188].
4. Survey on unconventional insulation materials
In addition to the materials discussed so far, another family of
thermo-acoustic insulators derived mainly from natural and recycled
materials is currently being studied by several researchers worldwide;
since they are still in a pre-commercial stage and their properties have
not been deeply analyzed yet, they have been classied in this paper
as unconventional materials. A detailed review about unconven-
tional insulation materials was performed by the Authors in [27]. The
most important thermal insulation properties of the examined
unconventional material characterized by thermal conductivity values
lower than 0.08 W/m K are summarized in Table 6. As already stated,
data for these materials are rather poor, in particular concerning re
classication, water vapor permeability and, in some cases, specic
heat. Thermal conductivity values similar to the ones of commercia-
lized insulators were observed for materials made of recycled denim
(0.0360.038 W/m K), recycled cotton (0.0390.044 W/m K), pine-
apple leaves (0.0350.042 W/m K), recycled glass ber (0.031 W/m K),
recycled PET (0.036 W/m K), recycled textile (0.0340.053 W/m K)
and also sunower (0.0390.050 W/m K). The most interesting ones
are those made of recycled glass ber and of recycled textile, which
are respectively characterized by high value of density (450 kg/m3)
and specic heat (1.21.6 kJ/kg K). Concerning the acoustic properties
of unconventional materials, a detailed analysis is reported in [100]
and in [190].
5. Comparative analysis between commercial and unconven-
tional materials
5.1. General overview
A comparative analysis between the performance of commercial
and unconventional insulators is reported in this section. Thermal
properties were analyzed both for steady and dynamic conditions,
evaluating thermal conductivity, thermal transmittance, periodic
thermal transmittance and thermal wave shift. Concerning acoustic
performance, simple comparative analyses are difcult to be per-
formed because: (i) acoustic absorption and insulation are frequency
dependent and the single number ratings do not allow to make
proper comparisons; (ii) several standards and several conditions
(random, oblique or normal incidence of the sound wave) can be used
to perform a test of sound absorption leading to different and not
perfectly comparable results; (iii) sound insulation is measured for the
entire system containing the insulation material, for instance a double
wall with a cavity lled with an insulator, and data of the sound ins-
ulation properties of the material alone are useless. For all the
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
Fig. 5. Example of the insulation properties [189] and of a commercialized panel of aerogel materials [177].
aforementioned reasons the comparative analysis of acoustic proper-
ties is not reported in the paper. The rating system dened by EN
13501-1 [60] was used to make comparisons in terms of reaction to
re; the production of smoke and/or droplets was taken into account.
Concerning water vapor diffusion, it should be observed that the
application of a vapor barrier to a high permeable material strongly
increases the overall -value. For these reasons some manufacturers of
insulators characterized by low -value also commercialize versions of
the same high-permeable insulators coupled with a vapor barrier; so
the material can be successfully used even in situations where a high
resistance to water vapor diffusion is required.
Table 6 reports thermal insulation properties, re classication
and water vapor diffusion resistance factor of some commercia-
lized and unconventional insulation materials. Data reported in
Table 6 were obtained from datasheets of product manufacturers.
5.2. Thermal properties
Aerogels, GFPs and VIPs are characterized by low values of thermal
conductivity (respectively down to 0.013, 0.010 and 0.004 W/m K); so
very slim panels are able to reduce signicantly the transmittance of
the building elements containing them. All the other conventional
materials are characterized by higher values of thermal conductivity.
Amongst them, phenolic foam, polyisocyanurate and polyurethane
may reach values lower than 0.025 W/m K. Mineralized wood bers,
recycled rubber and LECA are characterized by high values of density
(respectively up to 600, 930 and 750 kg/m3); this parameter inu-
ences thermal diffusivity and, consequently, the insulation behavior
for unsteady state, i.e. summer conditions. The highest values of the
specic heat were observed for jute bers (2.3 kJ/kg K), wood and
mineralized wood bers (up to 2.1 kJ/kg K), hemp, kenaf, sheep wool
and XPS (up to 1.7 kJ/kg K). Data reported in Table 6 evidenced that
the commercialized synthetic materials have generally the lowest
thermal conductivity values; however the properties of some mate-
rials considered as more sustainable, such as the ones made of recy-
cled glass ber, recycled textile and jute, seems to be very promising,
even if further studies are required. In order to perform a deeper
analysis about the thermal insulation properties of the materials
reported in Table 6, Section 6 reports the outcomes of a comparative
analysis of four different case studies.
5.3. Reaction to re
Table 7 reports the reaction to re classes in compliance with EN
13501-1 [60] of the analyzed insulators (parameters and classes are
reported in Tables 4 and 5). The best performance (A1 or A2) are
achieved by mineral wools, expanded minerals and VIPs. These
materials do not produce smoke or droplets under re tests and are
practically incombustible. Insulators containing organic materials such
as EPS, XPS, polyurethane (PUR), cork, wood and hemp bers, ax and
reeds are generally characterized by low reaction to re performance
(E class). Exceptions are represented by some cellulose insulators,
probably thanks to the use of chemical additives, and by materials
999
Table 7
Reaction to re Euroclass per material type. When a material is characterized
mainly or exclusively by a unique classication it is reported in bold. Where more
than one classication is reported by manufacturer data sheet per material, they
are reported in italic. Exceptions are underlined.
Euroclass [60] Sub category
Not specied s1-d0 s2-d0 s3-d0
A1 EP, EV, LECA, GW, RG,
SW, VIP
A2 SW, GW
B MWF, PF, PIR, CELL, PIR, PUR
SW AER, PUR, PF,
RW MWF RP
C AER, PF CELL, PF PUR
D PUR
E CELL, CF, CK, EPS, FLA,
HEM, JF, KEN, PUR, PIR,
RC, RE, RP, RR, RP, SW,
XPS, WF
Acronyms: SW stone wool, GW glass wool, EPS expanded polystyrene, XPS extruded
polystyrene, PF phenolic foam, PUR polyurethane, PIR polyisocyanurate, CELL cel-
lulose, CK cork, WF wood bers, MWF mineral wood bers, EV expanded vermi-
culite, EP expanded perlite, HEM hemp ber, KEN kenaf, FLA ax, SW sheep wool,
CF coir ber, RG recycled rubber, JF jute ber, AER Aerogel, RC recycled cotton, RE
reeds, RG recycled glass ber, RP recycled plastics, RT recycled textile.
made of phenolic or polyisocyanurate foams, due to their strong
molecular bonds. Nevertheless few PUR insulators are characterized
by E class. Concerning phenolic foam (PF) and polyisocyanurate
insulators (PIR), a unique class for the category cannot be given: PIR
insulators belongs mainly to B s1-d0 and B s2-d0 class, while a greater
variation is observed for PF. Panels made of cellulose are characterized
by worse reaction to re performance in comparison to the ones
manufactured for blown-in insulation. As far as VIPs, the majority of
manufacturers declares A1 class, but some research works, such as the
one by Johansson [192], observe that the incombustible silica may be
covered by highly inammable multi-layered polymer lm. Among
analyzed insulator, no one is characterized by a droplets class different
from d0.
A comparative analysis performed by Stec et al. examined the
re toxicity of mineral wools and some organic foams (PF, EPS,
PUR and PIR) applying high temperatures for different ventilation
conditions [221]. In mineral wools issues occur only when the
concentration of binders is higher than 5%; otherwise the bulk
mass does not tend to burn and the production of dangerous gases
is very low. The performance of the materials was compared using
two indicators: the fractional effective dose (FED, dened by ISO
13344 [222]), which allows to estimate the toxicity of each tox-
icants, and the LC50, dened as the loading per m3 predicted to be
lethal for 50% of the population. The FED and the LC50 values
measured for the selected materials are reported respectively in
Fig. 6 and Table 8. Mineral wools are not included since they were
tested with higher temperatures than plastic foams. The study
proved that PIR materials are the ones generating the most toxic
1000 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
gases under re conditions, due mainly by the high release of
hydrogen cyanide (in particular for under-ventilated conditions).
The best performing plastic foams are respectively EPS and PF
for under- and well-ventilated conditions, while the performance
of PUR is quite similar to PIR. Mineral wools were tested to higher
temperature in comparison to plastic foams; however their toxic
gas emission was signicantly less dangerous than the one of
plastic foams [221].
5.4. Environmental performance
A comparative analysis related to energy consumption and
global warning potential of several thermal insulation materials
was performed taking into account data from manufacturers and
scientic literature. Data reported in Table 9 are referred to a
functional unit dened as the mass of material needed to obtain a
thermal resistance of 1 m2 K/W for a 1 m2 panel, according to the
suggestion of the Council for European Producers of Materials for
Construction; conversions were made if data were related to 1 kg
of material. Unfortunately the methods used in the investigated
LCA analyses were not the same, so the system boundary and the
approach used in each analysis are specied in Table 9. Table 9
reports the sources of the data too. Since the cradle to grave
(CTGR) approach considers more stages than the cradle to gate one
(CTGA), data were analyzed separately. Figs. 7 and 8 are respec-
tively related to embodied energy and global warming potential of
insulation materials assessed with a CTGA life cycle analysis
whereas Figs. 9 and 10 respectively show the same indicators
calculated with the CTGR approach.
5.4.1. Insulators analyzed through cradle to gate approach
The worst performance in terms of embodied energy and glo-
bal warming potential among the materials analyzed using the
cradle to gate approach were respectively the ones of cork
(378 MJ/f.u.) and XPS (13.22 kg CO2eq/f.u.). Natural pumice
(1.82 MJ/f.u. and 0.08 kg CO2eq/f.u.), cellulose (1921 MJ/f.u. and
0.73.7 kg CO2eq/f.u.) and kenaf ber (4259 MJ/f.u. and 1.13.2 kg
CO2eq/f.u.) insulators have the best performance both in terms of
embodied energy and global warming potential. Also stone wool is
characterized by good environmental properties (5363 MJ/f.u.
and 1.42.8 kg CO2eq/f.u.). The results of the comparative analysis
showed that, even if the majority on natural material can be
considered less impacting than other ones, some articial and
recycled products are characterized by good environmental
properties as well. Stone wool and recycled PET materials are
characterized by CED and IPCC GWP 2007 values lower than sev-
eral natural materials. The outcomes of the comparative analysis
Fig. 6. FED values for the analyzed materials. The x-axis reports the ventilation
conditions (well-ventilated are characterized by values 4 1). nf stands for no
aming [221]. The acronym PHF stands for phenolic foam, named in the rest of the
paper as PF.
Table 8
LC50 values tested for the plastic foams [221].
Material Fire condition LC50 (g/m3)
PF Well-ventilated 43.3
Under-ventilated 21.0
EPS Well-ventilated 28.4
Under-ventilated 27.6
PUR Well-ventilated 15.7
Under-ventilated 10.3
PIR Well-ventilated 16.5
Under-ventilated 8.3
are negatively affected by the lack of available data, in particular by
the scarcity of information about how the data reported in Table 9
are calculated. For instance some studies do not specify the system
boundaries and/or the methodology used.
5.4.2. Insulators analyzed through cradle to grave approach
In comparison with data evaluated from the CTGA approach,
those obtained using the CTGR one are more useful to carry out a
deep analysis of the environmental properties of a material, since
they also take into account the disposal stage. Hemp insulators are
characterized by the highest embodied energy value (23.651
35.547 MJ/f.u.) among the analyzed materials, but also by the
lowest global warming potential (0.170.26 kg CO2eq). The asses-
sed sheep wool insulator is characterized by the lowest value of
embodied energy (17.1 MJ/f.u.) and also by a limited value of global
warming potential (1.46 kg CO2eq), lower than the ones observed
for the majority of synthetic materials evaluated through the CTGA
approach. The outcomes of life cycle analyses through the CTGR
approach are affected by the same issues of the ones obtained by
CTGA. Data related to the environmental performance of stone
wool materials calculated using the CTGA approach are higher
than the ones evaluated by CTGR procedure. The difference
between these two results can be hardly explained due to the lack
of information; probably recycling was included during the dis-
posal stage in the CTGR assessment.
6. Case studies
In order to examine in depth the thermal performance of the
assessed insulating materials, a comparative analysis was per-
formed considering four different typical congurations of exter-
nal walls: three masonry and one timber wall, equipped with the
insulating materials reported in Table 10. These data are referred
to the best performing commercialized and unconventional pro-
ducts whose density, thermal conductivity and specic heat are
certied. In some cases, two products were assessed, since dif-
ferent manufacturers produce materials characterized by different
thermal insulation properties. The three masonry walls are char-
acterized by the same kind of blocks and plaster and they differ
only for the insulator location: between two layers of blocks
(double wall), on the external side or on the internal side. In
lightweight timber walls, insulators were considered only on the
external side. The sections of the tested walls are reported in
Fig. 11, while Table 11 reports the thermal properties of walls
elements. All the calculations were performed considering a 10 cm
layer of insulating material. VIPs, aerogels and GFPs were excluded
since the use of a 10 cm layer of these products is not realistic, so a
proper comparison would not have been possible. The comparison
allows to underline the effect that each insulation material has on
the overall building element and, consequently, on the energy
performance of the building envelope. Moreover an analysis of the
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011 1001

Table 9
Comparative analysis of thermal insulation materials. CTGR stands for cradle to grave, CTGA stands for cradle to gate.

Material f.u. weight Thermal conductivity Energy consumption Global warming potential Approach and system Reference
(kg) (W/m K)a (MJeq per f.u.) (kg CO2eq per f.u.) boundary

Cellulose 2.34 0.039 19.39 0.73 CTGA, European [224,225]a

Cellulose 2.00 0.040 20.97 3.66 N.A. [226]b
Cork 5.00 0.050 257.98 5.72 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Cork 7.35 0.049 378.65 5.93 N.A. [226]b
Expanded clay (loose) 31.50 0.090 161.14 10.31 CTGA, European [224,225]b
Expanded perlite (panels) 4.50 0.050 67.31 3.99 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Expanded polystyrene 0.80 0.040 127.31 5.05 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Expanded polystyrene 1.13 0.038 118.67 8.25 N.A. [226]b
Expanded polyurethane 0.90 0.030 126.40 5.31 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Expanded vermiculite (loose) 6.30 0.070 53.37 3.36 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Extruded expanded 1.75 0.035 127.31 13.22 CTGA, European [224,225]a
polystyrene
Glass bers 0.80 0.040 134.17 7.70 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Glass wool 8.00 0.050 229.02 9.89 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Hemp 1.201.90 0.0380.040 23.6535.55 0.170.26 CTGR, N.A. [139]b
Jute bers 5.00 0.050 105.54 2.79 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Kenaf 1.52 0.038 59.37 3.17 CTGA, Italy (400 km) [145]
Kenaf bers 1.90 0.038 42.32 1.13 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Natural pumice (loose) 55.00 0.110 1.82 0.08 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Polyurethane 0.96 0.032 99.63 6.51 N.A. [226]b
Recycled PET 1.07 0.036 83.72 1.78 CTGA, Italy [211]
Recycled PET (commercial) 1.48 0.037 21.06a 3.12 CTGR, N.A. [139]b
Recycled textile (commercial) 1.79 0.036 17.57a 1.55 CTGR, N.A. [139]b
Sheep wool 0.76 0.038 17.12 1.46 CTGR, N.A. [139]b
Stone wool (commercial) 1.18 0.037 20.75 1.45 CTGR, Western Eur- [64,223]
opean market
Stone wool 1.20 0.040 53.09 2.77 CTGA, European [224,225]a
Stone wool 2.40 0.040 63.34 3.62 N.A. [226]b
Wood wool 12.60 0.070 255.36 1.56 N.A. [226]b

N.A. not available.

a
Information reported in this paper have been reprocessed through SimaPro software to consider the current scenario.
b
Original data referred to 1 kg of product and use phase not considered.

Fig. 7. Embodied energy, in terms of MJeq per f.u. of thermal insulation material (CTGA approach).

steady and dynamic thermal properties of the four different con-
gurations of external walls was performed.
ISO 6946 [42] standard denes the procedure to evaluate the
thermal transmittance of multi-layer walls and the standard heat
transfer coefcients for the convective and radiation phenomena on
the boundary surfaces. The dynamic parameters for the case studies
walls were assessed with ISO 13786 [43], as previously seen. The heat
transfer matrix of a multi-layer component has been calculated in
order to take into account the overall wall dynamic response under
24 h period of thermal variations. The components of the heat transfer
matrix dene the dynamic parameters of the case studies walls with
the inuence of the standard heat transfer coefcients on the
boundary surfaces. It is important to notice that the denition of
dynamic parameters is strongly affected by the layer position [193].
The different masonries were taken into account because they are
considered traditional types of wall in southern Europe [194,195],
where summer conditions have a signicant impact on the energy
performance of the building and on the thermal comfort of
Fig. 8. Global warming, in terms of kg CO2eq per f.u., potential of thermal insulation material (CTGA approach).

Fig. 9. Embodied energy, in terms of MJeq per f.u. of thermal insulation material (CTGR approach).

Fig. 10. Global warming, in terms of kg CO2eq per f.u., potential of thermal insulation material (CTGR approach).
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011 1003

Table 10
Insulator Input data used for thermal calculation of the case studies.

Thermal insulation Density (kg/ Specic heat Thermal conductivity Thermal insulation Density (kg/ Specic heat Thermal conductivity
material m3) (kJ/kg K) (W/m K) material m3) (kJ/kg K) (W/m K)

Commercial
Cellulose (1) 70 2.0 0.039 Polyisocyanurate 30 1.4 0.022
Cellulose (2) 30 1.3 0.037 Polyurethane (1) 44 1.5 0.025
Coir 105 1.5 0.043 Polyurethane (2) 36 1.5 0.023
Cork 130 2.1 0.040 Stone wool (1) 165 1.0 0.040
EPS 22 1.3 0.035 Stone wool (2) 70 1.0 0.033
Flax 30 1.6 0.040 Sheep wool 20 1.8 0.038
Glass wool 21 1.0 0.035 Vermiculite (1) 80 0.9 0.062
Hemp 90 1.7 0.040 Vermiculite (2) 90 0.9 0.057
Jute 35 2.4 0.038 Wood ber (1) 270 2.1 0.049
Kenaf 100 1.7 0.030 Wood ber (2) 110 2.1 0.038
Mineralized wood ber 533 1.8 0.065 XPS (1) 40 1.7 0.034
Perlite 100 0.8 0.052 XPS (2) 32 1.7 0.032
Unconventional
Cotton (recycled) 25 1.6 0.039 Recycled PET (commercial) 60 1.2 0.034
Reeds 190 1.2 0.056 Recycled textile (1) 50 1.2 0.040
Recycled glass ber 450 0.8 0.031 Recycled textile (2) 10 1.6 0.042
Recycled glass ber 165 1.0 0.055 Straw bale 60 0.6 0.067
(commercial)

Concerning dynamic conditions, the worst thermal properties

Fig. 11. Section of the tested walls.
inhabitants [196]. Timber wall was assessed to evaluate the inuence
of the insulators also for lightweight structures.
The complete set of results of the case study is reported in the
annex of the paper. A summary of the results is shown in Figs. 1214,
which report respectively the 10 best performing materials in terms of
thermal transmittance, periodic thermal transmittance and thermal
wave shift for each case study assessed. Since the materials chosen for
the three masonry wall congurations (double wall, external and
internal insulation) are the same, the value of stationary thermal
transmittance is unchanged, being independent of the insulation
position.
The assessed timber walls are characterized by lower thermal
transmittance value in comparison to the masonry ones; poly-
isocyanurate and polyurethane foam are the insulators that allowed to
obtain the best performance (respectively 0.19 W/m2 K and 0.21 W/
m2 K). Low values were also obtained by kenaf and recycled glass ber
with value lower than 0.25 W/m2 K (Fig. 12).
were evaluated for timber walls: the thermal wave shift is lower
than 9 h for the majority of the cases. Among masonry walls, those
with external insulation are characterized by the lowest periodic
thermal transmittance, whereas the ones with internal insulation
have slightly higher thermal wave shifts (Figs. 13 and 14). Vermi-
culite and straw bale have the worst dynamic thermal response
with values around 0.10 W/m2 K for the periodic thermal trans-
mittance for the four congurations.
The thermal properties of the insulator made of recycled glass
allow to obtain low periodic thermal transmittance values and
high thermal wave shift. Synthetic foams such as polyisocyanurate,
polyurethane and XPS can reduce periodic thermal transmittance
of the selected case studies, but their low densities affect nega-
tively the thermal wave shift: 10 h for the masonry walls and 7 h
for the timber one. Walls equipped with wood and mineralized
wood ber insulators showed the highest values of thermal wave
shift, between 12 and 16 h, and also low periodic thermal trans-
mittance, lower than 0.08 W/m2 K.
The best performing insulator in terms of thermal transmit-
tance for the case-study walls is the polyisocyanurate, which has
the lowest thermal conductivity (-value equal to 0.022 W/m K
with thermal transmittance equal to 0.18 W/m2 K). Thus for the
winter period it is the best material to avoid energy envelope
losses, but for its low density it is not the best material for the
summer period. Considering the overall performance of the case-
study walls both in winter and summer conditions, recycled glass
ber results to be the best material, with thermal transmittance
0.25 W/m2 K, periodic thermal transmittance lower than 0.06 W/
m2 K and thermal wave shift around 12 h for all congurations.
7. Conclusions
The paper reports a state of the art of insulation materials used
in the building sector, considering both commercial and uncon-
ventional materials. Comparative analyses were carried out con-
sidering thermal, reaction to re and environmental properties;
the available data on acoustic properties and water vapor per-
meability are also reported. Concerning the thermal properties,
the most promising material are Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs
0.004 W/m K, with some increment during its life), aerogels
1004 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011

Table 11
Components of the case studies walls (insulator excluded).

Wall element Density (kg/m3) Specic heat (kJ/kg K) Thermal conductivity (W/m K) Thickness (cm) Case study

Plaster (internal) 1800 0.8 0.900 1 Masonry walls

Plaster (external) 1800 0.8 0.900 2 Masonry walls
Blocks 100 0.8 0.360 22 Masonry walls with internal or external insulation
Blocks (internal) 100 0.8 0.360 10 Masonry double wall
Blocks (external) 100 0.8 0.360 12 Masonry double wall
Plasterboard (internal) 700 1.0 0.210 1 Timber wall
Plasterboard (external) 700 1.0 0.210 2 Timber wall
CLT timber board 500 1.6 0.130 9 Timber wall

Fig. 12. The 10 best performing insulators in terms of thermal transmittance in the selected case studies.

Fig. 13. The 10 best performing insulators in terms of periodic thermal transmittance in the selected case studies.

( 0.013 W/m K) and Gas-Filled Panels (GFPs 0.012 W/m K),
which are characterized by the lowest values of the thermal con-
ductivity, much lower than those of the materials that now
dominate the market, such as mineral wool and polystyrene (
around 0.035 W/m K). Furthermore excellent thermal perfor-
mance can be achieved with very slim and lightweight panels,
leading to several architectural benets, such as lighter structures,
larger net oor areas, etc. However their full potential is still far to
be reached, because of some drawbacks, mainly due to their cost
and their real life application: currently VIPs and GFPs cannot be
cut or perforated, even accidentally, without compromising their
thermal conductivity.
Among the other materials, the best performing ones are
polyisocyanurate (-value around 0.022 W/m K), polyurethane (-
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
Fig. 14. The 10 best performing insulators in terms of thermal wave shift in the selected case studies.
value around 0.025 W/m K), kenaf (-value around 0.030 W/m K),
recycled glass ber (-value around 0.031 W/m K), XPS (-value
around 0.034 W/m K) and stone wool (-value equal to 0.040 W/
m K). Whereas thermal conductivity is the only parameter affect-
ing building thermal insulation in winter, when stationary condi-
tions for heat transfer can be adopted, thermal insulation prop-
erties in summer, i.e. dynamic conditions, are also affected by
density and specic heat. The densest materials are mineralized
wood bers (533 kg/m3), recycled rubber (up to 930 kg/m3) and
LECA (up to 750 kg/m3), while the ones characterized by the
highest specic heat are wood bers (2.1 kJ/kg K), mineralized
wood bers (1.8 kJ/kg K), hemp (1.7 kJ/kg K), kenaf (1.7 kJ/kg K),
sheep wool (1.8 kJ/kg K) and XPS (1.7 kJ/kg K).
Four case studies were analyzed in order to assess the thermal
performance of some investigated insulators both in steady and
dynamic condition: three masonries and one timber wall. The
three masonry walls were one double wall and one monolithic
wall with internal or external insulation: the components of the
wall were selected in order to have the same thermal transmit-
tance if no insulation was present.
In each case study, thermal transmittance, periodic thermal
transmittance and the thermal wave shift were evaluated con-
sidering a 10 cm layer of insulating material; VIPs, aerogels and
GFPs were excluded from the case studies since the thickness of
these panels is not comparable to the one of traditional materials.
Materials not completely characterized in terms of thermal con-
ductivity, density and specic heat were not considered.
Since the steady state thermal transmittance of the systems
depends only on the thermal conductivity and the thickness of the
insulators, the best performing insulators for the selected case
studies were polyisocyanurate, polyurethane and kenaf (values of
the thermal transmittance less than 0.25 W/m2 K). The lowest
periodic thermal transmittance values were obtained for recycled
glass ber, mineralized wood ber (0.0430.071 W/m2 K) and
polyisocyanurate (0.0340.074 W/m2 K). A similar behavior was
observed for the thermal wave shift (time shift more than 12 h),
but the low density of the polyisocyanurate made its performance
lower than other materials, such as wood ber and cork. Among
the selected masonry wall typologies, double walls are character-
ized by the highest thermal wave shift, whereas the ones with
external insulation provide the lowest periodic thermal transmit-
tance. Except for the thermal transmittance, the selected masonry
walls are characterized by better thermal properties in comparison
to the timber one.
1005
Mineral wools, expanded minerals, such as LECA, vermiculite
and perlite, and VIPs have the best reaction to re. Among organic
materials, polyurethane and polyisocyanurate are the only ones in
B Euroclass; however some researches showed that these mate-
rials release hazardous gases under re conditions.
Concerning the environmental performance, materials were
compared in terms of available Life Cycle Assessment data taken
from manufacturers and scientic literature. Two parameters were
considered, the embodied energy and the global warming poten-
tial, evaluated considering as a functional unit the mass of material
needed to obtain a thermal resistance of 1 m2 K/W for a 1 m2
panel. Unfortunately the LCA of the assessed materials were not
calculated using the same approach for each insulator. The
majority of LCA studies related to the products taken into account
in the paper does not consider the inuence of transport, use and
disposal stages (cradle to gate approach, CTGA). Concerning the
available CTGA studies, the best performing insulators are natural
pumice, cellulose ocks, kenaf bers and stone wool. Few data are
available about more detailed LCA studies which consider also
transport and disposal stages (cradle to grave approach, CTGR).
The available data concerning LCA performed with the CTGR
approach showed that the lowest embodied energy values were
declared for insulators made of sheep wool and recycled textiles,
whereas the lowest global warming potential was observed for
hemp and stone wool.
Finally, the highest water vapor resistance factor (m-value) was
observed in VIP insulators, which are almost water impermeable;
however the application of a thin vapor barrier may increase
considerably the m-value also of high permeable materials such as
mineral wools and natural bers.
This review evaluated the most important technical parameters
inuencing the selection of an insulator for the building sector. All
the main commercial and unconventional products were assessed
from several points of view to highlight strong and weak points
and to provide some suggestions that could guide the selection
and the design of the correct wall insulation.
Appendix A
See Tables A1A4.
1006 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011

Table A1
Thermal properties of the heavyweight double wall containing the analyzed insulators.

Thermal insulation Density Specic Thermal con- Thermal trans- Periodic thermal Decrement factor Thermal Surface System
material (kg/m3) heat (kJ/ ductivity (W/ mittance (W/ transmittance (W/ (dimensionless) wave shift mass (kg/ Thickness
kg K) m K) m2 K) m2 K) (h) m2) (cm)

Commercial materials
Without insulation 1.03 0.49 0.48 7.9 274 35
Cellulose (1) 70 2.0 0.039 0.30 0.09 0.30 11.6 281 35
Cellulose (2) 30 1.3 0.037 0.28 0.09 0.33 10.2 277 35
Coir 105 1.5 0.043 0.32 0.09 0.30 11.6 285 35
Cork 130 2.1 0.040 0.30 0.07 0.25 13.1 287 35
EPS 22 1.3 0.035 0.27 0.09 0.33 10.1 276 35
Flax 30 1.6 0.040 0.30 0.10 0.33 10.3 277 35
Glass wool 21 1.0 0.035 0.25 0.07 0.30 11.5 284 35
Hemp 90 1.7 0.040 0.30 0.09 0.29 11.7 283 35
Jute 35 2.4 0.038 0.29 0.09 0.32 10.9 278 35
Kenaf 100 1.7 0.030 0.24 0.06 0.27 12.5 284 35
Mineralized wood 533 1.8 0.065 0.43 0.06 0.13 16.1 327 35
ber
Perlite 100 0.8 0.052 0.36 0.12 0.33 10.5 284 35
Polyisocyanurate 30 1.4 0.022 0.19 0.06 0.31 10.8 277 35
Polyurethane (1) 44 1.5 0.025 0.21 0.06 0.31 11.1 278 35
Polyurethane (2) 36 1.4 0.023 0.19 0.06 0.31 11.0 278 35
Stone wool (1) 165 1.0 0.040 0.30 0.09 0.29 11.9 291 35
Stone wool (2) 70 1.0 0.033 0.26 0.08 0.32 10.9 281 35
Sheep wool 20 1.8 0.038 0.29 0.10 0.33 10.2 276 35
Vermiculite (1) 80 0.9 0.062 0.41 0.14 0.34 10.2 282 35
Vermiculite (2) 90 0.9 0.057 0.39 0.13 0.34 10.4 283 35
Wood ber (1) 270 2.1 0.049 0.35 0.06 0.17 15.0 301 35
Wood ber (2) 110 2.1 0.038 0.29 0.07 0.26 12.8 285 35
XPS (1) 40 1.7 0.034 0.27 0.08 0.32 10.8 278 35
XPS (2) 32 1.7 0.032 0.25 0.08 0.32 10.6 277 35
Unconventional materials
Cotton (recycled) 25 1.6 0.039 1.03 0.49 0.48 7.9 274 35
Reeds 190 1.2 0.056 0.296 0.099 0.33 10.2 277 35
Recycled glass ber 450 0.8 0.031 0.385 0.046 0.29 11.8 293 35
Recycled glass ber 165 1.0 0.055 0.290 0.090 0.31 11.1 284 35
(commercial) 2
Recycled PET 60 1.2 0.034 0.380 0.117 0.31 11.3 291 35
(commercial)
Recycled textile (1) 50 1.2 0.040 0.266 0.085 0.32 10.8 280 35
Recycled textile (2) 10 1.6 0.042 0.302 0.099 0.33 10.5 279 35
Straw bale 60 0.6 0.067 0.313 0.108 0.34 9.8 275 35

Table A2
Thermal properties of the heavyweight wall with external insulation.

Thermal insulation Density Specic Thermal con- Thermal trans- Periodic thermal Decrement factor Thermal Surface System
material (kg/m3) heat (kJ/ ductivity (W/ mittance (W/ transmittance (W/ (dimensionless) wave shift mass (kg/ Thickness
kg K) m K) m2 K) m2 K) (h) m2) (cm)

Commercial
Cellulose (1) 70 2.0 0.039 0.296 0.054 0.182 11.4 281 35
Cellulose (2) 30 1.3 0.037 0.284 0.055 0.195 10.1 277 35
Coir 105 1.5 0.043 0.318 0.059 0.184 11.3 285 35
Cork 130 2.1 0.040 0.302 0.048 0.158 12.9 287 35
EPS 22 1.3 0.035 0.272 0.053 0.194 10.0 276 35
Flax 30 1.6 0.040 0.302 0.059 0.196 10.1 277 35
Glass wool 21 1.0 0.035 0.272 0.053 0.195 9.9 276 35
Hemp 90 1.7 0.040 0.302 0.055 0.181 11.5 283 35
Jute 35 2.4 0.038 0.290 0.055 0.190 10.6 278 35
Kenaf 100 1.7 0.030 0.241 0.040 0.165 12.2 284 35
Mineralized wood 533 1.8 0.065 0.425 0.043 0.101 15.9 327 35
ber
Perlite 100 0.8 0.052 0.364 0.074 0.202 10.3 284 35
Polyisocyanurate 30 1.4 0.022 0.187 0.034 0.180 10.5 277 35
Polyurethane (1) 44 1.5 0.025 0.208 0.037 0.180 10.9 278 35
Polyurethane (2) 36 1.4 0.023 0.194 0.035 0.180 10.7 278 35
Stone wool (1) 165 1.0 0.040 0.302 0.054 0.178 11.7 291 35
Stone wool (2) 70 1.0 0.033 0.260 0.049 0.187 10.7 281 35
Sheep wool 20 1.8 0.038 0.290 0.057 0.196 10.0 276 35
Vermiculite (1) 80 0.9 0.062 0.412 0.087 0.212 10.1 282 35
Vermiculite (2) 90 0.9 0.057 0.389 0.081 0.207 10.2 283 35
Wood ber (1) 270 2.1 0.049 0.350 0.043 0.123 14.7 301 35
Wood ber (2) 110 2.1 0.038 0.290 0.047 0.163 12.5 285 35
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011 1007

Table A2 (continued )

Thermal insulation Density Specic Thermal con- Thermal trans- Periodic thermal Decrement factor Thermal Surface System
material (kg/m3) heat (kJ/ ductivity (W/ mittance (W/ transmittance (W/ (dimensionless) wave shift mass (kg/ Thickness
kg K) m K) m2 K) m2 K) (h) m2) (cm)

XPS (1) 40 1.7 0.034 0.266 0.050 0.188 10.6 278 35

XPS (2) 32 1.7 0.032 0.254 0.048 0.188 10.4 277 35
Unconventional materials
Cotton (recycled) 25 1.6 0.039 0.296 0.058 0.196 10.1 276.5 35
Reeds 190 1.2 0.056 0.385 0.071 0.186 11.6 293 35
Recycled glass ber 450 0.8 0.031 0.248 0.030 0.120 14.8 319 35
Recycled glass 165 1.0 0.055 0.380 0.074 0.194 11.1 291 35
(commercial)
Recycled PET 60 1.2 0.034 0.266 0.050 0.188 10.6 280 35
(commercial)
Recycled textile (1) 50 1.2 0.040 0.302 0.059 0.195 10.3 279 35
Recycled textile (2) 10 1.6 0.042 0.313 0.063 0.201 9.7 275 35
Straw bale 60 0.6 0.067 0.433 0.095 0.219 9.7 280 35

Table A3
Thermal properties of the heavyweight wall with internal insulation.

Thermal insulation Density Specic Thermal con- Thermal transmit- Periodic thermal Decrement Thermal Surface System
material (kg/m3) heat (kJ/ ductivity (W/ tance (W/m2 K) transmittance (W/ factor wave shift mass (kg/ Thickness
kg K) m K) m2 K) (h) m2) (cm)

Commercial materials
Cellulose (1) 70 2.0 0.039 0.296 0.066 0.224 11.1 281 35
Cellulose (2) 30 1.3 0.037 0.284 0.069 0.242 9.7 277 35
Coir 105 1.5 0.043 0.318 0.072 0.226 11.0 285 35
Cork 130 2.1 0.040 0.302 0.058 0.191 12.6 287 35
EPS 22 1.3 0.035 0.272 0.066 0.242 9.6 276 35
Flax 30 1.6 0.040 0.302 0.073 0.243 9.8 277 35
Glass wool 21 1.0 0.035 0.272 0.066 0.243 9.5 276 35
Hemp 90 1.7 0.040 0.302 0.067 0.222 11.2 283 35
Jute 35 2.4 0.038 0.290 0.068 0.235 10.3 278 35
Kenaf 100 1.7 0.030 0.241 0.049 0.203 12.0 284 35
Mineralized wood ber 533 1.8 0.065 0.425 0.048 0.114 15.7 327 35
Perlite 100 0.8 0.052 0.364 0.090 0.248 10.0 284 35
Polyisocyanurate 30 1.4 0.022 0.187 0.042 0.226 10.2 277 35
Polyurethane (1) 44 1.5 0.025 0.208 0.047 0.224 10.5 278 35
Polyurethane (2) 36 1.4 0.023 0.194 0.044 0.225 10.4 278 35
Stone wool (1) 165 1.0 0.040 0.302 0.066 0.218 11.4 291 35
Stone wool (2) 70 1.0 0.033 0.260 0.060 0.232 10.3 281 35
Sheep wool 20 1.8 0.038 0.290 0.071 0.243 9.6 276 35
Vermiculite (1) 80 0.9 0.062 0.412 0.106 0.258 9.7 282 35
Vermiculite (2) 90 0.9 0.057 0.389 0.098 0.253 9.9 283 35
Wood ber (1) 270 2.1 0.049 0.350 0.050 0.144 14.5 301 35
Wood ber (2) 110 2.1 0.038 0.290 0.058 0.199 12.3 285 35
XPS (1) 40 1.7 0.034 0.266 0.062 0.234 10.2 278 35
XPS (2) 32 1.7 0.032 0.254 0.060 0.234 10.1 277 35
Unconventional materials
Cotton (recycled) 25 1.6 0.039 0.296 0.072 0.244 9.7 277 35
Reeds 190 1.2 0.056 0.385 0.086 0.224 11.3 293 35
Recycled glass ber 450 0.8 0.031 0.248 0.036 0.145 14.6 319 35
Recycled glass ber 165 1.0 0.055 0.380 0.090 0.236 10.8 291 35
(commercial)
Recycled PET 60 1.2 0.034 0.266 0.062 0.233 10.3 280 35
(commercial)
Recycled textile (1) 50 1.2 0.040 0.302 0.073 0.241 10.0 279 35
Recycled textile (2) 10 1.6 0.042 0.313 0.078 0.250 9.3 275 35
Straw bale 60 0.6 0.067 0.433 0.116 0.267 9.3 280 35
1008 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011

Table A4
Thermal properties of the lightweight wall with external insulation.

Thermal insulation Density Specic Thermal con- Thermal transmit- Periodic thermal Decrement Thermal Surface System
material (kg/m3) heat (kJ/ ductivity (W/ tance (W/m2 K) transmittance (W/ factor wave shift mass (kg/ Thickness
kg K) m K) m2 K) (h) m2) (cm)

Commercial materials
Cellulose (1) 70 2.0 0.039 0.280 0.111 0.396 8.4 73 22
Cellulose (2) 30 1.3 0.037 0.270 0.119 0.440 7.0 69 22
Coir 105 1.5 0.043 0.300 0.120 0.399 8.4 77 22
Cork 130 2.1 0.040 0.285 0.094 0.329 10.0 79 22
EPS 22 1.3 0.035 0.259 0.114 0.440 6.9 68 22
Flax 30 1.6 0.040 0.285 0.126 0.442 7.0 69 22
Glass wool 21 1.0 0.035 0.259 0.115 0.443 6.7 68 22
Hemp 90 1.7 0.040 0.285 0.112 0.392 8.5 75 22
Jute 35 2.4 0.038 0.275 0.116 0.423 7.6 70 22
Kenaf 100 1.7 0.030 0.230 0.082 0.357 9.3 76 22
Mineralized wood ber 533 1.8 0.065 0.393 0.071 0.180 13.1 119 22
Perlite 100 0.8 0.052 0.340 0.152 0.446 7.3 76 22
Polyisocyanurate 30 1.4 0.022 0.180 0.074 0.409 7.5 69 22
Polyurethane (1) 44 1.5 0.025 0.200 0.081 0.404 7.8 70 22
Polyurethane (2) 36 1.4 0.023 0.187 0.076 0.406 7.7 70 22
Stone wool (1) 165 1.0 0.040 0.285 0.109 0.383 8.7 83 22
Stone wool (2) 70 1.0 0.033 0.248 0.104 0.418 7.6 73 22
Sheep wool 20 1.8 0.038 0.275 0.122 0.443 6.9 68 22
Vermiculite (1) 80 0.9 0.062 0.382 0.178 0.466 6.9 74 22
Vermiculite (2) 90 0.9 0.057 0.362 0.165 0.456 7.1 75 22
Wood ber (1) 270 2.1 0.049 0.328 0.078 0.237 11.9 93 22
Wood ber (2) 110 2.1 0.038 0.275 0.095 0.345 9.6 77 22
XPS (1) 40 1.7 0.034 0.253 0.107 0.422 7.5 70 22
XPS (2) 32 1.7 0.032 0.242 0.103 0.424 7.4 69 22
Unconventional materials
Cotton (recycled) 25 1.6 0.039 0.280 0.124 0.443 6.9 69 22.0
Reeds 190 1.2 0.056 0.358 0.140 0.390 8.7 85 22.0
Recycled glass ber 450 0.8 0.031 0.236 0.058 0.245 11.9 111 22.0
Recycled glass ber 165 1.0 0.055 0.354 0.148 0.417 8.1 83 22.0
(commercial)
Recycled PET 60 1.2 0.034 0.253 0.106 0.420 7.6 72 22.0
(commercial)
Recycled textile (1) 50 1.2 0.040 0.285 0.125 0.437 7.2 71 22.0
Recycled textile (2) 10 1.6 0.042 0.295 0.135 0.456 6.5 67 22.0
Straw bale 60 0.6 0.067 0.400 0.194 0.485 6.5 72 22.0

References
[1] Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings. Off J Eur Commun 2010.
[2] Moncada Lo Giudice G, Asdrubali F, Rotili A. Inuence of new factors on
global energy prospects in the medium term: comparison among the 2010,
2011 and 2012 editions of the IEA's World Energy Outlook reports. Eco-
nomics and Policy for Energy and Environmental, vol. 3; 2013. p. 6789.
[3] Pisello AL, Castaldo VL, Pignatta G, Cotana F, Santamouris M. Experimental
in-lab and in-eld analysis of waterproof membranes for cool roof applica-
tion and urban heat island mitigation. Energy Build 2016;114 180-90.
[4] Galli G, Vallati A, Recchiuti C, de Lieto Vollaro R, Botta F. Passive cooling
design options to improve thermal comfort in an Urban District of Rome,
under hot summer conditions. Int J Eng Technol 2013;5(5):4495500.
[5] Baldinelli G, Bonafoni S, Anniballe R, Presciutti A, Gioli B, Magliulo V.
Spaceborne detection of roof and impervious surface albedo: potentialities
and comparison with airborne thermography measurements. Sol Energy
2015;113:28194.
[6] Madhumathi A, Sundarraja MC, Shanthipriya R. A comparative study of the
thermal comfort of different building materials in Madurai. Int J Earth Sci Eng
2014;7(3):100418.
[7] Khamporn N, Chaiyapinunt S. An investigation on the human thermal
comfort from a glass window. Eng J 2014;18(1):2543.
[8] De Lieto Vollaro R, Guattari C, Evangelisti L, Battista G, Carnielo E, Gori P.
Building energy performance analysis: a case study. Energy Build
2015;87:8794.
[9] Rodrguez-Soria B, Domnguez-Hernndez J, Prez-Bella JM, Del Coz-Daz JJ.
Quantitative analysis of the divergence in energy losses allowed through
building envelopes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:10008.
[10] Dong YH, Ng ST. A life cycle assessment model for evaluating the environ-
mental impacts of building construction in Hong Kong. Build Environ
2015;89:18391.
[11] El Hanandeh A. Environmental assessment of popular single-family house
construction alternatives in Jordan. Build Environ 2015;92:1929.
[12] Asdrubali F, Baldinelli G, Bianchi F, Sambuco S. A comparison between
environmental sustainability rating systems LEED and ITACA for residential
buildings. Build Environ 2015;86:98108.
[13] Abu Bakar NN, Hassan MY, Abdullah H, Rahman HA, Abdullah MP, Hussin F,
et al. Energy efciency index as an indicator for measuring building energy
performance: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:111.
[14] Gugliermetti F, Bisegna F. Saving energy in residential buildings: the use of
fully reversible windows. Energy 2007;32(7):123547.
[15] Baldinelli G, Asdrubali F, Baldassarri C, Bianchi F, D'Alessandro F, Schiavoni S,
et al. Energy and environmental performance optimization of a wooden
window: a holistic approach. Energy Build 2014;79:11431.
[16] Baldinelli G, Bianchi F. Windows thermal resistance: Infrared thermography
aided comparative analysis among nite volumes simulations and experi-
mental methods. Appl Energy 2014;136:2508.
[17] Pisello AL. Experimental analysis of cool traditional solar shading systems for
residential buildings. Energies 2015;8(3):2197210.
[18] Ascione F, Bianco N, De Masi RF, Mauro GM, Musto M, Vanoli GP. Experi-
mental validation of a numerical code by thin lm heat ux sensors for the
resolution of thermal bridges in dynamic conditions. Appl Energy
2014;124:21322.
[19] 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;1:539.
[20] Asdrubali F, Baldassarri C, Fthenakis V. Life cycle analysis in the construction
sector: guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings.
Energy Build 2013;64:7389.
[21] Gori P, Bisegna F. Thermophysical parameter estimation of multi-layer walls
with stochastic optimization methods. Int J Heat Technol 2010;28(1):10916.
[22] Gugliermetti F. Process analysis in determining the energy content of heat
insulating materials. Energ Altern HTE 1986;8(40):1214.
[23] Yates T. The use of non-food crops in the UK construction industry. J Sci
Food Agric 2006;86(12):17906.
[24] Jelle BP. Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation
materials and solutions properties, requirements and possibilities.
Energy Build 2011;43:254963.
[25] Cabeza LF, Castell A, Barrenechea C, de Gracia A, Fernndez AI. Materials
used as PCM in thermal energy storage in buildings: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2011;15:167595.
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
[26] Kalns SE, Jelle BP. Phase change materials and products for building
applications: a state-of-the-art review and future research opportunities.
Energy Build 2015;94:15076.
[27] Asdrubali F, Schiavoni S, D'Alessandro F. A review of unconventional sus-
tainable building insulation material. Sustain Mater Technol 2015;4:117.
[28] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12664: 2001. Thermal perfor-
mance of building materials and products determination of thermal
resistance by means of guarded hot plate and heat ow meter methods dry
and moist products of medium and low thermal resistance.
[29] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12667: 2001. Thermal perfor-
mance of building materials and products determination of thermal
resistance by means of guarded hot plate and heat ow meter methods
products of high and medium thermal resistance.
[30] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12939: 2000. Thermal perfor-
mance of building materials and products determination of thermal
resistance by means of guarded hot plate and heat ow meter methods
thick products of high and medium thermal resistance.
[31] ASTM International, ASTM C518-10. Standard test method for steady-state
thermal transmission properties by means of the heat ow meter apparatus.
[32] ASTM International, ASTM C177-13. Standard test method for steady-state
heat ux measurements and thermal transmission properties by means of
the guarded-hot-plate apparatus.
[33] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 8990: 1996. Thermal
insulation determination of steady-state thermal transmission properties
calibrated and guarded hot box.
[34] European Committee for Standardization, EN 1602:2013. Thermal insulating
products for building applications. Determination of the apparent density.
[35] ASTM International. ASTM C303-10 Standard test method for dimensions
and density of preformed block and board-type thermal insulation.
[36] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 11357-4:2014 Plastics.
Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Determination of specic heat
capacity.
[37] ASTM International. ASTM 1269-11 Standard test method for determining
specic heat capacity by differential scanning calorimetry.
[38] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22007-1: 2009, Plastics
determination of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity Part 1:
general principles.
[39] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22007-2:2008 Plastics
determination of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity Part 2:
transient plane heat source (hot disc) method.
[40] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22007-3:2008 Plastics
determination of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity Part 3:
Temperature wave analysis method.
[41] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 22007-4:2008 Plastics
determination of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity Part 4: laser
ash method;
[42] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 6946: 2007. Building
components and building elements thermal resistance and thermal
transmittance calculation method.
[43] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 13786: 2007. Thermal
performance of building components dynamic thermal characteristics
calculation methods.
[44] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12354-2:2000. Building
acoustics estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the per-
formance of elements Part 2: Impact sound insulation between rooms.
[45] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 717-1: 2013. Acoustics
rating of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements Part 1:
Airborne sound insulation.
[46] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10140: 2010. Acoustics
laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements;
[47] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12354-1: 2000. Building
acoustics estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the per-
formance of elements Part 1: Airborne sound insulation between rooms.
[48] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 16283-1: 2014. Acoustics
eld measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building ele-
ments Part 1: Airborne sound insulation.
[49] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 717-2: 2013. Acoustics
rating of sound insulation in buildings and of building elements Part 2:
Impact sound insulation.
[50] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 16283-2:2015 Acoustics
eld measurement of sound insulation in buildings and of building ele-
ments Part 2: Impact sound insulation.
[51] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9052-1: 1989. Acoustics
determination of dynamic stiffness Part 1: Materials used under oating
oors in dwellings.
[52] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 354: 2003. Acoustics
measurement of sound absorption in a reverberation room.
[53] ASTM International. ASTM C423-09a Standard test method for sound
absorption and sound absorption coefcients by the reverberation room
method.
[54] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 10534-2: 1998. Acoustics
determination of sound absorption coefcient and impedance in impe-
dance tubes Part 2: Transfer-function method.
[55] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14040: 2006 Environ-
mental management Life cycle assessment principles and framework.
1009
[56] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14044: 2006 Environ-
mental management life cycle assessment requirements and guidelines.
[57] Gormsen H, Jeppesen N, Lund A. The causes of death in re victims. Forensic
Sci Int 1984;24(2):10711.
[58] Stamyr K, Thelander G, Ernstgrd L, Ahlner J, Johanson G. Swedish forensic
data 19922009 suggest hydrogen cyanide as an important cause of death in
re victims. Inhal Toxicol 2012;24(3):1949.
[59] Department for Communities and Local Government of the U.K. Govern-
ment, Fire Statistics: August 2009, and preceding volumes.
[60] European Committee for Standardization, EN 13501-1:2007A12010. Fire
classication of construction products and building elementsPart 1: Clas-
sication using data from reaction to re tests.
[61] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12086:2013. Thermal insulat-
ing products for building applications. Determination of water vapour
transmission properties.
[62] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12088:2013. Thermal insulat-
ing products for building applications determination of long term water
absorption by diffusion.
[63] Fangueiro R. Fibrous and composite materials for civil engineering applica-
tions. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2011.
[64] Technical datasheet available at http://www.rockwool.com/.
[65] Technical datasheet available at http://www.isover.com/.
[66] Technical datasheet available at http://www.celenit.com/.
[67] Technical datasheet available at http://www.fortlan-dibi.it/.
[68] Karamanos A, Hadiarakou S, Papadopoulos AM. The impact of temperature
and moisture on the thermal performance of stone wool. Energy Build
2008;40:140211.
[69] Technical datasheet available at http://www.knauf.com/en/.
[70] Tatematsu K, Hirota T, Suzuki H, Taniguchi M, Nunoi, Uzawa T. Inuence of
temperature and moisture on aging of glass wool. J Environ Eng (Jpn)
2014;79:75362.
[71] Technical datasheet available at http://isover.it/pannelli-isolanti-e-feltri/
ekosol-n/.
[72] Technical datasheet available at http://www.wbs-ltd.co.uk/.
[73] Technical datasheet available at http://www.sirapinsulation.com/.
[74] Lakatos A, Kalmr F. Analysis of water sorption and thermal conductivity of
expanded polystyrene insulation materials. Build Serv Eng Res Technol
2013;34:40716.
[75] Vo CV, Bunge F, Duffy J, Hood L. Advances in thermal insulation of extruded
polystyrene foams. Cell Polym 2011;30:13756.
[76] Technical datasheet available at http://building.dow.com/en-us.
[77] Technical datasheet available at http://www.epfa.org.uk/.
[78] Technical datasheet available at http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/.
[79] Technical datasheet available at http://www.dyplastproducts.com/.
[80] Technical datasheet available at http://www.e-weber.it/.
[81] Shamaeva AP, Tolstyakov DN, Fedorova FG. Water-content dependence of
the thermal conductivity for a phenolic foam plastic composite. Meas Tech
1987;30:4645.
[82] Technical datasheet available at http://www.isopan.com/.
[83] Kuhn J, Ebert HP, Arduini-Schuster MC, Bttner D, Fricke J. Thermal transport
in polystyrene and polyurethane foam insulations. Int J Heat Mass Transf
1992;35(7):1795801.
[84] Wu JW, Sung WF, Chu HS. Thermal conductivity of polyurethane foams. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 1999;42(12):22117.
[85] Chattopadhyay DK, Webster DC. Thermal stability and ame retardancy of
polyurethanes. Prog Polym Sci 2009;34(10):1068133.
[86] Zhao C, Yan Y, Hu Z, Li L, Fan X. Preparation and characterization of granular
silica aerogel/polyisocyanurate rigid foam composites. Constr Build Mater
2015;93:30916.
[87] Pescari S, Tudor D, Tlgyi S, Maduta C. Study concerning the thermal insu-
lation panels with double-side anti-condensation foil on the exterior and
polyurethane foam or polyisocyanurate on the interior. Key Eng Mater
2015;660:2448.
[88] Technical datasheet available at http://www.celotex.co.uk/products/
ga4000.
[89] Technical datasheet available at http://www.recticelinsulation.co.uk/.
[90] Technical datasheet available at http://www.ecotherm.co.uk/.
[91] Technical datasheet available at http://www.stiferite.com/.
[92] Technical datasheet available at http://www.topanel.net/.
[93] Mitchener G. Can polyisocyanurate nanofoam challenge aerogels? Polimery
2014;59(4):33942.
[94] Hurtado PL, Rouilly A, Vandenbossche V, Raynaud C. A review on the
properties of cellulose bre insulation. Build Environ 2016;96:1707.
[95] Technical datasheet available at http://www.kenaf-ber.com/.
[96] Technical datasheet available at http://www.thermooc.com/en.
[97] Technical datasheet available at http://www.homatherm.com/.
[98] Technical datasheet available at http://naturalia-bau.it/de/.
[99] Kwon YC, Yarbrough DW. A comparison of Korean cellulose insulation with
cellulose insulation manufactured in the United States of America. J Build
Phys 2004;27(3):18597.
[100] Asdrubali F, Schiavoni S, Horoshenkov KV. Review of sustainable materials
for acoustic applications. J Build Acoust 2012;19(4):283312.
[101] Gil L. New cork-based materials and applications. Materials 2015;8:62537.
[102] Technical datasheet available at http://www.cork-insulation.com/.
[103] Technical datasheet available at http://www.sacepaludi.it/.
[104] Technical datasheet available at http://www.tecnosugheri.it/.
1010 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
[105] Technical datasheet available at http://www.bcork.amorim.com/en/.
[106] Maaloufa Y, Mounir S, Khabbazi A, Kettar J, Khaldoun A. Thermal char-
acterization of materials based on clay and granular: cork or expanded per-
lite. Energy Procedia 2015;74:115061.
[107] Limam A, Zerizer A, Quenard D, Sallee H, Chenak A. Experimental thermal
characterization of bio-based materials (Aleppo Pine wood, cork and their
composites) for building insulation. Energy Build 2016;116:8995.
[108] Technical datasheet available at http://www.siempelkamp.com/.
[109] Kawasaki T, Zhang M, Kawai S. Manufacture and properties of ultra-low
density berboard. J Wood Sci 1998;44(5):35460.
[110] Troppov E, vehlk M, Tippner J, Wimmer R. Inuence of temperature and
moisture content on the thermal conductivity of wood-based breboards.
Mater Struct 2015;48:407783.
[111] Technical datasheet available at http://www.eraclit.biz/eraclit/index.html.
[112] Technical datasheet available at http://www.laterlite.com/.
[113] Technical datasheet available at http://www.netweber.co.uk/home.html.
[114] Pargana N, Pinheiro MD, Silvestre JD, De Brito J. Comparative environmental
life cycle assessment of thermal insulation materials of buildings. Energy
Build 2014;82:46681.
[115] Del Coz Daz JJ, lvarez Rabanal FP, Garca Nieto PJ, Domnguez Hernndez J,
Rodrguez Soria B, Prez-Bella JM. Hygrothermal properties of lightweight
concrete: experiments and numerical tting study. Constr Build Mater
2013;40:54355.
[116] Asdrubali F, Horoshenkov KV. The acoustic properties of expanded clay
granulates. Build Acoust 2002;9(2):8598.
[117] Technical datasheet available at http://www.gyproc.it/prodotti.php?
id 142.
[118] Technical datasheet available at http://www.dupreminerals.com/en/.
[119] Fassi A, Maina L. L'isolamento ecoefciente. Milano: Edizioni Ambiente; 2009
[in Italian].
[120] International Organization for Standardization, ISO/FDIS 10456:2007. Build-
ing materials and products hygrothermal properties tabulated design
values and procedures for determining declared and design thermal values.
[121] Suvorov SA, Skurikhin VV. Vermiculite a promising material for high-
temperature heat insulators. Refract Ind Ceram 2003;44(3):18693.
[122] Sutcu M. Inuence of expanded vermiculite on physical properties and
thermal conductivity of clay bricks. Ceram Int 2015;41(2):281927.
[123] Schackow A, Effting C, Folgueras MV, Gths S, Mendes GA. Mechanical and
thermal properties of lightweight concretes with vermiculite and EPS using
air-entraining agent. Constr Build Mater 2014;57:1907.
[124] Maderuelo-Sanz R, Nadal-Gisbert AV, Crespo-Amors JE, Barrign Morillas
JM, Parres-Garca F, Juli Sanchis E. Inuence of the microstructure in the
acoustical performance of consolidated lightweight granular materials.
Acoust Australia 2016:19.
[125] Technical datasheet available at http://www.perlite.it/.
[126] Technical datasheet available at http://www.harshgeo.com/.
[127] Singh M, Garg M. Perlite-based building materials a review of current
applications. Constr Build Mater 1991;5(2):7581.
[128] Topu IB, Iikda|g B. Manufacture of high heat conductivity resistant clay
bricks containing perlite. Build Environ 2007;42:35406.
[129] Zukowski M, Haese G. Experimental and numerical investigation of a hollow
brick lled with perlite insulation. Energy Build 2010;42:14028.
[130] Maderuelo R, Segura JG, Nadal A, Julia E, Crespo JE, Gadea JM. Acoustical
properties of porous absorbers made from perlite. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference Sustainable Materials Science and Technology, 15
17 July 2015. Paris, France.
[131] Technical datasheet available at http://www.ton-gruppe.it/.
[132] Technical datasheet available at http://www.hempline.com/.
[133] Technical datasheet available at http://www.steico.de/.
[134] Technical datasheet available at http://www.ecologicalbuildingsystems.
com/.
[135] Zach J, Hroudova J, Broovskc J, Krejzad Z, Gailiuse A. Development of
thermal insulating materials on natural base for thermal insulation systems.
Proceedia Eng 2013;57:128894.
[136] Kymlinen HR, Sjberg AM. Flax and hemp bres as raw materials for
thermal insulations. Build Environ 2008;43:1261319.
[137] Korjenic A, Petrnek V, Zach J, Hroudov J. Development and performance
evaluation of natural thermal-insulation materials composed of renewable
resources. Energy Build 2011;43:251823.
[138] Gl P, Gourdon E, Arnaud L. Acoustical properties of materials made of
vegetable particles with several scales of porosity. Appl Acoust 2011;72:249
59.
[139] Technical datasheet available at http://www.maiano.it/.
[140] Technical datasheet available at https://www.diasen.com/.
[141] Technical datasheet available at http://www.lacasaditerra.com/.
[142] Technical datasheet available at http://www.maccaferri.biz/.
[143] Xu J, Sugawara R, Widyorini R, Han G, Kawai S. Manufacture and properties of
low-density binderless particleboard from Kenaf core. J Wood Sci 2004;50
(1):627.
[144] D'Alessandro F, Pispola G. Sound absorption properties of sustainable brous
materials in an enhanced reverberation room. In: Proceedings of Internoise
2005. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
[145] Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M. Building energy performance: a
LCA case study of kenaf-bres insulation board. Energy Build 2008;40:110.
[146] El Hajja N, Mboumba-Mamboundou B, Dheilly R-M, Aboura Z, Benzeggagh M,
Queneudec M. Development of thermal insulating and sound absorbing
agro-sourced materials from auto linked ax-tows. Ind Crops Prod
2011;34:9218.
[147] Kauriinvaha E, Viljanen M, Pasila A, Kymlinen H-R, Pehkonen A. Bio-ber
from eld to insulation of building. Helsinki University of Technology,
Laboratory of Structural Engineering and Building Physics, Publication 117;
2001 [in Finnish].
[148] Technical datasheet available at http://daemwool.at/.
[149] Technical datasheet available at http://www.manifatturaariete.com/
polarwool.
[150] Technical datasheet available at http://www.sheepwoolinsulation.ie/.
[151] Ballagh KO. Acoustic properties of wall. Appl Acoust 1996;48(2):10120.
[152] Zach J, Korjenic A, Petrnek V, Hroudov J, Bednar T. Performance evaluation
and research of alternative thermal insulations based on sheep wool.
Energy Build 2012;49:24653.
[153] Manohar K, Ramlakhan D, Kochar G, Haldar S. Biodegradable brous thermal
insulation. J Brazil Soc Mech Sci Eng 2015;XXVIII(1):457.
[154] Manohar K. Experimental investigation of building thermal insulation from
agricultural by-products. Br J Appl Sci Technol 2012;2(3):22739.
[155] Panyakaew S, Fotios S. New thermal insulation boards made from coconut
husk and bagasse. Energy Build 2011;43:17329.
[156] Technical datasheet available at http://www.isolgomma.com/.
[157] Technical datasheet available at http://www.euchora.com/.
[158] Technical datasheet available at http://www.teknowool.com/.
[159] Technical datasheet available at http://qtsoundcontrol.com/qtscu/.
[160] Asdrubali F, Baldinelli G, D'Alessandro F, Schiavoni S, Kenny JM, Iannoni A.
Manufacturing process optimization of resilient materials made from recy-
cled tyre granules. In: Proceedings of 16th International Congress on Sound
and Vibration 2009. Krakow, Poland.
[161] Asdrubali F, D'Alessandro F. Impact sound insulation and viscoelastic prop-
erties of resilient materials made from recycled tyre granules. Int J Acoust Vib
2011;16(3):11925.
[162] Benkreira H, Khan A, Horoshenkov KV. Sustainable acoustic and thermal
insulation materials from elastomeric waste residues. Chem Eng Sci
2011;66:415771.
[163] Asdrubali F, D'Alessandro F, Schiavoni S. Sound absorbing properties of
materials made of rubber crumbs. In: Proceedings of Acoustics08. Paris,
France; 2008.
[164] Zach J, Hroudova J. Utilization of technical hemp for thermal insulating
materials production. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on
suitable construction materials and technologies. Ancona, Italy; 2010.
[165] Asdrubali F, Pisello AL, D'Alessandro F, Bianchi F, Fabiani C, Cornicchia M,
et al. Experimental and numerical characterization of innovative cardboard
based panels: thermal and acoustic performance analysis and life cycle
assessment. Build Environ 2016;95:14559.
[166] Technical datasheet available at http://www.lghausys.com/it/product/high
functional/vacuum/vip.jsp.
[167] Technical datasheet available at http://www.microthermgroup.com/low/
EXEN/site/vip-intro.aspx.
[168] Technical datasheet available at http://www.va-q-tec.com/.
[169] Technical datasheet available at http://www.porextherm.com/.
[170] Technical datasheet available at http://www.nordtex.it/.
[171] Technical datasheet available at http://www.marleyeternit.co.uk/.
[172] Baetens R, Jelle BP, Thue JV, Tenpierik MJ, Grynning S, Uvslkk S, et al.
Vacuum insulation panels for building applications: a review and beyond.
Energy Build 2010;42:14772.
[173] Alam M, Singh H, Limbachiya MC. Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs) for
building construction industry a review of the contemporary developments
and future directions. Appl Energy 2011;88:3592602.
[174] Baetens R, Jelle BP, Gustavsend A, Grynninga S. Gas-lled panels for building
applications: a state-of-the-art review. Energy Build 2010;42:196975.
[175] Grifth B, Trler D, Arasteh D. Optimizing the effective conductivity and cost
of gas-lled panel thermal insulations. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Interna-
tional Thermal Conductivity Conference. Arizona State University; 1993.
[176] Technical datasheet available at http://www.foil.com/.
[177] Technical datasheet available at http://www.econe.it/en/.
[178] Technical datasheet available at http://www.aktarusgroup.com/.
[179] Technical datasheet available at http://www.aerogel.com/.
[180] Dorcheh AS, Abbasi H. Silica aerogel; synthesis, properties and character-
ization. J Mater Process Technol 2008;199:1026.
[181] van Bommel MJ, den Engelsen CW, van Miltenburg JC. A thermoporometry
study of fumed silica/aerogel composites. J Porous Mater 1997;4:14350.
[182] Baetens R, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Aerogel insulation for building applications:
a state-of-the-art review. Energy Build 2011;43:7619.
[183] Neugebauer A, Chen K, Tang A, Allgeier A, Glicksman LR, Gibson LJ. Thermal
conductivity and characterization of compacted, granular silica aerogel.
Energy Build 2014;79:4757.
[184] Berardi U. The development of a monolithic aerogel glazed window for an
energy retrotting project. Appl Energy 2015;154:60315.
[185] Ricciardi P, Gibiat V, Hooley A. Multilayer absorbers of silica aerogel. In:
Proceedings of Forum Acusticum. Sevilla, Spain; 2002.
[186] Chen DR, Chang XH, Jiao XL. Aerogels in the environment protection. In:
Fanun N, editor. The role of colloidal systems in environmental protection.
Elsevier; 2014. p. 5739.
[187] Hayase G, Kanamori K, Abe K, Yano H, Maeno A, Kaji H, et al. Poly-
methylsilsesquioxane  cellulose nanober biocomposite aerogels with high
 S. Schiavoni et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62 (2016) 9881011
thermal insulation, bendability, and superhydrophobicity. Appl Mater Inter-
faces 2014;6:946671.
[188] Technical datasheet available at http://www.rockwool.it/prodotti esoluzioni/
u/2011.product/1992/prodotti-edilizia/aerorock-id-vp.
[189] Image taken from http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/.
[190] Berardi U, Iannace G. Acoustic characterization of natural bers for sound
absorption applications. Build Environ 2015;94(2):84052.
[191] Technical datasheet available at http://www.cabotcorp.com/.
[192] Johansson P. Vacuum insulation panels in buildings. Report/Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology;
2012. p. 1.
[193] Aste N, Angelotti A, Buzzetti M. The inuence of the external walls thermal
inertia on the energy performance of well insulated buildings. Energy Build
2009;41:11817.
[194] Oliveti G, Arcuri N, Mazzeo D, De Simone M. A new parameter for the
dynamic analysis of building walls using the harmonic method. Int J Therm
Sci 2015;88:96109.
[195] Rossi M, Rocco VM. External walls design: the role of periodic thermal
transmittance and internal areal heat capacity. Energy Build 2014;68:732
40.
[196] Di Perna C, Stazi F, Ursini Casalena A, D'Orazio M. Inuence of the internal
inertia of the building envelope on summertime comfort in buildings with
high internal heat loads. Energy Build 2011;43:2006.
[197] Technical datasheet available at http://www.bondedlogic.com/.
[198] Zhou X, Zheng F, Li H, Lu C. An environment-friendly thermal insulation
material from cotton stalk bers. Energy Build 2010;42:10704.
[199] Technical datasheet available at http://www.inno-therm.com/.
[200] Agoudjil B, Benchabane A, Boudenne A, Ibos L, Fois M. Renewable materials
to reduce building heat loss: characterization of date palm wood. Energy
Build 2011;43:4917.
[201] Chikhi M, Agoudjil B, Boudenne A, Gherabli A. Experimental investigation of
new biocomposite with low cost for thermal insulation. Energy Build
2013;66:26773.
[202] Khedari J, Charoenvai S, Hirunlabh J. New insulating particleboards from
durian peel and coconut coir. Build Environ 2003;38:43541.
[203] Tangjuank S. Thermal insulation and physical properties of particleboards
from pineapple leaves. Int J Phys Sci 2011;6(19):452832.
[204] Technical datasheet available at http://www.hiss-reet.de/.
[205] Technical datasheet available at http://www.ennat.at/.
[206] Technical datasheet available at http://www.leobodner.it/.
[207] Technical datasheet available at http://www.rolite.eu/.
[208] Ayadi A, Stiti N, Boumchedda K, Rennai H, Lerari Y. Elaboration and char-
acterization of porous granules based on waste glass. Powder Technol
2011;208:4236.
[209] Technical datasheet available at http://www.foamglas.com/.
[210] Technical datasheet available at http://www.jm.com/.
1011
[211] Intini F, Khtz S. Recycling in buildings: an LCA case study of a thermal
insulation panel made of polyester ber, recycled from post-consumer PET
bottles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2011;16:30615.
[212] Technical datasheet available at http://lerelais.org/aussi.php?
pagemetisse.
[213] Technical datasheet available at http://www.isonat.com/isolation/isonat-
cotonwool_16.html.
[214] Briga-S A, Nascimento D, Teixeira N, Pinto J, Caldeira F, Varum H, et al.
Textile waste as an alternative thermal insulation building material solution.
Constr Build Mater 2013;38:15560.
[215] Valverde IC, Castilla LH, Nuez DF, Rodriguez-Senn E, de la Mano Ferreira R.
Development of new insulation panels based on textile recycled bers. Waste
Biomass Valoriz 2013;4:13946.
[216] Yarbrough DW, Wikes KE, Olivier PA, Graves RS, Vohra A. Apparent thermal
conductivity data and related information for rice hulls and crushed pecan
shells. Therm Conduct 2005;27:22230.
[217] Vandenbossche V, Rigal L, Saiah R, Perrin B. New agro-materials with thermal
insulation properties. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Sunower
Conference. Mar del Plata, Argentina; 2012. p. 94954.
[218] Goodhew S, Grifths R. Sustainable earth walls to meet the building reg-
ulations. Energy Build 2005;37:4519.
[219] Pruteanu M. Investigations regarding the thermal conductivity of straw. Bul
Inst Polit Iai 2010;3.
[220] Munch-Andersen J, Andersen BM. Straw bale houses design and material
properties. Danish Building and Urban Research, Statens Bygge-
forskningsinstitut; available on line at http://www.sbi.dk/download/pdf/
jma_slides_halmhuse.pdf.
[221] Stec AA, Hull TR. Assessment of the re toxicity of building insulation
materials. Energy Build 2011;43:498506.
[222] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 13344. Estimation of the
lethal toxic potency of re efuents; 2004.
[223] Schmidt AC, Jensen AA, Clausen AU, Kamstrup O, Postlethwaite D. A com-
parative life cycle assessment of building insulation products made of stone
wool, paper wool and ax. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2004;9(2):1229.
[224] Asdrubali F. The role of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the design of sus-
tainable buildings: thermal and sound insulating materials. In: Proceedings
of Euronoise 2009. Edinburg, Scotland.
[225] Asdrubali F. Survey on the acoustical properties of new sustainable materials
for noise control. In: Proceedings of Euronoise 2006. Tampere, Finland.
[226] Bribian IZ, Capilla AV, Aranda Urison A. Life cycle assessment of building
materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and
evaluation of the eco-efciency improvement potential. Build Environ
2011;46:113340.