SCOPE & LIMITATIONS
● For our scope, we will be using locally sourced bamboo fibers from Santa Cruz, Laguna,
cornstarch, and Part A Ecofoam AP 100 10-BA (Polyol blend) and Part B Ecofoam Polymeric
MDI supplied by SEA Olympus Marketing, Inc. in the three specified ratios.
● Produced samples are sized 15 cm × 15 cm × 1.5 cm for each formulation.
● And will undergo thermal conductivity (ASTM C177), water absorption (ASTM C272), and
density (ASTM D1622), with comparative analysis against commercial polyurethane foam.
● As for the limitations, our study was confined to laboratory-scale samples and short-term
testing.
and now we will be discussing the RESULTS of the study
Thermal Conductivity Test (ASTM C177) – Table 4.4
● The test checks how much of that heat actually makes it through the insulation.
● Specimens were heated for 12 minutes, with temperatures recorded every 2 minutes.
● Average temperature change (ΔT):
○ Ratio A: 76.8 K
○ Ratio B: 78.24 K
○ Ratio C: 82.8 K
● Thermal conductivity values (W/(m·K)):
○ Ratio A: 0.0528
○ Ratio B: 0.04936
○ Ratio C: 0.04006
● All values are below ASTM C177 limit of 0.24 W/(m·K) → all specimens demonstrated low
thermal conductivity, confirming their potential as functional thermal insulators.
● Key Insight: Ratio A has the highest conductivity (least efficient), while Ratio C has the
lowest conductivity (most efficient).
● And these are the photos of the thermal conductivity test from the testing center
Thermal Conductivity test
● Hot Side: This is the surface where controlled heat is applied.
○ Its role is to create a temperature difference across the specimen.
○ It simulates the “warm environment” the insulation would face in real-world use.
○ Hot side = the sun heating your roof.
● Cold Side: This is the opposite surface, kept cooler.
○ Its role is to receive the heat that passes through the specimen.
○ It simulates the “cool environment” or the space being protected.
○ Cold side = the inside of your house.
Water Absorption Test (ASTM C272) – Table 4.5
● The test measures how much water a specimen absorbs when fully submerged for 24
hours and it simulates worst‑case exposure conditions (like flooding, leaks, or prolonged
contact with moisture).
● The result is expressed as a percentage increase in weight or volume due to absorbed
water and the absorption percentages: 212.3% – 521.40%.
● Other studies that are also using ASTM C272 on commercial rigid foams typically show <5%
absorption.
● Key Insight: All tested samples far exceed allowable limits, indicating poor water
resistance despite good insulation properties.
● In comparison: specifically, based on a study of Fariz et al. (2020) reported 2–8%
absorption for pu foam.
● High absorption can lead to:
○ Loss of insulation efficiency (water conducts heat better than air).
○ Structural weakening (swelling, warping, or degradation).
○ Reduced lifespan in real applications.
Density Test (ASTM D1622) – Table 4.6
According to ASTM D1622, the apparent density of rigid cellular plastics is calculated by dividing the
measured mass of the specimen by its volume.
● Ratios tested:
○ A (65:5:30) → Density: 0.3081 g/cc
○ B (50:10:40) → Density: 0.2726 g/cc
○ C (40:15:45) → Density: 0.2341 g/cc
● Volume of specimens: constant at 337.5 cc.
● Mass differences:
○ Ratio A: 9244.44 g
○ Ratio B: 8177.77 g
○ Ratio C: 7022.22 g
● Key Insight: Higher proportion of the primary component → greater mass and density.
More secondary components → lower density.
● Density: Directly linked to composition; denser samples (Ratio A) show higher mass due to
more primary components.
In insulation studies, density affects:
● Thermal performance (denser materials may conduct heat differently).
● Mechanical strength (denser foams are usually stronger and more rigid).
● And these are the photos of the mass of each ratio we obtained
COMPARISON TO CONVENTIONAL POLYMER FOAM
Thermal Conductivity (ASTM C177)
● All recorded data are below the ASTM limit of 0.24 W/(m·K) → passed insulators.
● However, commercial polyurethane (PU) foams perform better, with lower conductivity
values of 0.020–0.028 W/(m·K).
● Key Point: Bamboo foams insulate as intended but still conduct more heat than PU foams.
Water Absorption (ASTM C272).
● They suffer from very high water absorption, limiting durability.
● In contrast, specifically, based on a study of Fariz et al. (2020) reported 2–8% absorption for
pu foam.
● Key Point: Bamboo foams show poor water resistance, which is a major limitation
compared to conventional foams.
Density Comparison
● Implication: Bamboo foams are heavier, denser, and stronger in compressive strength,
while PU foams are lighter, highly porous, and less firm.
To summarize the comparison,
● Bamboo‑based foams are functional insulators, comparable but not superior to PU
foams or industry benchmarks.
● Their higher density makes them stronger but heavier.
● With further optimization, bamboo foams could become a sustainable alternative to
commercial insulation materials.
Now, let us turn to the CONCLUSION of the study
1. Performance Across Tests
○ Thermal Conductivity: All ratios performed as reliable insulators, meeting ASTM
C177 limit (<0.24 W/(m·K)).
○ But in Water Absorption: it absorbed very high amounts of moisture during the
test, making them unsuitable for applications requiring low water absorption. Ratio A
showed the lowest absorption but still exceeded allowable limits.
○ In terms of Density: Ratio A, with the highest bamboo fiber content, recorded the
greatest density and mass, making it heavier than commercial polymer foams.
2. Comparison with Commercial Polymer Foams
○ Conventional foams still outperform bamboo foams in thermal conductivity (lower
values), while bamboo foams, however, demonstrate higher density and strength
○ With further formulation improvements and moisture protection, bamboo foams
can be developed into a competitive sustainable insulator.
3. Cost Efficiency
○ Bamboo‑based foam is more affordable, priced at ₱1,533.96, which is ₱523.04
cheaper than commercial polymer foam (₱2,057.00) and this price gap highlights its
economic practicality while still delivering functional insulation performance.
4. Profitability and Production Potential
○ The study shows bamboo‑based foam production is cost‑effective and profitable,
with a Return on Investment of 40.6%, with projected annual earnings: ₱63 million
In conclusion, bamboo-based foams can serve as a sustainable and cost-effective
alternative to commercial polymer thermal insulators. They provide comparable thermal
insulation performance while reducing reliance on petroleum-based materials. The study
demonstrates that locally abundant bamboo can be transformed into eco-friendly
insulation, contributing to both environmental sustainability and economic profitability.
However, moisture sensitivity remains a challenge, and further improvements are
needed to enhance durability under humid conditions.
And in the final section, let’s proceed to RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the researchers hereby recommend that
future research focus on:
1. Improve moisture resistance using protective coating.
To enhance the durability and performance of the bamboo-based foam insulator, it is recommended to
apply a hydrophobic or waterproof protective coating. This will minimize water absorption, reduce the
risk of swelling or degradation, and extend the material’s service life in humid or rainy environments.
● Protective coatings such as elastomeric waterproofing or nano-ceramic sprays can be
considered depending on the scale of application—consumer-grade sprays for small
prototypes, and industrial-grade coatings for construction use..
2. Provision of formulation for better insulation performance.
Further refinement of the foam formulation is advised to optimize thermal resistance and mechanical
stability. Adjusting the ratio of bamboo fibers, binders, and additives may yield improved insulation
values while maintaining cost-effectiveness. This step ensures that the product not only meets local
climate demands but also aligns with industry standards for insulation materials.
3. Conduct other mechanical or performance tests.
Beyond thermal and moisture resistance, additional tests should be performed to fully evaluate the
material’s potential. These tests will also help identify areas for improvement and validate the
product’s competitiveness against existing insulation materials.