Cardboard, shredded · P. ostreatus (SCL/SCH)
✓ Reviewed content
Pleurotus ostreatus (Strain 123) · Penn State University, Department of Architecture (US)
Recipe
How this sample was made, step by step · total growth 28 days-
1
Substrate
- 84.75 wt%
- Waste cardboard, shredded
- 15.25 wt%
- Wheat bran
- Pre-treatment
- shredded with an office shredder; sorted (unsoiled only)
-
2
Sterilisation
- Method
- Autoclaving
- Details
- 121 °C, 45 min (PP autoclave bags, cooled overnight)
-
3
Inoculation
- Fungus
- Pleurotus ostreatus · Strain 123
- Inoculum
- Substrate spawn
- Rate
- 10 wt%
- Water content
- 65 %
-
4
Pre-growth
12 days- Where
- bag / container
-
5
Growth in mould
16 days- Mould
- acrylic formworks 250 × 125 × 38 mm, disinfected with 70 % ethanol, covered with plastic wrap
- Temperature
- 24 °C
- Humidity
- 99 % RH
-
6
Inactivation
- Method
- Oven drying
- Temperature
- 90 °C
- Duration
- 24 h
-
7
Specimen & testing
- Geometry
- discs Ø 100 mm (low frequencies) and Ø 29 mm (high frequencies), 38 mm thick; cut with a band saw and sanded
- Measurements
- 7
Pre-growth 12 daysGrowth in mould 16 days
Steps marked “not reported” were not stated in the source. Suggest missing details
Shredded waste cardboard with wheat bran; candidate for acoustic panels.
Measurements
Acoustics
| Property | Value | n | Test standard | Conditions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sound absorption coefficient at 1000 Hz | 0.6891 ± 0.26 – | 6 | ASTM E1050-12 (impedance tube, two-microphone method, Brüel & Kjær type 4206) | specimen thickness 38 mm, no air gap impedance tube Ø 100 mm |
edit |
| Sound absorption coefficient at 125 Hz | 0.0698 ± 0.02 – | 6 | ASTM E1050-12 (impedance tube, two-microphone method, Brüel & Kjær type 4206) | specimen thickness 38 mm, no air gap impedance tube Ø 100 mm |
edit |
| Sound absorption coefficient at 250 Hz | 0.1609 ± 0.07 – | 6 | ASTM E1050-12 (impedance tube, two-microphone method, Brüel & Kjær type 4206) | specimen thickness 38 mm, no air gap impedance tube Ø 100 mm |
edit |
| Sound absorption coefficient at 500 Hz | 0.5116 ± 0.17 – | 6 | ASTM E1050-12 (impedance tube, two-microphone method, Brüel & Kjær type 4206) | specimen thickness 38 mm, no air gap impedance tube Ø 100 mm |
edit |
| Sound absorption coefficient at 2000 Hz | 0.4934 ± 0.07 – | 9 | ASTM E1050-12 (impedance tube, two-microphone method, Brüel & Kjær type 4206) | specimen thickness 38 mm, no air gap impedance tube Ø 29 mm |
edit |
| Sound absorption coefficient at 4000 Hz | 0.5731 ± 0.07 – | 9 | ASTM E1050-12 (impedance tube, two-microphone method, Brüel & Kjær type 4206) | specimen thickness 38 mm, no air gap impedance tube Ø 29 mm |
edit |
| Mean sound absorption coefficient (125–4000 Hz) | 0.42 – | ASTM E1050-12 (impedance tube, two-microphone method, Brüel & Kjær type 4206) | specimen thickness 38 mm, no air gap mean of the six octave bands (Table 5); ≥ 0.2 counts as sound-absorbing |
edit |
Production
Substrate mix
- 84.75 %
- Waste cardboard, shredded
- 15.25 %
- Wheat bran
Fungus & inoculation
- Fungus
- Pleurotus ostreatus (Strain 123)
- Inoculum type
- Substrate spawn
- Inoculation rate [wt%]
- 10
- Water content at inoculation [%]
- 65
- Sterilisation
- Autoclaving
- Sterilisation – details
- 121 °C, 45 min (PP autoclave bags, cooled overnight)
Growth
- Pre-growth (bag) [days]
- 12
- Growth in mould [days]
- 16
- Temperature [°C]
- 24
- Relative humidity [%]
- 99
- Mould / mould material
- acrylic formworks 250 × 125 × 38 mm, disinfected with 70 % ethanol, covered with plastic wrap
Post-processing
- Inactivation
- Oven drying
- Inactivation – temperature [°C]
- 90
- Inactivation – duration [h]
- 24
Specimen
- Specimen geometry
- discs Ø 100 mm (low frequencies) and Ø 29 mm (high frequencies), 38 mm thick; cut with a band saw and sanded
Notes
Recipe: 100 g dry material, 185 g water, 18 g wheat bran (the text also states “10 % (w/w)” bran – shares here calculated from the gram values). Growth room 24 ± 1 °C, 99 % RH. After demoulding dried with a fan for 2 days, then 24 h at 90 °C.
Community feedback
Is something wrong or confirmed by your own tests? Mark the experiment as ✓ correct or ✗ not correct and explain why.
No comments yet.