4.2. Internal Structure and Porosity
Figure 5 reports one sample for each composite and its internal structures, showing both transverse and longitudinal sections, acquired from ImageJ/Fiji software. For a more precise comparison, the same sections were considered for each sample. Among all the frames, the middle one (i.e., ½ of the total number of frames) and the quarter ones (¼ and ¾ of the total number of frames) were reported. This allowed showing the successive sections of the internal structure, simplifying it.
These results provide a visual evaluation of the homogeneity of the samples and the internal configurations of the aggregate–adhesive combinations. Indeed,
Figure 5 shows the sizes and shapes of the voids, the possible connections between the internal voids, the orientations of the aggregates, and the distributions of the sodium silicate solution. In both the transverse and longitudinal sections, the white parts represent the sodium silicate; the grey parts represent the aggregates; and the black parts (inside the samples) represent the voids.
The differences between the internal structures of the composites were more pronounced along their thickness (h = 4 cm). The hazelnut-shell-based samples seemed more homogeneous than the
A. donax-based ones. For these, the sodium silicate (the white parts in
Figure 5) was mainly on the bottom side (the one in contact with the mold during the production process). This is in line with the expectation, as the optimization of the production process was defined by considering hazelnut shells [
31]. Furthermore, the differences between samples were coherent with the values of the standard deviation of the apparent density (
Section 4.1).
Evident differences were found between the shapes of voids and aggregates, which determined different internal connections. The contribution of the sodium silicate solution’s distribution significantly affected the type of porosity. As represented in Mati-Baouche et al.’s study [
68], the combination of the adhesive–aggregate produced solid, closed pores, open pores, dead-end pores, dead-end clusters, and, hence, kinematic porosity, and dead-end porosity (properties mainly considered in the acoustic field).
Table 3 reports the results of the internal porosity of each composite sample, the average values, and the standard deviation (SD).
The composites showed similar percentages of solids/voids, with a variation of only 5%. Hence, the porosity seemed to be determined by the mixture of the bio-aggregate–adhesive rather than by the type of bio-aggregate. The latter seemed to influence mainly the shape and size of voids, their connections, and the tortuosity. The standard deviation related to the average value was low (with a maximum of 5%). Hence, the reproducibility was good: similar results were achieved for the three replications.
The evaluated porosity was considered “macroporosity” as the percentage of macropores, determined by the arrangement of the shredded bio-aggregates [
62,
68], was provided. The large sizes of pores were determined by the aggregate grain size, between 4 and 8 mm (
Section 2.1). Further analysis could be performed to define the other types of porosity, as discussed in
Section 4.5.
The quantification of the percentages of solids/voids was a starting point for the analysis of further characteristics of the internal structures of the samples. Certainly, in addition to the number of voids, their shapes, their connections, and the tortuosity influenced the final performance of the composites, as discussed in the following sections.
4.3. Hygroscopicity Properties
Figure 6 shows the moisture adsorption/desorption content curves of the materials for four adsorption/desorption cycles. Three samples for each aggregate (i.e., three samples of
A. donax (AA), three of hazelnut shells (HH), and three of the mixture of
A. donax and hazelnut shells (AAHH)), and four samples of sodium silicate (S) were considered and reported. To provide a clearer representation, the same color and style of lines were considered for the same tested material.
The differences between the moisture content values for each material become more marked along the cycles. Indeed, at the beginning of the test (12 h and 24 h), the curves achieved values that varied within ±0.03 kg/m
2; at the end (84 h and 96 h), the range increased (±0.06 kg/m
2). As for the curves, all the materials showed similar behavior.
A. donax (both alone and mixed with the hazelnut shells) stabilized earlier than the others, having similar values during the four testing days. Meanwhile, for both the hazelnut shells and the dried sodium silicate solution, the curve increased during the test, demonstrating a higher moisture storage capacity, more markedly for the sodium silicate. Indeed, the sodium silicate solution achieved the highest values of moisture adsorption and desorption content for all cycles, followed by the hazelnut shells, and then by
A. donax and the mixture of the two aggregates. These results are in line with the expectation, as sodium silicate is known to be highly hygroscopic [
44,
48].
Considering the values of moisture adsorption () for each cycle (average values), the hazelnut shells achieved the highest values, with a between 0.048 kg/m2 and 0.066 kg/m2. A. donax achieved the lowest values, with a between 0.024 kg/m2 and 0.038 kg/m2. The same was found for the moisture desorption content (): the hazelnut shells showed the highest values, with a between 0.057 kg/m2 and 0.059 kg/m2, and A. donax showed the lowest ones, with a between 0.034 kg/m2 and 0.037 kg/m2. The moisture content difference, , for the bio-aggregates decreased after the first cycle, differently from the sodium silicate solution, for which the increased during the test: 0.003 kg/m2 after the first cycle, 0.006 kg/m2 after the second, 0.009 kg/m2 after the third, and, finally, 0.005 kg/m2. This shows that the sodium silicate stored the moisture, and its sorption capacity increased.
Cintura et al. [
28] evaluated the hygroscopicity of some agro-industrial wastes, including hazelnut shells, using the same test method. Although the researchers achieved higher values for both the sorption and desorption moisture content, the trend of the curve was similar, and the hazelnut shells showed a moisture storage capacity. The differences between the values could be determined by the different types of hazelnut shells (their physical and chemical properties) as well as the differences in the employed equipment.
Hygroscopicity is strictly related to the chemical and physical properties of the material, including the porosity [
54,
62,
69], as previously reported (
Section 4.2). The results indicate a greater porosity for the hazelnut shells than for
A. donax, which is different from the expectation. Indeed, the results of the loose bulk density (469 kg/m
3 for hazelnut shells [
29] and 181.3 kg/m
3 [
30] for
A. donax) would lead to hypothesize a greater porosity for
A. donax, as the two properties are correlated [
70]. The same for the thermal insulation performance, as
A. donax demonstrated a promising thermal insulation performance [
35,
39], and the two properties are strictly connected [
60,
71]. However, considering only the porosity is too simplifying, as many other parameters affect both the hygroscopicity and the other properties.
As for the dried sodium silicate solution, its high hygroscopicity is derived from its chemical composition. It ensures an easy reaction with water and makes the sodium silicate able to absorb moisture from the environment, as detailed in past research [
38,
48].
Figure 7 shows the moisture adsorption/desorption content curves during the four cycles for the composite samples (i.e., three samples of the
A. donax-based composite (A), three of the hazelnut-shell-based one (H), and three of the mixture-based one (AH)). Again, the same color and style of lines were considered for the samples of the same composite.
The hazelnut-shell-based composite achieved the lowest values of moisture content in the four cycles. The composite made of
A. donax (both alone and combined) reached the highest values. The hygroscopicity depended on the aggregates, the adhesive, and their coupling [
72], as well as the conformation of the composite, namely, the adhesive’s distribution, the porosity, and the grain size of the aggregate [
73]. For this reason, one of the samples of the
A. donax-based composite showed different values: the exposed surface could have had a different distribution of the sodium silicate solution or different aggregate grain sizes. However, considering the average curves, the composites showed similar behavior (similar trends in the moisture adsorption/desorption curves).
None of them reached stability after the four cycles, as the adsorption and desorption moisture contents continued to increase. Indeed, considering the average values, the moisture absorption content, ρA,ac, increased from 0.099 kg/m2 to 0.110 kg/m2 for the hazelnut-shell-based composite (increasing by 11%); from 0.186 kg/m2 to 0.208 kg/m2 for the A. donax-based one (increasing by 12%); and from 0.125 kg/m2 to 0.139 kg/m2 for the mixture-based one (increasing by 11%). The moisture desorption content, ρA,dc, increased from 0.076 kg/m2 to 0.087 kg/m2 for the hazelnut-shell-based composite (increasing by 13%); from 0.160 kg/m2 to 0.173 kg/m2 for the A. donax-based one (increasing by 8%); and from 0.094 kg/m2 to 0.101 kg/m2 for the mixture-based one (increasing by 7%). The moisture content difference, , was between 0.023 kg/m2 and 0.037 kg/m2 for the hazelnut-shell-based composite; between 0.026 kg/m2 and 0.053 kg/m2 for the A. donax-based one; and between 0.031 kg/m2 and 0.045 kg/m2 for the mixture-based one. The highest values of moisture content difference were achieved during the third cycle for all composites. After this cycle, the samples started to stabilize.
To investigate in more detail the correlation between the materials and the composites, the average values for all were considered. They are reported in
Figure 8.
These results show the strong influence of the sodium silicate on the final performance. Indeed, by adding the sodium silicate solution, the hygroscopicity and the moisture storage capacity of the bio-aggregates strongly increased. For example, as
Figure 8 shows, considering the last cycle, from values of moisture content between 0.03 kg/m
2 and 0.06 kg/m
2 after 84 h for the bio-aggregates, the sodium silicate allowed achieving values in the range of 0.20–0.33 kg/m
2 after 84 h. The moisture content difference,
, increased, too. This is in line with past studies that demonstrated that the adhesives (binder/glue) strongly affected the final properties of the composites [
19,
21,
60]. The advantage here, in comparison with other more common binders, is that the sodium silicate solution has a significative positive effect on the hygroscopic capacity.
Comparing the hygroscopicity of the raw materials and the composites, there was no correspondence. Indeed, the most hygroscopic raw materials (hazelnut shells) did not produce the most hygroscopic composite (which was the
A. donax-based one). Hence, a correlation between the aggregates and composites cannot be defined. This was caused by the combination of the sodium silicate–aggregate, in particular, by the different sodium silicate distributions on the exposed surfaces. Indeed, according to
Figure 5, the
A. donax-based samples had a greater amount of sodium silicate on one side, and this could have significantly affected their hygroscopic behavior. The results and the practical experience suggest that the greater the surface area covered by sodium silicate, the greater the capacity to absorb moisture. Furthermore, the mismatch between the materials and composites demonstrates, again, the strong influence of the adhesive on the performance of the final composites. It is important to underline that the sodium silicate distribution in the composites was assessed only qualitatively, and further analysis should be carried out. However, the results already indicate this correlation between the two properties.
Table 4 reports the moisture buffering values and the classification, following Rode et al. [
64], for both the materials—considering the aggregates and adhesive individually—and the composites (with the average values of the last three cycles and standard deviation), calculated as described in Equations (4) and (5) (
Section 3.3).
Considering the materials, both the
A. donax and the dried sodium silicate solution were rated as good. Hence, they had lower MBVs than the hazelnut shells. Coherently, the addition of
A. donax to the hazelnut shells resulted in a lower MBV. As for the sodium silicate result, a higher value of MBV was expected. However, this result was evaluated by considering the average values between the MBV
a and MBV
d of the last three cycles. Considering these separately, the MBV of the sodium silicate solution was MBV
a = 2.05 ± 0.10 g/(m
2%RH) and MBV
d = 1.79 ± 0.01 g/(m
2%RH). Hence, as expected, the MBV of the sorption phase was higher than that of the desorption phase (
Table 4 reports its average value).
The MBVs of the composites are coherent with the previous results (
Figure 7). Again, the values of
A. donax were influenced by the distribution of the sodium silicate, which determined higher values. As for the mixture, the results are in line with the expectation: the combination of the two materials determined a lowering of the moisture buffering capacity, and then of the MBV.
4.4. Statistical Analysis
Table 5 summarizes the results of the ANOVA (reporting F- and
p-values).
The statistical analysis showed that considering the materials as the variable, the alternative hypothesis was confirmed (F < 1; the
p-value was less than 0.05; and the H0 was false, as described in
Section 3.4) for all. Hence, at least one of the groups was different.
Table 6 reports the
p-values of the post hoc tests, defining where the differences were. Indeed, the
p-values allowed identifying which and how the groups were significantly different from each other. The first two columns show which groups were compared with each other, considering the three composites (A, H, and AH) for all the properties, and also the materials individually (AA, HH, and AAHH) for the hygroscopicity. For easy reading of the results, when the materials (individually) are compared with each other, the results are underlined; when they are compared with the composites, they are underlined.
A. donax is not reported in italics to avoid any confusion.
p-values of less than 0.05 (highlighted in bold in
Table 6) indicated which groups were significantly different. Both for the apparent density and MBV, the results for the
A. donax-based and hazelnut-shell-based composites defined two distinguishable groups. As for the porosity, a significant difference was found between the hazelnut-shell-based composite and the mixture-based one. This confirms the observations reported in the previous section (
Section 4.2): the porosity was determined more by the combination of the sodium silicate–aggregate than by the type of aggregate.
Considering the comparisons between the raw materials for the MBV (the underlined values in
Table 6), they did not determine distinguishable groups (the
p-values were always higher than 0.05). As for the comparison between the materials and composites (values reported in italics in
Table 6), significant differences were always found between the materials (AA, HH, and AAHH) and the
A. donax-based composite (A). This suggests that for the
A. donax-based composite, the sodium silicate solution strongly influenced the final performance. This is in line with the previous results, both for hygroscopicity and internal structure (
Figure 5).
4.5. Additional Discussion
In addition to the considerations and comparisons carried out in the previous sections, further discussions were conducted. These ensured a better understanding of the composites’ properties and materials’ contributions. Moreover, the benefits and drawbacks of the studied composites were pointed out, as well as their possible applications.
Considering the apparent density, as the addition of
A. donax lowered the results of the hazelnut-shell-based composite, this could probably improve the insulation thermal properties, too. Density and thermal conductivity are strictly correlated [
74,
75]. However, this consideration should be verified.
Hygroscopicity, porosity, and internal structure are strictly connected. The porosity includes a large range of pore sizes: macropores derived from the bio-aggregates’ arrangement, mesopores within the aggregates and the adhesive, and the micropores of the aggregates and the adhesive. Even if the present study considered only the macroporosity, all these porosities affected the moisture storage capacity, together with the ratio of the aggregate/adhesive and the grain size [
62,
70]. The moisture sorption/desorption capacity also depends on the surface area available for vapor exchange and other hygroscopic properties [
73].
The porosity and the information about the internal structure could provide a better understanding of many other properties, too. They are strictly connected to the final performance of the composite. In addition to the hygroscopicity [
62], they could influence the sound absorption and thermal insulation [
76,
77].
Considering all the results, it was confirmed that the hygroscopicity depended on both the aggregates and the sodium silicate. The latter more significantly affected the moisture storage capacity. As the percentages of the aggregate–adhesive were the same for all samples, the differences in the results were mainly caused by the sodium silicate distribution. This changed due to the types of aggregates, namely, their physical and chemical properties and their reactions with the adhesive. The statistical analysis confirmed these considerations. For the MBV, the distinguishable groups (
Table 6) were the composites with
A. donax and the sodium silicate solution. According to
Figure 5, these composites showed less homogeneity and a higher amount of sodium silicate on one side of the samples (
Section 4.2).
Bio-aggregates are known to be highly porous and, hence, highly hygroscopic. Knowing their internal structures, too, is useful to understand their properties even better [
54]. However, other types of analysis are more suitable for this purpose, such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP), and sorption techniques. Future studies could consider these laboratory tests to investigate the correlation between these properties on a micro-scale.
High hygroscopicity could be both an advantage and a drawback. Indeed, hygroscopic building materials and products can passively contribute to the control of indoor conditions [
61] and can secure indoor hygrothermal comfort and better indoor air quality [
78,
79], which are extremely important for human health and users’ well-being [
80]. On the other hand, a high moisture storage capacity and moisture content could determine the material’s degradation [
24]. Furthermore, bio-based composites can be easily attacked by microorganisms due to their chemical composition, their organic nature, and their pH [
81,
82]. Apart from the aesthetic impact, a biological attack can lower the durability of composites, affect the materials’ properties, and restrict their performance, modify their chemical compositions, and compromise their natural structures [
83]. Furthermore, biological degradation can affect human health, causing diseases and lowering indoor air quality [
84,
85].
However, sodium silicate has demonstrated good resistance to biological attack [
21] and is known to avoid mold growth and material decomposition [
45,
46,
47]. The present study confirmed this property, as no biological colonization was detected after the hygroscopicity test. Moreover, as moisture storage can be crucial, determining the critical moisture level [
86,
87] could be useful to better define this possible drawback and moderate it. Furthermore, some strategies could improve low moisture resistance, such as the addition of additives, such as phosphorus, boron, or silica fume [
48].
The results suggest that the hazelnut-shell-based and
A. donax-based composites could be employed as indoor coating boards, passively regulating internal conditions, hygrothermal comfort, and energy demand [
73,
88,
89]. These types of building composites could also be useful for the preservation of architectural heritage, namely, vernacular buildings. Being bio-based, the employed materials would be compatible with vernacular architecture’s typical materials. Their high hygroscopicity and moisture buffering capacity would avoid the creation of water vapor barriers, which is crucial to avoid wall and roof degradation. Moreover, by knowing these types of composites’ behaviors, other possibilities could be proposed, which could be suitable for historic architectural heritage, too. A possible effective solution for the bio-based composites could be a superficial application of the sodium silicate solution to both protect the bio-based materials and secure the passive control of indoor hygroscopic conditions. However, this is an idea for future studies, suggested by the analysis of the present study, which should be investigated and confirmed.