ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Experimental Evaluation of Sheep Wool Fibres as Sustainable Reinforcement in Eco-Friendly Cement Mortars.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sheep wool is a low-value agricultural by-product with potential to contribute to more sustainable cementitious materials. This study investigates Segureña sheep wool fibres as reinforcement in cement mortars, comparing washed wool (W) and cement-encapsulated wool (E) at the same oven-dry raw wool dosages (0.5, 1.0, and 3.0 g per batch), and benchmarking against polypropylene (PP) fibres. Flexural and compressive strength were evaluated at 1, 7, and 28 days, whereas apparent density, water absorption, and thermal conductivity were assessed at 28 days. An intermediate dosage (1.0 g per batch) provided the most favourable mechanical response, while the highest dosage (3.0 g per batch) reduced performance, plausibly due to dispersion limitations and void formation. At 28 days, W-1 reached 9.65 ± 0.50 MPa in flexure (very close to PP-1) and 59.70 ± 1.05 MPa in compression, exceeding PP-1 in compression. Wool incorporation also reduced apparent density and yielded an observed reduction in thermal conductivity of up to ~18% at the highest dosage (single specimen per series). Overall, optimally dosed washed wool can deliver competitive mechanical performance while improving thermal behaviour, supporting circular-economy valorisation of waste wool in eco-mortars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.