8/3/2019 Fiberglass vs Cellulose

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fiberglass-vs-cellulose 1/2

SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON

ne way to compare insulation products is to do a side by side comparison. Here we compare the two most common

nsulation: fber glass and cellulose. The ollowing comparison reveals important dierences between the two productich you should consider beore making a fnal decision.

he ability o fber glass insulation to provide the desiredalue or a given space equals or exceeds the ability o ulose insulation.

ber glass insulation is oered in dierent densities,

wing you to achieve dierent R-values or a given space.

ber glass insulation is made rom sand and other rganic materials which are melted and then spun intos fbers.

ber glass is naturally noncombustible and remains sothe lie o the product. It requires no additional fre-

ardant chemical treatments.

naced fber glass insulation also is recognized by ding code groups as an acceptable fre stop indential wood rame walls. (IRC 2009 R302.11.1)

ber glass insulation products with acings such ast and oil, when installed and in contact with a code

proved thermal barrier, do not pose a fre hazard.

roperly installed fber glass batts and rolls do not settle.er glass loose-fll insulation will experience minimaltling–less than 1% and will hold its R-value over time.

When manuacturers’ installation procedures areployed, fber glass insulation maintains its thermalormance or the lie o the building.

• Cellulose insulation manuacturers promote their products as having a “higher R-value per inch.” This isimply not true given the range o fber glass producavailable.

• Cellulose insulation is made o ground up or shrednewspaper which is naturally combustible. In act, ceinsulation is regulated as a recognized fre hazard by Consumer Product Saety Council (CPSC).3 

• To protect against fre hazards, cellulose insulation heavily treated with fre-retardant chemicals prior to

installation. These fre-retardant chemicals can leach  the cellulose insulation over time.

• Tests conducted by the Caliornia Bureau o HomeFurnishings and Thermal Insulation have demonstratesome cellulose samples ailed the standard fre saetyonly six months ater installation.4 

• Additionally, smoldering combustion and re-ignitionproblems are concerns with cellulose insulation shoufre start.5

• Even properly treated cellulose insulations will burabout 450°F. That’s the surace temperature o a 75light bulb.6

• Cellulose manuacturers agree that their products over time.1 Most set the settling rate at about 20%.

• When the product is not labeled or installed thick the Insulation Contractors Association o America(ICAA) recommends an additional 25% o thicknessadded above the labeled settled thickness.

THERMAL

RESISTANCE

R-VALUE

FIRE SAFETY

FIBER GLASS CELLULOSEPERFORMANCE AREA

SETTLING

AND LOSS OF

R-VALUE

8/3/2019 Fiberglass vs Cellulose

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fiberglass-vs-cellulose 2/2

sulation made o fber glass is not absorbent. Under 

rmal conditions all insulation is exposed to humidity inair. Fiberglass will not wick up and hold water, thus itsts any permanent loss o R-value.

ber glass insulation is not corrosive and contains nomicals that can corrode pipes and wires.

he fber glass insulation industr y recycles billions o unds o pre- and post-consumer glass containers,minating the need or millions o cubic eet o landfllce.

Many fber glass insulation manuacturers have plants thatup to 40% or more recycled materials in their products.

ber glass insulation is one o the most thoroughly ted building materials in use today. The great amount o dical scientifc evidence compiled over more than fty rs by industr y, government and independent researchanizations supports the conclusion that fber glass

ulation is sae to use when manuacturers’ recommended

rk practices are ollowed.

• Studies conducted in Canada, New England and O

demonstrated that wet-spray applications o cellulosinsulation do not achieve their advertised R-value unand may take as long as two months to dry.2 In manywet-spray applications may need to remain uncoverecompletely dry.

• Certain chemicals routinely applied as a fre retard to most cellulose insulation (particularly the sulates)cause the corrosion o pipes, wires and asteners und

some conditions.7

• Cellulose insulation is generally made up o about80% recycled newspapers and 20% fre-retardantchemicals. On the surace, cellulose insulation may ap

 to be the more environmentally acceptable insulatiochoice as it is made rom shredded newspaper. How

it takes three times more cellulose material by weighfber glass to insulate a typical home and that has a dimpact on the environment when you actor in increshipping, transportation and greenhouse gas emissioaddition, an average 1200 square oot attic insulatedR-38 with cellulose insulation would introduce 300 po fre-retardant chemicals into the home.

• Questions about the health and saety aspects o cellulose insulation persist in the building industry becomprehensive medical scientifc testing o the prodhas never been conducted. Repeated requests by unand contractor groups that such testing be undertakhave been ignored.13 Given the high levels o exposu

measured during cellulose installation, only ater resuo long-term experiments are available will it be knoi cellulose insulation is sae to use.

ona ICAA Chapter Request, Insulation Contractors Monthly (May 1995). “Wet-Spray Cellulose - Questions About Drying,” Energy Design Update,1989 Edition, p.1.

ect o Wet-Spray Cellulose on Walls,” Energy Design Update, October 1989, p.3.C.F.R. Part 1209.ornia Bureau o Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, Long-Term Aging Studies on Loose-fll Cellulose Insulation: Part IV 7V (1991).er to Dale Lewis rom Lewis County (Washington State) Public Utility District, March 20, 1991.

ts #30, Insulation and Fire Saety, The North American Insulation Manuacturers Association (NAIMA).rosiveness Testing o Thermal Insulation Materials - A Simulated Field Exposure Study Using a Test Wall, Report ORNL/Sug. 78-7556/4, September 1988.

d Demonstration o Alternative Wall Insulation Products. Prepared or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by NAHB Research Center, Inc., November 1997.eld Study o the Eect o Insulation Types on the Air Tightness o Houses, G.K. Yuill, Ph.D, Pennsylvania State University Department o Architecturalneering, 1996.earch and Development Project, “Maple Acres,” Union Electric, St. Louis, MO. William Conroy, Division Marketing Supervisor, 1995.

ional Research Council o Canada Report, “Gypsum Board Walls: Transmission Loss Data,” March 1998, #761.ona ICAA Chapter Request, Insulation Contractors Monthly (May 1995), and Letter to TSCA Public Docket Ofce rom the Laborers’ Health and

ety Fund o North America (September 23, 1991).

RESISTANCE

TO

CORROSION

USE OF

RECYCLED

MATERIALS

SAFETY

 WATER VAPOR

SORPTION –

MOLD

FIBER GLASS CELLULOSEPERFORMANCE AREA

OWENS CORNING INSULATING SYSTEM

ONE OWENS CORNING PARKWAYTOLEDO, OHIO, USA 43659

1-800-GET-PINKTM

www.owenscorning.com

Pub. No. 10011035. Printed in U.S.A . May 20©2009 Owens Corning.