## 3 Results
### Termite Resistance  
All controls presented a strong attack degree classified as a four (strong attack) and survival rates higher than 50%, which validated the termite attack test [32]. Both termites were able to cross all materials tested, with the wood exhibiting a high degree of attack (classified as a four; Figure 4), except for MW, that exhibited an average attack when exposed to _R. fawipes_ (Table 3).  
Figure 3: Aspects of some samples at the end of the fungal tests. (**a**) Expanded cork agglomerate exposed to _A. niger_ and _P. funiculosum_ (**left**) and to _A. pullulans_ (**right**). (**b**) Expanded polystyrene EPS-C (**left**) and EPS-S (**right**) submitted to natural indoor inoculation. (**c**) Mineral wool exposed to _A. niger_ and _P. funiculosum_ (**left**) and to _A. pullulans_ (**right**). The arrows and the dotted circles indicate fungal growth.  
Both termite species' survival rates were affected by the type of insulation material used (F = 9.063; \(p<0.001\) for _R. grassei_, and F = 11.220; \(p<0.001\) for _R. flavipes_, respectively). Both species were negatively affected by the wood/glass fiber (WGF) material, as shown in Figure 5, where the boxplots of the survival rate values of termites belonging to this species show lower values in comparison with termites in contact with other insulation materials. _R. flavipes_ was not able to become established on the wood/glass fiber material, which was reflected in the lower average attack degree verified (n = 3.0 \(\pm\) 1.0; Table 3). For _R. flavipes_, significantly lower survival rates, compared to the control (Figure 5), were obtained not only when in contact with the WGF (\(p=0.006\)), but also with the coconut fiber (\(p=0.027\)) and mineral wool (\(p=0.006\)). This was the only material in which _R. grassei_ showed a significantly lower performance regarding survival rate in comparison to the control (\(p<0.001\)), also shown in Figure 5.  
The results obtained for EPS-S and EPS-C presented no significant differences between each other for both species, leading to the conclusion that these commercially available insulation materials presented similar crossing susceptibilities for the termites in each respective test.  
Figure 4: Test specimen of EPS-C (expanded polystyrene) with termites (_Reticulitermes grassei_) clearly crossing the insulation material.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & _Reticulitermes grayscale_ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{_Reticulitermes flavipes_} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Survival Rate (\%)** & **Attack Degree** & **Survival Rate (\%)** & **Attack Degree** \\ \hline Control & 74.0 \(\pm\) 6.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 56.9 \(\pm\) 6.6 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ Coconut fiber & 73.3 \(\pm\) 4.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 24.1 \(\pm\) 3.9 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ Co & 68.5 \(\pm\) 22.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 58.7 \(\pm\) 4.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ EPS-C & 75.1 \(\pm\) 14.6 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 51.3 \(\pm\) 8.0 \({}^{\text{ac}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ EPS-S & 75.1 \(\pm\) 10.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 61.6 \(\pm\) 7.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ WGF & 12.4 \(\pm\) 17.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 16.8 \(\pm\) 12.1 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 3.0 \(\pm\) 1.0 \\ MW & 68.8 \(\pm\) 4.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 16.7 \(\pm\) 21.4 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: different letters in the same column represent significant differences among survival rate values for each subterranean termite species.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Results of the insulation materials’ (control, coconut fiber, expanded cork (Co), EPS-C, EPS-S, WGF, and mineral wool (MW)) susceptibility to subterranean termites: _Reticulitermes grassei_ and R. flavipes_.