## 3 Results and Discussion
One should take into account the fact that the obtained thermo-physical parameters were measured on dried samples only and the exposure of the studied materials to the real operations conditions of buildings will partially reduce their thermal insulation capability because of the presence of adsorbed water vapor molecules. The resulting values of water transport properties are shown in Table 9. In the water sorptivity test, samples with inner (IH) and surface (LO) hydrophobic treatment were examined. Unfortunately, the water suction experiment was not conducted for control R-MOC composite without any hydrophobic treatment because the samples in contact with water deteriorated by the excessive moisture presence. As the specimens exhibited volume changes and cracking, it was not possible to evaluate the measured data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & \(\mathbf{\lambda}\) **(W**-**m\({}^{-1}\)**-K\({}^{-1}\))** & \(\mathbf{SD}\) & \(\mathbf{C_{v}}\) **(\(\mathbf{\times 10^{6}}\) J**-**m\({}^{-3}\)**-K\({}^{-1}\))** & \(\mathbf{SD}\) \\ \hline R-MOC & 2.09 & 0.007 & 1.75 & 0.03 \\ EPP-MOC & 0.34 & 0.009 & 1.53 & 0.03 \\ EPP-MOC-IH & 0.35 & 0.001 & 1.55 & 0.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SD—standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Thermal performance of lightweight MOC composites. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Material** & \(\mathbf{A}\) **(kg**\(\cdot\)**m\({}^{-2}\)**.g**\({}^{-1}\)/2)** & \(\mathbf{S}\) **(m\({}^{2}\)**-s**\({}^{-1}\)/2)** \\ \hline R-MOC-LO & \(0.0002\pm 5\times 10^{-6}\) & \(2.00\times 10^{-7}\pm 5\times 10^{-9}\) \\ EPP-MOC-LO & \(0.0007\pm 2\times 10^{-5}\) & \(6.51\times 10^{-7}\pm 2\times 10^{-8}\) \\ EPP-MOC-IH & \(0.0014\pm 3\times 10^{-5}\) & \(1.35\times 10^{-6}\pm 3\times 10^{-8}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Water transport properties of MOC composites with inner and surface hydrophobic treatment. The values of liquid water transport properties for all tested materials were very low. The reference MOC composite had the lowest water absorption among the samples tested. The increased porosity of the MOC composites with EPP (Table 6) resulted in a higher water absorption coefficient and water sorptivity. Comparing EPP-MOC samples having inner and surface hydrophobic treatment, the water absorption coefficient was lower for samples treated with boiled linseed oil. However, inner hydrophobic agent provided water-repellent effect both on the surface and in the entire material treated. No data on hygric properties of MOC cement composites for comparison of our results were found in common literature sources. Generally, hydrophobic treatment significantly affects the water transport properties. For the Portland cement-based composites having porosity of 14.0%, which is similar to R-MOC sample (13.4%), [PERSON] et al. [32] reported on the water absorption coefficient of 0.0347 kg\(\cdot\)m\({}^{-2}\cdot\)s\({}^{-1/2}\) which was more than two orders of magnitude higher than measured for R-MOC-LO. This comparison clearly validated high effectiveness of both inner and surface hydrophobization. Based on that high resistance to moisture attack can be estimated for MOC cement composites treated with the tested chemical additives. Table 10 shows the water vapor transmission parameters of the investigated MOC cement composites. The water vapor transmission experiments were done on samples without any hydrophobic treatment and on samples with inner and surface hydrophobic treatment. Comparing the MOC composites without hydrophobisation, the water vapor diffusion coefficient of EPP-MOC was about 10% higher than that of the R-MOC sample. The surface treatment with boiled linseed oil reduced the water vapor diffusion coefficient by almost 43% and 12% for reference sample and sample with EPP, respectively.