Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35364790›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022

A review of cementitious alternatives within the development of environmental sustainability associated with cement replacement.

Hussam Alghamdi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hussam AlghamdiDepartment of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, P.O.Box 800, Riyadh, 11421, Saudi Arabia. hsghamdi@ksu.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7348-9420

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The environmental conditions of sustainable improvement in manufacturing consist of the application of secondary raw materials in the design and structure of new structures. Presently, the demand to construct new structures is growing rapidly, especially in the developed world. All of the construction and demolition (C&D) waste is deposited in open landfills in easily reachable spaces, which leads to numerous environmental problems. The utilization of this waste in concrete will help in sustainable and greener development. The main goals of using waste, by-products, and recycled materials to develop sustainable concrete are to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which are a cause of environmental pollution and climate change, and to enhance exploitation of waste, which creates problems of disposal that can be solved by completely or partially replacing concrete components. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the published literature on the replacement of cement in concrete such as rice husk ash (RHA), olive stone biomass ash (OBA), recycled coal bottom ash (CBA), and recycled palm oil fuel ash (POFA), and its effects on the characteristics of concrete like workability, density, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, shrinkage, and durability. Also, this paper aims to review the impact of the replacement of cement on sustainability. The author has also included recommendations for future research.

Indexed as

Coal AshConstruction MaterialsCoalPalm OilRecyclingCoalCoal AshPalm OilCementCoal bottom ashConstruction and demolitionEnvironmental developmentOlive stone ashPalm oil fuel ashReplacementRice husk ashSustainable concrete

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.