ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of the effects of Nano-SiO
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Properties, Engineering Applications, and Mechanisms of Yellow River Silt and Sand in Construction Materials: A Comprehensive Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Silica Fume as a Physical Dispersing Agent for Carbon Nanotubes in Cementitious Mortars: Microstructural Mechanisms, Mechanical Performance and Carbon Reduction Efficiency.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of silicon dioxide nanoparticles on the mechanical, acoustic and vibration damping properties of kenaf-fibre polyester composite panels.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Influence of Nanosilica and PVA Fibers on the Mechanical and Deformation Behavior of Engineered Cementitious Composites.Polymers · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Review on the Role of Nanosilica as a Toughening Agent for Enhanced Epoxy Composites for Aerospace Applications.ACS omega · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To conduct a comparative analysis of the impacts of nanosilica (NS) and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) on the mechanical properties of polyethylene fiber-reinforced cementitious composites, seven groups of ECC specimens with different nanomaterial contents were prepared. The uniaxial compression and tensile tests were conducted, the mineral composition of the specimens was analyzed via X-ray diffraction, and the microstructure of the specimens was examined using a scanning electron microscope. The results show that both types of nanomaterials can effectively enhance the mechanical properties of ECC. Meanwhile, the mechanical characteristics of ECC exhibit a pattern of initial increase followed by a decrease as the nanomaterial content rises. NS exhibited superior performance in augmenting the compressive strength and early tensile crack strength of ECC; however, CNTs were more effective in enhancing the peak compressive strain and peak tensile strain of ECC. The difference between NS and CNTs in the enhancement of tensile strength was not significant. NS can consume more CH crystals to generate C-S-H gels to make the matrix material more dense, and can improve the properties of the transition zone at the fibre-gel interface to enhance the strength of ECC. While CNTs can bridge and inhibit crack extension on the micron scale, and can form a fibre mesh structure with PE fibres for more effective stress transfer, and can improve the deformation capacity of ECC on a macroscopic scale.
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.