ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative analysis of nanocoated expanded polystyrene for sustainable infrastructure applications.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Engineers increasingly face challenges due to the demand for sustainable infrastructure; thus, this research evaluates different road embankment techniques based on sustainability. It compares the environmental impacts and economic feasibility of three road embankment techniques: using traditional soil backfilling, using expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam blocks with geomembrane protection, and using EPS blocks coated with a newly developed nanocoating material. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) methods are employed to measure the potential environmental loads and economic viability of a real-world twin-bay tunnel project. LCA has been performed with SimaPro software and using ReCiPe endpoint method. The findings indicate that EPS coated with nanocoating material has the lowest environmental impact and cost, with LCA single score of 1.06 MPt and cost reductions of about 14.5% and 27.48% compared to EPS with geomembrane and soil backfilling, respectively. Traditional soil backfilling has the highest environmental impact with a single score of 2.52 MPt. In comparison, EPS with geomembrane has a single score of 2.477 MPt offering a 15.17% cost reduction compared to soil backfilling. Sensitivity analysis concludes that the required amount of reinforced concrete for the tunnel significantly impacts the results. The outcomes support sustainable decision-making for infrastructure solutions.
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.