ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of the stabilized waste soil properties and stabilization mechanism of phosphogypsum-fly ash-steel slag based cement versus Portland cement.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gel-Dominated Microstructural Evolution and Strength Development in Phosphogypsum-Based PRBA Systems for Road Base Applications.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Through physical and chemical reactions in the presence of phosphogypsum, steel slag and fly ash modify the load-bearing skeleton and fill the pores of the wasted soil, resulting in high-strength performance. Extensive experiments that compared Portland cement with phosphogypsum-fly ash-steel slag-based cement (PFS cement) revealed that the later-stage unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of PFS cement exceeded that of Portland cement by approximately 33.18%. In terms of the stress-strain curve, the maximum stress and yield strength of PFS cement-stabilized waste soil were 40% to 50% higher than those of Portland cement. In the dry-wet cycle resistance experiment, PFS cement-stabilized waste soil showed a compressive strength increase of 15.17% over Portland cement. Furthermore, during the freeze-thaw cycle test, PFS cement-stabilized waste soil demonstrated a 29.95% higher performance compared to Portland cement. When used as a solidifying agent, PFS cement exhibits significant advantages over Portland cement in backfilling for underground engineering, trenches, roadbeds, bridge abutments, and road base layers.
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.