ArticlePolymers2025
Phosphogypsum and Borogypsum as Additives for Sustainable and High-Performance 3D-Printable Concrete.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Strength Enhancement of 3D-Printed Phosphogypsum Concrete Based on Synergistic Activation of Multi-Solid Wastes.Materials (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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
3D-printable concretes often require high binder content. This study evaluates the use of industrial gypsum by-products, phosphogypsum (PG) and borogypsum (BG), as partial cement replacements to enhance sustainability without compromising printability. PG and BG were incorporated at 2.5-10 wt% to replace the gypsum fraction in cement-based mortars containing fly ash (FA) or ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), with and without fibers. The fresh properties (spread flow diameter, open time, air content, density, and pH) and compressive strength were measured. At 28 days, the highest strength was achieved with a 7.5% PG addition to the GGBS system (~51 MPa), which exceeded the strength of the GGBS control C1 (~47.6 MPa). In the FA system, 2.5% PG reached 42.5 MPa, comparable to the FA control C2 (41.2 MPa). BG caused pronounced strength penalties at ≥7.5% across both binder systems, indicating a practical BG ceiling of ≤5%. Open time increased from ~0.75 h in the controls to ~2-2.5 h in BG-FA mixes with fibers, whereas PG mixes generally maintained a stable, printable window close to control levels. Overall, adding 5-7.5% PG, particularly in the presence of GGBS, improved mechanical performance without compromising workability. However, BG should be limited to ≤5% unless extended open time is the primary objective. These findings provide quantitative guidance on selecting PG/BG dosages and FA/GGBS systems to balance strength and printability in cement-based, 3D-printable concretes.
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.