ArticleScientific reports2025
Bacterial wollastonite concrete for sustainable high performance construction.
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 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.
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
This study explores the mechanical, microstructural, and non-destructive properties of concrete incorporating microbial consortia, specifically ureolytic and non-ureolytic variants, at concentrations of 10⁹ and 10⁵ cells/ml across water-to-binder (w/b) ratios of 0.45, 0.4, and 0.35. Wollastonite was introduced as a mineral additive at substitution levels of 5%, 10%, and 15%, with performance declining beyond the optimal substitution threshold. After 28 days of curing, specimens with a higher consortium concentration (10⁹ cells/ml) exhibited compressive strength enhancements of 27.20%, 23%, and 22.31% for 5%, 10%, and 15% wollastonite incorporation, respectively, compared to the control. In contrast, the lower consortium concentration (10⁵ cells/ml) resulted in compressive strength improvements of 41.45%, 39.35%, and 31.07% for the corresponding substitution levels, indicating the efficacy of the lower consortium to develop strength properties at a younger age. Flexural strength followed a similar trend, with increases of 25%, 16.15%, and 25%, respectively. Notably, the lower consortium concentration (10⁵ cells/ml) provided superior mechanical performance compared to the higher concentration (10⁹ cells/ml) due to the lower cell density and biofilm formation. Non-destructive evaluations, including Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV > 4.5 km/sec) and rebound number above 40, confirmed the enhanced quality of the concrete. Regression analysis exhibited strong correlations (R² values) between compressive strength, flexural strength, split tensile strength, UPV, and rebound number. Microstructural analyses employing SEM-EDS, XRD, and FTIR spectroscopy remarked significant calcite deposition, leading to matrix densification and improved durability. The embodied energy evaluation significantly underscores the inclusion of wollastonite, a low-energy and low-emission calcium silicate mineral, significantly enhancing eco-efficiency by partially replacing cement. At the same time, the bacterial consortium promotes self-healing and durability with minimal environmental impact. These findings highlight the potential of microbial-wollastonite-based concrete as a sustainable and high-performance material for modern construction applications.
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.