ArticleScientific reports2025
Transforming waste pharmaceutical blister into sustainable concrete.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing global focus on sustainability and decarbonization has highlighted the urgent need for effective plastic waste management strategies, including their potential reuse in construction materials. Pharmaceutical blister packaging, primarily composed of plastic aluminium laminates, represents a growing post-consumer waste stream, further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased reliance on solid medications. Recycling waste pharmaceutical blisters (WPBs) poses significant challenges; however, its incorporation into concrete offers a sustainable alternative for waste utilization. This study explores the feasibility of using WPB in M30 concrete by developing two mix categories through the absolute volume method: (i) direct addition of WPB (0-30% by weight of sand) and (ii) partial replacement of sand with WPB (5-30%). Compressive strength tests identified 20% substitution as optimal, with mixes achieving 92-95% of control strength. Non-destructive evaluation using the Schmidt Rebound Hammer validated destructive testing results. Water absorption analysis revealed that partial sand replacement provided better resistance compared to direct addition. Furthermore Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analyses of the optimum mix after 90 days confirmed well-developed hydration products and strong interfacial bonding between WPB fibers and the cementitious matrix. The results demonstrate that WPB can be effectively utilized in low-strength concrete, providing a promising solution for pharmaceutical waste management while contributing to circular economy and decarbonization goals in the construction sector. Future studies should investigate durability under aggressive environments, behavior at elevated temperatures, and flexural performance, along with advanced microstructural characterization to better understand interfacial transition zones.
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.