ArticlePloS one2026
The influence of lime type on the properties of traditional lime-soil materials.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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 conservation of historic earthen structures requires repair materials that are both high-performance and historically appropriate. While archaeological evidence indicates that the historical use of blocky quicklime to make lime-soil materials, modern research and conservation practice often focus on its powdered counterpart, creating a knowledge gap. Thus, this work systematically evaluated the physical properties, microstructure, and composition of lime-soil materials prepared with blocky quicklime, powdered quicklime, and hydrated lime (at 10-20% content). The results demonstrated that hydrated lime yielded inferior strength and durability. Although both types of quicklime enhanced performance, they functioned through distinct mechanisms. Powdered quicklime provided consistent, dosage-dependent improvement, making it reliable for high-performance requirements. In contrast, blocky quicklime exhibited a pronounced optimum at 15% content; beyond this, performance declined due to expansion stresses from excess, partially hydrated cores, as identified by FT-IR spectroscopy. This study concluded that the choice of lime form was critical: powdered quicklime was recommended for predictable, broad-spectrum enhancement, whereas blocky quicklime could be effective but required strict dosage control to harness its unique potential and avoid damage. These findings provided a scientific basis for selecting and applying lime materials in the repair of earthen architectural heritage.
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.