Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41927784›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Valorization of waste concrete powder as a sustainable substitute for limestone fines in conventional concrete: a case study from Portugal.

Hakan Özkan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hakan ÖzkanDepartment of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University (YTU), 34220, Istanbul, Türkiye. hozkan@cimpor.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The valorization of industrial by-products in cementitious materials offers a viable pathway for reducing the environmental impact of concrete production. Limestone fines (LF) are commonly used as a filler or a cement replacement material in concrete; however, alternative recycled materials that support circular economy implementation at the industrial scale remain underexplored. This study investigates crushed concrete test sample (CTS) waste, systematically generated during quality‑control operations in a ready‑mix concrete plant located in Portugal, as a sustainable substitute for LF. CTS powder was used to replace cement at levels of 10–30% in mortar and 10–20% in concrete. Mechanical performance, durability, microstructural characteristics, and environmental impacts were evaluated and benchmarked against LF-containing and reference mixtures. Compressive strength results showed that cement replacement with CTS powder up to 10% produced strength values comparable to both the reference mix and LF-modified mixtures, whereas higher replacement levels resulted in significant strength loss. Durability assessments revealed that both CTS powder and LF at 10% replacement effectively reduced water sorptivity, indicating refinement of near-surface capillary pores, while increased chloride ion penetrability was observed at higher substitution levels. Microstructural analyses (SEM, XRD, and TGA) confirmed that CTS powder acts predominantly as an inert filler, increasing calcite content and promoting early-age nucleation. Life cycle assessment results demonstrated that partial cement replacement with CTS powder can reduce embodied CO2 emissions by up to approximately 17% at a 20% replacement level, with reductions comparable to those achieved using LF.

Indexed as

Cement replacement sustainabilityCircular economyConcrete waste powderDurabilityLimestone fines

Identifiers

PMID41927784
PMCPMC13187302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.