ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessing graphite schist as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete for antifungal activity, strength, hydration, microstructure, and radiation shielding.
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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For the first time, this study explores the valorization of graphite schist (GS), a metamorphic rock, as a novel supplementary cementitious material (SCM) in concrete. Portland cement (PC) was partially replaced with GS at 0, 10, and 15% by mass to prepare CC (control), GC10, and GC15 mixes, respectively. Physical, mechanical, hydration, microstructural, and radiation shielding properties were investigated. GS showed superior particle fineness, higher surface area, notable antifungal activity, and remarkable thermal stability up to 800 °C, outperforming PC in several aspects. Unlike GC15, GC10 achieved sustained compressive strength, closely related to that of CC. Microstructural analysis revealed that GS functioned mainly as a filler with limited pozzolanic reactivity, contributing moderately to particle packing. However, unhydrated cement particles and weakened interfacial transition zones were more prevalent at 15% GS. The improved performance of GC10 over curing periods reflected the more favorable influence of 10% GS on hydration and microstructure. Moreover, GS incorporation slightly improved fast neutron attenuation but reduced gamma-ray shielding due to increased porosity and reduced density. Overall, GS can be a promising multifunctional SCM, offering antifungal potential, acceptable neutron shielding, balanced strength, and reduced PC usage at 10% replacement.
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.