Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42230673›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Multi-scale mechanistic evaluation of reactivity balance in metakaolin-nano-CaCO

Mahtab Hosseinzadeh, Mohsen Abdollahi

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

2 authors.

Mahtab HosseinzadehDepartment of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. mahtab.hosseinzadeh@alum.sharif.edu.
Mohsen AbdollahiDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran. mohsenabdolahi101010@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study introduces a multiscale framework for optimizing the metakaolin-nano-CaCO3 (MK–NC) system for enhanced clay stabilization. While previous studies have typically investigated MK or nano-CaCO3 independently and often without a systematic factorial matrix or integrated environmental assessment, the interactive mechanisms governing their coupled performance remain insufficiently clarified. In particular, the absence of full compositional mapping and multi-scale correlation between geotechnical behavior, microstructure, and sustainability metrics has limited mechanistic understanding of synergy domains. Using a comprehensive 4 × 4 factorial design with varying MK (1–10 wt%) and NC (0.1-1.0 wt%) concentrations, we evaluated the effects on plasticity, compaction, unconfined compressive strength (UCS), and consolidation, alongside microstructural and mineralogical analysis via SEM/EDS and XRD. The findings reveal that an optimal MK-NC formulation (about 4 wt% MK + 0.1 wt% NC) significantly improves soil properties, with a 30% reduction in plasticity index, a 2–3% increase in optimum moisture content, and a 250% enhancement in 28-day strength. Consolidation characteristics also improve, indicating a denser, faster-draining microstructure. Furthermore, a cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment (functional unit: 1 kg of material), incorporating the modeled energy requirements for metakaolin calcination and nano-CaCO₃ processing, indicates that the selected C-N1-M40 binder achieves an estimated 68% reduction in Global Warming Potential (GWP) relative to OPC under the defined system boundaries. These results position the MK-NC system as a mechanistically optimized and environmentally promising alternative for high-performance clay stabilization.

Indexed as

Clay fabricConsolidationMicrostructurenucleationPozzolanic reaction

Identifiers

PMID42230673
PMCPMC13230719

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.