ReviewRSC advances2026
Methods of porous and foamed structure formation in geopolymer-based materials: a comprehensive review.
Review in RSC advances, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Porous geopolymer-based materials are increasingly being considered as solutions for thermal insulation, lightweight construction, adsorption, catalysis and filtration. Existing reviews have mainly focused on individual fabrication methods, porous composites or specific areas of application, whilst direct comparisons of the main methods for creating porous structures, and how they influence pore architecture, remain limited. This review compares direct foaming, moulding using reactive emulsion templates, microwave-assisted foaming, the incorporation of lightweight fillers, additive manufacturing, replica processing and the use of sacrificial templates within a unified processing-structure-properties framework. Particular attention is paid to the interaction between pore formation, pore architecture, fresh-state rheology and geopolymerisation kinetics, which determines pore retention, morphology, connectivity and homogeneity. Analysis shows that direct foaming is the most practical and scalable method for producing low-density thermal insulation materials, whilst lightweight fillers provide an optimal balance between strength and density. Reactive emulsion templating, replica processing and the use of sacrificial templates are better suited to creating the interconnected pore networks required for adsorption, catalysis and filtration. Additive manufacturing offers the greatest control over architecture but remains limited by processing complexity, production speed and costs, whilst microwave-assisted foaming enables rapid processing but faces scaling challenges. The main contribution of this review lies in the development of a practice-oriented framework for selecting technological methods for forming porous structures depending on the desired pore architecture, as this is a determining parameter on which the material's performance characteristics and scope of application depend.
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.