2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.060
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preparation of cleaner one-part geopolymer by investigating different types of commercial sodium metasilicate in China

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
35
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 162 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As aforementioned by other studies (Dal Pozzo et al, 2019;Duxson et al, 2007b;McLellan et al, 2011), geopolymer samples present a greater sustainability compared with PC counterparts, and some studies even indicated that the energy consumed and carbon footprints emitted by geopolymer production were significantly lower in comparison with those associated with PC sample preparation (Hassan et al, 2019;Sandanayake et al, 2018;Taylor, 2013), which were mainly associated with the avoidance of limestone calcination (Dal Pozzo et al, 2019), however, (Ma et al, 2018;Ouellet-Plamondon and Habert, 2015) also indicated that not all alkali-activated binders presented a lower global warming potential (GWP) in comparison with blended cements via Feret equation, and they indicated that one-part geopolymer seemed to be a more promising binder concerning sustainability. Meanwhile, compared with the precursors, the production of alkali used in the preparation of samples was still an energyintensive process, therefore, (Dal Pozzo et al, 2019) suggested the use of sustainable energy supplies such as hydrothermal route in its production, whereas (Salas et al, 2018) indicated that using NaOH in geopolymer concrete, which was produced from solar salt, would led to a great reduction in the overall environmental impacts related with sample preparation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…As aforementioned by other studies (Dal Pozzo et al, 2019;Duxson et al, 2007b;McLellan et al, 2011), geopolymer samples present a greater sustainability compared with PC counterparts, and some studies even indicated that the energy consumed and carbon footprints emitted by geopolymer production were significantly lower in comparison with those associated with PC sample preparation (Hassan et al, 2019;Sandanayake et al, 2018;Taylor, 2013), which were mainly associated with the avoidance of limestone calcination (Dal Pozzo et al, 2019), however, (Ma et al, 2018;Ouellet-Plamondon and Habert, 2015) also indicated that not all alkali-activated binders presented a lower global warming potential (GWP) in comparison with blended cements via Feret equation, and they indicated that one-part geopolymer seemed to be a more promising binder concerning sustainability. Meanwhile, compared with the precursors, the production of alkali used in the preparation of samples was still an energyintensive process, therefore, (Dal Pozzo et al, 2019) suggested the use of sustainable energy supplies such as hydrothermal route in its production, whereas (Salas et al, 2018) indicated that using NaOH in geopolymer concrete, which was produced from solar salt, would led to a great reduction in the overall environmental impacts related with sample preparation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Sample B_3.1 had a Si/Al molar ratio lower than 0.3. Ma et al 68 results showed that in these cases the N-A-S-H gels may have been few geopolimerized which results in the formation of the zeolitic phase.…”
Section: Mortars Made With One-part Aab Containing Different Sio 2 /Al 2 O 3 Molar Ratiosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In one-part geopolymers, solid activators such as calcium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, calcium carbonate, or sodium metasilicate are blended with geopolymer precursors like rice husk ash, silica fume, or fly ash, then just water is added to initiate the geopolymerization. The dissolution process of the solid phase starts rapidly after adding water to the dry mixture (Abdollahnejad, Pacheco-Torgal and de Aguiar, 2015) (Ma, Long, Shi, & Xie, 2018).…”
Section: Figure 2 Schematic Representation Of Geopolymerization Processmentioning
confidence: 99%