Journal Pre-proof

Recent progress in environmentally friendly geopolymers: A

review

Nabila Shehata, Enas Taha Sayed Ali, Mohammad Ali

Abdelkareem

PII: S0048-9697(20)36696-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143166
Reference: STOTEN 143166

To appear in: Science of the Total Environment

Received date: 9 April 2020

Revised date: 8 September 2020
Accepted date: 14 October 2020

Please cite this article as: N. Shehata, E.T.S. Ali and M.A. Abdelkareem, Recent progress
in environmentally friendly geopolymers: A review, Science of the Total Environment
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143166

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such
as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is
not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting,
typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this
version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Recent progress in environmentally friendly geopolymers: A review

Nabila Shehata1, Enas Taha Sayed Ali2,3, Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem2,3,4
1
Faculty of Postgraduate Studies for Advance Science, Beni-Suef University, Egypt
2
Center for Advanced Materials Research, University of Sharjah, PO Box 27272, Sharjah, United
Arab Emirates
3
Chemical Engineering Department, Minia University, Elminia, Egypt
4
Department of Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of Sharjah, PO Box
27272, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Corresponding e-mail: nabila.shehata@psas.bsu.edu.eg
Abstract
The manufacturing of cement demand burning of huge quantities of fuel as well as significant

of
emissions of CO2 resulting from the decomposition of limestone that consequently resulted in

ro
severe environmental impact that is estimated by one ton of CO2 per ton of cement.

-p
Geopolymerization technology is an effective method for converting wastes (containing alumina

and silica) into useful products. It can reduce CO2 emissions significantly from the cement
re
industry. The geopolymerization process usually starts with source materials based on
lP

alumina/silicate in addition to alkaline liquids. The compressive strength, setting time, and
na

workability of the final product depends mainly on the type and proportions of the precursors,

the type and strength of the activator, the mixing and curing conditions. The structural
ur

performance of a geopolymer is similar to that of ordinary Portland cement (OPC). Therefore,

Jo

geopolymer can replace OPC, and thus decreasing the energy consumption, reducing the cost of

the building materials, and minimizing the environmental impacts of the cement industry. This

review summaries the mechanism of geopolymerization, including the controlling parameters

and different raw materials (fly ash, kaolinite and metakaolin, slag, red mud, silica waste, heavy

metals waste, and others) with particular focus on recent studies and challenges in this area.

Keywords: Geopolymer; Geopolymerization process; Cement industry, CO2 reduction;

Environmental impact; Sustainability

 Journal Pre-proof

1. Introduction

Since the industrial revolution in the last century, there is a rapid growth of the usage of

fossil fuel in almost all industrial applications (Shafeek et al., 2020). Such an increase in the

usage of fossil fuel resulted in severe environmental impacts (Abdelkareem et al., 2020a;

Elsaid et al., 2020c, 2020b, 2020a). Massive efforts have been done to minimize the

environmental impacts of fossile fuel such as increasing the efficiency of the current processs

of
(Elsaid et al., 2020d; Fierro et al., 2020; Jouhara et al., 2018; Olabi et al., 2020a; Shehata et

al., 2017), development of efficient energy conversion devices suh as fuel cells

ro
(Abdelkareem et al., 2020b, 2020c; Olabi et al., 2020b; Sayed et al., 2020b), hybrid systems

-p
of renewable energy systems (A Kamel et al., 2019; Rezk et al., 2019b), and/or using of
re
renewable energy sources such as wind, solar (Abdelkareem et al., 2018; Marmoush et al.,
lP

2018; Rezk et al., 2019a), geothermal (Wilberforce et al., 2019a), marine (Soudan, 2019),

and biomass energies (Inayat et al., 2019; Sayed et al., 2020a).

na

The cement industry is one of the leading sectors that consume a large amount of fossil fuel
ur

that estimated to be 12-15% of the industrial energy consumption (Madlool et al., 2011). A
Jo

massive amount of pollutants such as CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, and particulates are emitted from

the cement industry from fossil fuel and the decomposition of the limestone (Ekinci et al.,

2020). The emitted CO2 from the cement industry represents 5-8% of the anthropogenic CO2

emissions (Deja et al., 2010; Shen et al., 2015). CO2 is one of the major greenhouse gases

that resulted in global warming and noticeably environmental changes overall the world

(Damanabi et al., 2019; Wilberforce et al., 2019b).

 Journal Pre-proof

It is estimated that each ton of cement produces 498.5 kg of CO2 that resulted in more than 2

Gt of CO2 production overall the world (Wei and Cen, 2019) that is increased exponentially

with the exponential increase of the cement production overall the world (Xu et al., 2015).

There are common methods that were investigated to decrease the CO2 emission during

cement production, like the use of alternative fuel (El-Salamony et al., 2020), enhancement

of energy efficiency inside the cement kiln (Hasanbeigi et al., 2013), replacement the cement

with nanoparticle at the optimum percentage (Shafeek et al., 2020) and production of

of
alternative cement-like geopolymer (Bajpai et al., 2020). Still, the production of geopolymer

ro
superior to all methods since it represents a high reduction in cost (Amran et al., 2020) and

-p
energy consumption (Voney et al., 2020), besides the added benefit of using industrial wastes
re
to develop a different building material (Tong, 2020). Consequently, there is an increase

focus on the geopolymer studies all over the world as shown in Fig. 1.
lP
na

7000
6000
ur
No. of scientific papers

5000
Jo

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year

Fig. 1: Number of published papers related to geopolymer during the period 2010-2019.
 Journal Pre-proof

Although a considerable number of review papers reported the history of geopolymer, a

background of geopolymerization (Aleem and Arumairaj, 2012a; Shubbar et al., 2020) and

characterization (Damilola, 2013; Ma et al., 2018; Mo et al., 2016; Shuaibu, 2014; Zhang et al.,

2018; Živica et al., 2015), effect of synthese parameters (Farhan et al., 2020), additives (Ranjbar

and Zhang, 2020) on the final products and sustanbility (Assi et al., 2020). Still, the literature

missed discussing new precursors such as fly ash-based geopolymers (Abdullah et al., 2011; Al

Bakri et al., 2013a; Bouaissi et al., 2018; Fauziah et al., 2018; Ibrahim et al., 2015; Kupaei et al.,

of
2013; Mustafa et al., 2011; Toniolo and Boccaccini, 2017; Wattimena et al., 2017; Zerfu and

ro
Ekaputri, 2016; Zhuang et al., 2016) that studied extensively in recent years, activators, and their

-p
role in the geopolymerization process, as well as the challenges for the production of geopolymer
re
on a large scale, needs to be addressed. Subsequently, this review summarized different

traditional and new precursors for geopolymers, important parameters of geopolymerization, and
lP

new additives. Moreover, the challenges of the large scale production of the geopolymers are
na

addressed, and finally, the environmental impacts are discussed.

ur

2. Geopolymerization

The manufacturing of cement demands the burning of vast quantities of fuel, as well as
Jo

significant emissions of CO2 resulting from the decomposition of limestone (Kong and Sanjayan,

2008). According to Kong et al., geopolymer minimize CO2 emissions from the cement industry

by 80% (Kong et al., 2006). A study conducted in Lebanon around Chekka town discovered that

the cement industry was adversely affecting the overall health of the region. Elevated levels SO 2

and PM10 (Particulate matter) were found in various areas around the town for extended periods

of time. On the other hand, the treatment costs of industrial waste disposal are expensive.

Geopolymerization, firstly developed by Davidovits in 1979, considered an excellent waste

 Journal Pre-proof

immobilization agent for industrial waste. The term geopolymer refers to the inorganic polymer

produced by incorporating an alkaline activator solution to an aluminosilicate precursor,

followed by specific conditions of curing (Fig. 2). The following sections discuss the recent

advances in the geopolymerization process.

1. Aluminosilicate precursors
2. Activators
Mixing Curing Geopolymer
3. Water

of
4. Additives

ro
Fig. 2: A schematic flow diagram for the geopolymer production.

2.1. Precursors for geopolymers -p

re
The main ingredients of a geopolymer are source materials that are based on alumina silicate in

addition to alkaline liquids. The precursors were classified (reticulate Blanco, n.d.) into fly ash-
lP

(Izquierdo et al., 2009), slag-, rock- (Gimeno et al., 2003), and Ferro silicate-based geopolymer.
na

The precursors could be natural minerals such as kaolinite and clays or by product materials like

slag, fly ash, rice-husk ash, silica fume, and metakaolin (Rangan, 2008). Theses precursors can
ur

be a single material or a mixture of different types of materials (Xu and Van Deventer, 2002).
Jo

However, it should be rich in silicon and aluminum (Chawakitchareon and Veesommaia, 2013).

The strength of a geopolymer depends on the nature of precursors (Duxson et al., 2007). For

example, higher compressive strength might be obtained when raw materials were calcined, such

as fly ash, slag, and metakaolin, or when it has a high dissolution rate (Rangan, 2010). The

coordination number of aluminum in the precursor may affect the final product (Rangan, 2010;

Singh et al., 2001). Calcium silicate enhances the dissolution of alumino-silicate from fly ash

structure; also, it merged in the geopolymer matrix acting as counter‐balancing cations (Horsley
 Journal Pre-proof

et al., 2015). Sodium aluminate increases the compressive strength twice as much as non-sodium

aluminate (Svingala and Varela, 2009). As shown in Table (1), the compressive strengths of the

final samples are influenced by the proportions and properties of the precursors.

Table 1: Composition of different types of precursors and the compressive strength of the relative
geopolymers.

Source Oxide composition C. Ref.

of
SiO2 Al2O3 CaO MgO Fe2O3 Na2O K2O Other strength
(MPa)

ro
Callide 46.2 26.5 9.9 1.2 8.5 0.3 0.6 6.8 54 (VAN
Eraring 67.8 21.6 1.7 0.4 3.0 0.1 1.2 4.2 17 DEVEN
Bayswater
Vales Point
62.9
65.0
24.9
20.3
<0.1
5.6
1.0
0.9
5.2
4.5 -p
0.2
0.5
1.3
1.7
4.5
1.5
41
*
TER,
2009)
re
Mount Piper 68.5 23.5 0.4 0.3 1.6 <0.1 2.3 3.4 *
Gladstone 47.5 33.2 2.6 1.8 10.2 <0.1 0.2 4.5 72
lP

Pumice 67.08 14.06 0.87 0.25 1.91 0.11 15.72 25 (Yadoll

ahi et
al.,
na

2013)
Mine tailings 69.55 12.63 0.69 0.33 0.87 1.98 3.1 10.87 0.5-7 (Qiu et
Blast furnace 0.1 al.,
34.60 12.11 39.5 9.23 0.11 0.35 3.89
ur

slag 9 2019)
1.1
Fly ash 54.79 23.57 3.17 1.12 0.03 0.31 15.87
2
Jo

0.0 5-60 (Al-

Silica sand 99.73 0.1 - - 0.051 <0.05 -
1 Majidi
GGBS 35 12 40 10 0.2 - - 2.8 et al.,
2.8 2016)
Fly ash 59 23 2.38 1.39 8.8 0.74 1.88
1
Hydromagne- 0.1 9.8-80.4 (Abdel-
0.09 0.08 0.4 42.95 0.01 - 56.29
site 8 Gawwa
d and
0.1 El-
GBFS 37.81 13.14 38.7 7.11 0.23 1.03 1.79
9 Aleem,
2015)
*Failed to be hardening in this time of curing.
 Journal Pre-proof

In the following sections, we will discuss in detail the influence of the essential geopolymer

precursors.

2.1.1. Fly ash

The main constituents of fly ash are silicon, aluminum, calcium, and iron. The chemical

composition of various fly ash types was reported (Lloyd and Rangan, 2009). Due to its

pozzolanic characteristics, fly ash has been used as a precursor for cement and concrete (Thakkar

of
et al., 2014). The calcium percentage in fly ash plays an important role, as it affects the product

ro
properties (Oh et al., 2010). Also, when this percentage increased, the compressive strength

-p
increases (Canfield et al., 2014). On the other hand, the calcium compound percentage reduces

the mechanical properties of geopolymers cured at higher temperatures (Temuujin et al., 2009).
re
Usually, fly ash requires thermal treatment at 60-80°C (reticulate Blanco, n.d.). Using 5% up to
lP

10% of fly ash instead of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) improves the

mechanical properties and microstructure of the produced geopolymers. More than this
na

percentage, a slight decrease in the compressive strength values were measured (El-Gamal and
ur

Selim, 2017). Diaz et al. studied an experimental program on the mechanical properties of
Jo

geopolymer concrete using two types of fly ash collected from thermal power stations (Diaz et

al., 2010). The compressive and flexural strengths of geopolymer based on mettur fly ash was

greater than that based on tuticorin fly ash (Vijai et al., 1970). The main characteristic of fly ash

based geopolymer is a glassy amorphous product (Fig. 3), some of the original constituents like

fly ash dissolute, leaving these pores, and it may be attributed to air involved during preparation

(Škvára et al., 2005). Kong et al. found that fly ash pores contain a higher proportion of

microspores resulting in geopolymer possess better strength (Kong et al., 2007). Improvement of

strength, workability of different geopolymers synthesized from fly ash have also been
 Journal Pre-proof

investigated (Adam, 2009; Chindaprasirt et al., 2007; Hardjito et al., 2004; Thokchom et al.,

2009a, 2009b; Wallah, 2009).

of
ro
-p
re
Fig. 3: SEM photos of geopolymer (Škvára et al., 2005).
lP

2.1.2. Kaolinite and Metakaolin

Some restrictions concerning using kaolinite as a precursor, such as using it alone (Komnitsas
na

and Zaharaki, 2007). This will yield a weak structure geopolymer. Also, the contact time should
ur

be enough to produce the right gel components (Xu and Van Deventer, 2002). However, when

kaolinite converted to metakaolin, compressive strength and durability of the geopolymer were
Jo

increased (Damilola, 2013). Gougazeh compared between different types of metakaolin. It was

found that Jordanian and mixed metakaolin produced the larger compressive strength compared

to others (Gougazeh, 2013). Also, it was suggested that geopolymer may still be produced from

kaoline with purity 70% (Zibouche et al., 2009). In contrast, Alshaaer et al. investigated the

production of geopolymer with high mechanical properties and acceptable physical

characteristics from low purity kaolinite (Alshaaer et al., 2015). Douiri et al. characterized

metakaolin based geopolymer as amorphous structure (Fig. 4).

 Journal Pre-proof

Geopolymer
(28 d)
Counts

Geopolymer
(7 d)

of
Metkaolin

ro
2 Theta (degrees)

-p
Fig. 4: XRD spectra of metakaolin and geopolymer at curing ages (7 and 28 d) where Q: SiO2, I:
re
illite, A: AlPO4, Au: Al2(PO4)(OH)3 and M: CaPO3(OH) (Douiri et al., 2016).
lP

Calcination of kaolinite before geopolymerization has attracted some researchers. They worked
na

in almost the range (500-800 ˚C), i.e., 500- 750 ˚C (Chareerat et al., 2006; Cioffi et al., 2003),
ur

750 ˚C (Alshaaer et al., 2015), 800 ˚C (Zibouche et al., 2009), and concluded that the optimum
Jo

calcination temperature is between 500 and 700˚C. This may be attributed to varying state of

disorder with calcination temperature (Elimbi et al., 2011). Another parameter that should be

taken into consideration during applying metakaolinite is the ratio of Si/Al. The amount of

unreacted kaolinite in the final matrix depends on this ratio (Fig. 5) (Kim, 2012).
 Journal Pre-proof

45%
40%
35%
Unreacted MK

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%

of
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

ro
Si/Al Ratio

-p
Fig. 5: Effect of Si/Al ratio on the percentage of unreacted metakaolinite in the geopolymer matrix (Kim,
2012).
re
lP

2.1.3. Slag
na

Thakkar et al. used slag as a precursor for geopolymers (Thakkar et al., 2014). Ground

Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) enjoys some latent hydraulic characteristics resulting in
ur

using it as a common precursor. Vignesh and Vivek replaced low calcium fly ash with slag. They
Jo

observed that the maximum compressive-, split tensile- and flexural- strengths were obtained

when the ratio of GGBS/flyash was 2/3 (Vignesh and Vivek, 2015). Some studies founded that

compressive strength increased as the GGBS increase up to 100% of replacement; the

workability and compressive strength also increased (Saranya et al., n.d.). On contrast to other

studies that stated that replacing GGBS with fly ash resulting in an increase in compressive

strength (Fig. 6) (El-Gamal and Selim, 2017). This difference in results can be attributed to the

fact that the compressive strength and other mechanical properties depend not only on the

percentage of slag but other parameters like activator, curing regime, etc.
 Journal Pre-proof

Compressive strength (Mpa)

30

20 3d
7d
28 d
10

0
A1 B1 C1

of
Geopolymer grade

ro
Fig. 6: Compressive strength of different specimen at 3,7, and 28 d of curing time where A1(100%

-p
GGBS), B1 (95% GGBS + 5% fly ash), and C1(90% GGBS+ 10% fly ash) (El-Gamal and Selim, 2017).
re
2.1.4. Water
Water content is very important in geopolymerization. Also, the mechanism that water leaves the
lP

mixture during curing has a significant effect on the chemical/mechanical properties of the
na

geopolymer produced (Barbosa et al., 2000; Rangan, 2008). The presence of excessive water

may compromise the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete (Lloyd and Rangan, 2010).
ur

As seen in Fig. (7a), as the water % increased, the compressive strength decreased (Patankar et
Jo

al., 2013). In contrast to workability, where the later increased as the water % increased (Fig.

7b).
 Journal Pre-proof

(a) (b)

of
ro
Fig. 7: Effect of water % on compressive strength (a) and flow (b) of geopolymer concrete (Patankar et
al., 2013).

-p
re
Yong Cui and Dongmin Wang (2019) stated that the percentage of water affect the distribution
lP

of pore-size (Cui and Wang, 2019), as water % increased, the pore size and percentages of

microcapillaries (<50nm) and macrocapillaries (50nm-50µm) increased in contrast to artificial

na
ur

(a) (b) (c)

Jo

air-pores (>50µm) which significantly decreased (Fig. 8).

 Journal Pre-proof

Fig. 8: SEM photographs for the effect of water % on the pore structure of FA-based foam geopolymers

where water percentage ranged from 0.38 (a), 0.44 (b), 0.50 (c) (Cui and Wang, 2019).

They attributed to increasing the percentage of bubbles filled with water inside the geopolymer

paste while the viscosity of the mix and foaming agent led to prevent accumulation of small

bubbles to become large and led to declining in artificial air-pores. The water percentage should

of
be optimized.

ro
2.1.5. Others

-p
Precursors like silica waste and pure alumina have been used (Chawakitchareon and
re
Veesommaia, 2013). Dried red mud has been used to compensate the alkaline activator, aiming
lP

to lower overall costs (Horsley et al., 2015). The addition of trass reduces geopolymer concrete

strength, almost 36% of geopolymer concrete strength. This may be attributed to the content of
na

silica compared to alumina, resulting in some silica will remain unreacted with NaOH
ur

(Risdanareni and Ekaputri, 2015). Kinnunen et al. turned rock wool waste into geopolymer with

strength 12.8 MPa using mixing and dissolution techniques; the percentage of the waste in the
Jo

final geopolymer matrix was 33% (Kinnunen et al., 2017). Elijah (2015) optimized the addition

of mineral wool to the geopolymer; he concluded that the highest compressive strength obtained

when the percentage of mineral wool and rock wool in the geopolymer matrix were 20 and 50%,

respectively (Elijah, 2015). Commercial phosphoric acid was investigated as an activator instead

of an ordinary alkaline activator. The resulted geopolymer contains two networks, the first one

based on phosphate/aluminum, which dispersed on the second one based on Si-Al-P (Zribi et al.,

2020). The wastes from the aggregate industry were also used to produce geopolymer bricks.
 Journal Pre-proof

The compressive strength reached 75 MPa, parameters like the incorporation of Ca(OH)2 and

increasing curing temperature up to 105 °C played significant roles in this concern (Madani et

al., 2020).

2.2. Importance of activators in geopolymerization process

The commonly alkaline activators used in production of geopolymer are a mixture of

sodium/potassium hydroxide and sodium/potassium silicate (Cioffi et al., 2003; Gougazeh, 2013;

of
Komnitsas and Zaharaki, 2007; Risdanareni and Ekaputri, 2015). The aim of adding the latter is

ro
to improve the formation of geopolymer precursors (Xu and Van Deventer, 2000). It contains

partially polymerized silicon, which facilitates the reaction (Komljenović et al., 2010). And
-p
fasten the geopolymerization (Srinivasan and Sivakumar, 2013).
re
The kind of alkali activators affects the solubility of the precursors (Rattanasak and
lP

Chindaprasirt, 2009) and determines the pore size of the final product (Damilola, 2013). The

composition, structure, microstructure, and properties of the polymers formed in the alkali
na

activation of metakaolin depend on the concentration, volume and type of activator used
ur

(Barbosa et al., 2000), (Steveson and Sagoe-Crentsil, 2005), (Duxson et al., 2005). The increase
Jo

in mass and the concentration of the alkaline solution strengthen the bond between the aggregate

and the binder resulting in high stiffness in the matrix (Fig. 9) (Barnard, 2014).
 Journal Pre-proof

Modulus of elasticity (GPa) R2 = 0.6816

of
ro
Mass of NaOH/m3 (kg)

-p
Fig. 9: Effect of alkaline solution concentration on modulus of elasticity (Barnard, 2014).
re
lP

Other researchers found that the compressive strength of the geopolymer increased when the

molarity of NaOH solution increased (Fig. 10) (Mishra et al., 2008), (Madheswaran et al., 2013),
na

(Cheema et al., 2009). Concerning compressive strength, the optimum concentrations of NaOH
ur

activator were reported by many researchers 10M (Alonso and Palomo, 2001), (Rattanasak and

Chindaprasirt, 2009), 12 (Nazari et al., 2011), and 16M (Ramujee, 2014). Concerning setting
Jo

times, the optimum concentration of NaOH activator was 12M-14 M (YellaIah et al., 2014). The

higher value of pH of the alkali activators enhanced the dissolution of the precursors, fasten

monomer condensation and encourage geopolymer production (Hardjito et al., 2003). As seen in

Fig. (11), the cost of the activator plays an important role among the geopolymer precursors

(McLellan et al., 2011), dry activator (sodium carbonate/ calcium hydroxide/pirssonite), was

proposed for the sake of cost reduction, NaOH solution was mixed with calcium carbonate, then
 Journal Pre-proof

the mixture was dried at 80 ˚C for 8 h followed by pelletizing (Abdel-Gawwad and Abo-El-

Enein, 2016).

It was found that Na2SiO3 accelerates geopolymerization process and increases the compressive

strength (Parthiban et al., 2013). Dutta & Ghosh studied the influence of Na2O on the

mechanical properties of geopolymer. They observed increment in compressive strength due to

the increment in Na2O weight percentage (Dutta et al., n.d.). Some researchers studied the effect

of another activator-like KOH on the mechanical properties of geopolymer. They found that gain

of
in strength is acceptable at 12M (Raijiwala et al., 2012). Finally, the highly reactive alkaline

ro
solution governs the geopolymerization process (Gharzouni et al., 2015).

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

20

Compressive strength (Mpa)

(a) 8M
10 12 M
12 M

of
0

ro
M20 M25 M30

Geopolymer grade
-p
re
60
lP
Compressive strength (Mpa)

na

40
(b) 8M
12 M
ur

20 12 M
Jo

0
M20 M25 M30
Geopolymer grade

Fig. 10: Effect of NaOH molarity on the compressive strength of three grades of fly ash-based
geopolymers at 3d (a), and 28d (b) (Bidwe and Hamane, 2015).
 Journal Pre-proof

600

500
Cost of feedstock ($/t)
400

300

200

100

of
ro
-p
Fig. 11: Market price of the geopolymer precursors (McLellan et al., 2011).
re
2.3. Parameters of geopolymerization process
lP

2.3.1. The ratio of the precursors to the activator

na

The precursor/alkaline liquid ratio is a governing factor in the geopolymerization (Ramujee,

2014). High compressive strength was achieved when the molar ratio silicate/sodium was 1.5,
ur

when the ratio increased to 1.91, the compressive strength decrease (Guo et al., 2010). Because
Jo

this high mole ratio is resulting in precipitation of Si and reduction of the compressive strength

(Dai et al., 2013). Alshaaer et al. successfully produced geopolymer using SiO2 in sodium

silicate solution/ Na2O in alkaline activators/Al2O3 molar ratio of 1/1/1 (Alshaaer et al., 2015).

The high compressive strength of Na2O/fly ash ratio was 0.1 (Guo et al., 2010), up to 0.40; after

that ratio, the compressive strength decreases (Hardjito et al., 2008). Chawakitchareona and

Veesommaia proposed the optimum ratios of binder/NaOH/ Na2SiO3 is (7/1/2)

(Chawakitchareon and Veesommaia, 2013). Zhang et al. (2010) studied two different precursor

ratios (Al2O3/Na2O & Na2O/H2O). The highest compressive strength was achieved when
 Journal Pre-proof

Al2O3/Na2O is 1.0, and Na2O/H2O is (1/7) (Zhang et al., 2010). Abdul Aleem and Arumairaj

suggested an optimum mix ratio when the activator solution (NaOH & Na2SiO3) to fly ash ratio

was 0.35 (Aleem and Arumairaj, 2012b). Abdel-Gawwad& Abo-El-Enein (2016) showed that

the optimum percent of NaOH activator to blast-furnace slag is 4/100 (Abdel-Gawwad and Abo-

El-Enein, 2016). The fly ash/slag ratios were varied from 90/10, 70/30, and 50/50. The mix with

50:50 ratio shows higher compressive strength than that of the normal control concrete under

heat curing. While the other ratios show low strength at both ambient and oven curing (Thakkar

of
et al., 2014). Even the shrinkage behavior of the geopolymer governed by the Si/Na ratio of the

ro
activator (Kani and Allahverdi, 2011). Finally, the optimum ratio of the precursors to the alkali

-p
should be >1. Below this value, the compressive strength will be affected negatively.
re
2.3.2. Mixing regime
lP

Rattanasak proposed two mechanisms of mixing; normal (the two activators solutions added at

the same time) and separate mixing (a sufficient period of time was allowed for the addition of
na

the two different solutions). The results showed that separate mixing is better than normal
ur

mixing. The separate mixing also was preferred in the case of precursors and activators (Cheng
Jo

and Chiu, 2003; Swanepoel and Strydom, 2002). Where the activator is added later to the

precursors, the controlling parameters were related to the materials reactivity, the activator

strength, and the contact time (Mikuni et al., 2007; Panagiotopoulou et al., 2007). Also, the

mixing regime is important in case of adding fiber to the mix. It may be added to the dry

precursors like carbon and steel fiber (Ganesan et al., 2015; Vaidya and Allouche, 2011), or it

may mix with the alkaline solution first before mixing with dry precursors to facilitate its

dispersion in the geopolymer matrix (Zhang et al., 2009).

 Journal Pre-proof

2.3.3. Curing Process

Heat treatment must be applied to facilitate geopolymerization process, increase the reactivity of

the precursors (Ramujee, 2014), increase the compressive strength (reticulate Blanco, n.d.),

avoid the strength at delayed age (Kirschner and Harmuth, 2004), and improved the crystallinity

of the geopolymer (Dimas et al., 2009). A variety of temperatures has been investigated with a

trend of increasing temperatures. Curing at a temperature below 60 ˚C decreases the compressive

strength, especially in the case of unmodified precursors (Swanepoel and Strydom, 2002). This

of
can lead to material shrinkage (Kirschner and Harmuth, 2004), due to the evaporable water in the

ro
raw material that increases with the Si/Al ratio of the geopolymer (Damilola, 2013). With curing

-p
temperatures ranging from 60 to 90 ˚C and a time range from 24 to 72 hours, the compressive

strength of concrete reached high values (Hardjito et al., 2008). An optimum values of 60 ˚C
re
(Nasvi et al., 2012) and 80 ˚C (Nazari et al., 2011), (Raijiwala et al., 2012) were suggested.
lP

When the temperature raised up to 100 ˚C, the hardening was accelerated, and more strength was
na

gained (Alonso and Palomo, 2001). Curing at 75 ˚C for 4 hours resulted in satisfactory

properties of the geopolymer (Kirschner and Harmuth, 2004). Curing at elevated temperature
ur

under a long time did not improve the strength of the geopolymer (Kong et al., 2006), also rapid
Jo

curing effects negatively on the physical properties of geopolymer (Van Jaarsveld et al., 2002).

Some geopolymer systems may be cured at room temperature using calcined precursors such as

metakaolin (Davidovits, 2008), and kaolinite (Davidovits, 1994) which gain compressive

strength more than 20 MPa after 4 h of setting time (Fig. 12).

 Journal Pre-proof

of
ro
-p
Fig. 12: Effect of setting time at room temperature on compressive strength of geopolymer (Davidovits,
re
1994).
lP

However, when kaolinite are subjected to intensive thermal treatment (730-850 ˚C), it will
na

transform to disordered metakaolin, which enhances its subsequent reactivity with given
ur

chemical agents (Liew et al., 2011). However, increasing curing temperature fasten the setting
Jo

time, due to an increased rate of chemical reaction that accelerates the hardening of geopolymer

mortar (Thakkar et al., 2014), (Hung et al., 2011; Wang and Cheng, 2003). Increasing

temperature of curing above 600˚C decreases setting times; beyond this temperature, setting

times is decreased extremely (Dimas et al., 2009), (Van Chanh et al., 2008). The curing time was

varied from 4 to 96 hours. It was found that the heat curing time shouldn’t exceed 24 hours; after

this time, curing time was not significant (Mishra et al., 2008), (Keshari et al., 2018), (Tempest

et al., 2009). However, the elevated temperatures are preferable in case precursors didn’t

undergo any thermal treatment. When the precursors were primarily treated thermally, then the
 Journal Pre-proof

paste can be cured at room temperature or a temperature degree < 100 ˚C. An increase of

temperature of heat treatment caused a decrease of Si/Al ratios in aluminosilicate gel, and long

curing at room temperature narrowed the range of distribution of the Si/Al ratios. Optimization

of curing time is mandatory, for example, fly ash activated by sodium silicate, 6 h heat curing is

more beneficial than 24 h heat (Bakharev, 2005).

The term ‘rest period’ is defined as the time from the end of casting to the start of hot curing.

The compressive strength for mixture with no rest day was 37.5 MPa, while only one rest day

of
increased this value to 46.4 MPa (Lloyd and Rangan, 2010). The introduction of a rest day that is

ro
ambient curing for 24 hours prior to steam curing resulted in high compressive strengths of the

-p
order of 20%. The compressive strength of specimens increased with a rest period of one day or
re
more after casting. The strength gain is up to 20 - 50 % compared to the blank specimens with no

rest period (Bakharev, 2005). Muhd Fadhil Nurruddin et al. reviewed different curing regimes
lP

(Nurruddin et al., 2018). Nuruddin et al. (Nuruddin et al., 2011) compared three curing regimes,
na

and they found that external exposure resulted in the highest compressive strength. The effect of

different curing methods (with/without moisture and temperature control, associated with alkali
ur

activators was also investigated (De Rossi et al., 2020). Figure (13) shows the effect of these
Jo

curing methods on the geopolymer compostion.

 Journal Pre-proof

of
ro
-p
re
Fig. 13: EDS spectra of geopolymers with four curing methods (thermal conditions (TC), hydrothermal
lP

conditions (HC), water submerged conditions (SC) and usual conditions (UC)) and sodium silicate:
sodium hydroxide 1.5 at 28 days (De Rossi et al., 2020).
na

2.4. Geopolymerization mechanism

ur

Synthesis reaction and how it affects the final product of geopolymer occurs through four basic parallel
Jo

steps: the dissolution of alumino-silicate in specified alkali activators (sodium or potassium hydroxide

and sodium or potassium silicate). The reactivity of precursors depends on of the solubility kinetics of

reactive compounds which itself depends on the pH and surface area (Shi, 2001), reorganization of free

ion clusters to form coagulated structures, polycondensation to form the hydrated products (Komnitsas

and Zaharaki, 2007), (Alonso and Palomo, 2001; Dimas et al., 2009), (Zuhua et al., 2009), and finally,

hardening of the whole system to yield a final solid polymer (Singh et al., n.d.). Table 2 shows the

variation in compressive strength according to variation in precursors types, activators, and curing

regimes.
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 2: Different mixes conditions and the compressive strength of the final products.
Precursors Activator Curing Max. compressive Ref.
strength (N/mm2)
Fly ash + aggregates NaOH+ Heat 61.33 (Patankar et al.,
Na2SiO3 2013)
Fly ash Heat 60 (Kani and
Allahverdi, 2011)
Fly ash+ aggregates Hot gunny 22.7 (Nuruddin et al.,
+sucrose Ambient 27.3 2011)
External 50.9

of
exposure
Fly ash + aggregates Heat 32 (Brahammaji and

ro
Muthyalu, 2015)
Fly ash + aggregates n.a. 39.6 (Akbari et al.,
+ sand
Fly ash + kaolinite +
GGBS + aggregates
-p 2015)
re
Fly ash + GGBS + Ambient 80.5 (Krishnan et al.,
aggregates 2014)
lP

Metakaolin Heat 23 (Duxson et al.,

2007)
Clay sediments +slag Heat 42 (Cappelletto,
na

2014)
Fly ash + aggregates Ambient 30 (Bhikshma et al.,
2012)
ur

Fly ash + gypsum Heat 38 (Boonserm et al.,

2012a)
Jo

Metakaolin + Ambient 20 (Kim, 2012)

Ca(OH)2 +heat
Fly ash + GGBS + Ambient 53.1 (Ramkumar et al.,
aggregates + steel 2015)
fibers
Metakaolin Heat 68.4 (Gao et al., 2013)
Fly ash + Sand + Ambient + 45 (Vora and Dave,
Aggregate heat 2013)
Metakaolin + NaOH Heat 16.5 (Buchwald et al.,
Ca(OH)2 2005)
Fly ash + Ca(OH)2 60
Fly ash KOH + Na2SiO3 Heat 110 (Fan, 2014)
Fly ash K2O/SiO2 Ambient 87.6 (Canfield et al.,
+heat 2014)
 Journal Pre-proof

2.5. Properties

Geopolymers gain strength rapidly (Klabprasit et al., 2008) also enjoying high compressive

strength, low drying shrinkage, little creep (Hardjito et al., 2005), and good resistance to acid

(Thokchom et al., 2010), The references also discussed the mechanism of geopolymer resistance

toward sulfuric and nitric acids. The weight loss due to the exposure is only 0.5% compared to

concrete when immersed in 3% sulfuric acid (JAAFAR, 2014) and chemical attack (Lloyd and

of
Rangan, 2010), (Hardjito et al., 2003). They studied the weight losses, decrease in compressive

ro
strength, change in microstructure, and hydration products, using XRD, FTIR, SEM techniques.

-p
They concluded that the weight loss was <3% after exposure to two acids for 24 weeks and no
re
noticeable change in color. The loss in compressive strength was up to 70% in case of exposure

to both of acids for a long time. The mechanism of corrosion was mainly due to ion exchange
lP

and ejection of (Al) in tetrahedral sheets. The superior resistance of geopolymers to acid attack
na

was attributed to that the hydration process resulting new aluminum oxide silicates and calcium

magnesium. Also, the concentration of the alkali activators strengthens the geopolymer
ur

resistance toward acids [124-134]. The performance of the geopolymer was much better than
Jo

OPC, and the main loss in weight was due to the de-polymerization of alumino-silicates under

acidic medium. The best results obtained in case of curing at elevated temperature or/and using

NaOH as an activator.

It was also shown that the structural performance of geopolymer beams and columns similar to

that of OPC concrete (Sumajouw et al., 2007), (Sarker, 2009). Geopolymer has higher bond

strength than OPC concrete at the same test parameter (Sarker, 2010). Even the geopolymer

concrete withstand fatigue load (1332 cycles) higher than ordinary concrete (1151 cycles)
 Journal Pre-proof

(Deivabalan and Saravanan, 2015). The freeze-thaw properties of geopolymer were also

discussed in the literature. It was found that after recording 180 cycles, the compressive strength

and the mass losses were 5& 1%, respectively (Abdulkareem et al., 2014). Shrinkage <0.1% was

also recorded (Banah, 2014; Wallah, 2010). Finally, promising results for workability was

reviewed (Tabassum and Khadwal, 2015).

3. Recent progress in geopolymers

Recent studies stated that adding nanoparticles improve the mechanical properties of the

of
geopolymer matrix (Rashad, 2019). They investigated the effect of adding additives like steel

ro
and polypropylene fiber (Barnard, 2014), titanium dioxide (Yang et al., 2015), nano-silica, and

-p
nano alumina (Nazari and Sanjayan, 2015; Phoo-ngernkham et al., 2014; Riahi and Nazari,
re
2012) and other additives to geopolymers (Table 3). These nanoparticles act as nanofillers,

reduce the water, and increase the compressive strength. For example, adding TiO2 (5%)
lP

improves the mechanical properties of geopolymers (Duan et al., 2016). And even when this
na

percentage increased up to 10%, there was a change in mechanical performance (Guzmán-

Aponte et al., 2017). Introducing SiO2 (<3%) improves the mechanical properties; this was
ur

attributed to its amorphousity and its participation during geopolymerization process (Assaedi et
Jo

al., 2016) even at a very low weight percentage (1%), it can improve the strength and density

(Singh et al., 2018). Another candidate was carbon nanotubes (CNTS). The results showed that

adding only 0.5% of CNTS during geopolymer synthesis improved the flexural- strength and

toughness (Saafi et al., 2013), and in the case of adding 0.4% of CNTS, the compactness

increased (Khater and El Gawaad, 2016). Saafi et al. investigated the effect of graphene oxide on

geopolymers characteristics; they concluded that the porosity decreased and the strength

increased where these nanoparticles chemically bond the geopolymer matrix (Saafi et al., 2015).
 Journal Pre-proof

The best results were in case of adding SiO2 nanoparticles because it acts as the main

constituents of the geopolymer matrix.

Even they synthesized a nano-geopolymer by reducing the size of the fly ash precursor to less

than 100 nm and curing at 70˚C (Al Bakri et al., 2013b). However, adding more than 3% of

nano-kaolin is not preferable, where at a higher percentage, the nanoparticles agglomerated and

the resulting negative effect (Hassaan et al., 2015). In contrary to Dufková and Kovačič, who

studied the effect of SiO2 nanotubes, carbon nanoparticle, and nanofiber on geopolymer

of
composite, the results were not good, they attributed this to the low adhesion of these

ro
nanoparticles to the matrix and also the mechanism is still unclear (DUFKOVÁ and KOVAČIČ,

-p
n.d.). The dolomite-concrete powder was used to enhance the mechanical properties of a
re
geopolymer (Ouda and Gharieb, 2020). There was a particular focus on the effect of different

fiber on the mechanical properties of geopolymers (Al-Majidi et al., 2017; Bhutta et al., 2017;
lP

Herbert Sinduja et al., n.d.; Ranjbar and Zhang, 2020; Sukontasukkul et al., 2018).
na
ur

Table 3: Effect of additives on the geopolymer matrix.

Additives Major findings Ref.
Jo

 Steel The strength of the steel fiber (hooked (Barnard, 2014)

 Polypropylene fibers end) is stronger twice in case of
geopolymer than OPC concrete
 TiO2 Adding TiO2 up to 10% reduce setting (Guzmán-Aponte et al., 2017)
time and fluidity
 Basalt Fibers Increasing fiber weight % reduces the (Dias and Thaumaturgo, 2005)
geopolymer workability
 Gypsum The optimum weight % was 5 (Boonserm et al., 2012a)
 High Tenacity carbon Increasing flexural strength from 30% (Natali et al., 2011)
 E-glass up to 70% resulted from using only 1
 Polyvinyl alcohol %wt of the additives under study.
 Polyvinyl chloride
 Cotton fabric The orientation of the fiber affect the (Alomayri et al., 2014)
resistance of geopolymer to
 Journal Pre-proof

deformation
 Mineral additives Mineral additives can compensate the (Bondar et al., 2010)
shortage of the geopolymer main
oxides
 Wollastonite The optimum value for maximum (Silva and Thaumaturgo,
toughness was 2% 2003)
 Vermiculite Enhancing fire resistance (Temuujin et al., 2012)
 Natural Bamboo fiber Production of green material of (Ribeiro et al., n.d.)
construction
 Zircon Mineral Adding <10g/100g of metakaolin (Zawrah et al., 2018)
improve the mechanical properties of
the final product

of
 Slag The optimum value for improving (Li and Liu, 2007)
mechanical properties was 4%
 Ammonium molybdate ammonium molybdate governs the

ro
(Vidal et al., 2015)
polycondensation process
 Nano sand 2.5% of nano sand increase (Zawrah et al., 2020)

-p
polymerization and enhance the
properties of the final product
re
 Silica fume The silica fume increase the reactivity (Lee et al., 2016)
of the fly ash- slag based geopolymer
lP

 Natural sugars Improvement of geopolymer (Karthik et al., 2019)

microstructure
 Nano silica (NS) The optimum ratios of NS and SBL (Ekinci et al., 2019)
na

 Styrene-Butadiene were 2% and 5%, respectively.

Latex (SBL)
 Zeolite Increase geopolymer resistance to (Hu et al., 2009)
ur

sulfate
 Portland cement Additional C–S–H & C–A–S–H (Pangdaeng et al., 2014)
Jo

gel bonds resulting additional

compressive strength
 Al-Ca cements Limit geopolymer efflorescence (Łach et al., 2018)
 Gypsum Adding up to 10% of gypsum increased (Boonserm et al., 2012b)
geopolymer strength
 Rice husk ash (RHA) RHA could be used as alternative silica (Mejía et al., 2016)
sources
 OPC Implementation of OPC increase (Phoo-ngernkham et al., 2013)
elastic modulus while decrease setting
time and porosity
 RHA The optimum value was 35% (Hwang and Huynh, 2015)

4. Environmental impact and sustainability

 Journal Pre-proof

Reduction in CO2 emissions has been measured up to 0.73 ton CO2/ton of OPC replaced by

geopolymer (Dai et al., 2013). Additionally, the disposal of some precursors such as fly ash, slag,

and other industrial byproducts require large quantities of area and energy, so managing of these

wastes for production of green geopolymers considered an added value and minimizes the need

for clay and limestone in construction building manufacturing (reticulate Blanco, n.d.). Finally,

a reduction in the cost from 12 up to 30% can be achieved in case of replacement of OPC by

geopolymer (Rangan, 2010), (Raijiwala and Patil, 2011).

of
For sustainability, construction building material industry needs to explore green binder instead

ro
of OPC, the need for industrial wastes and low-cost materials-based geopolymer reduce global

-p
warming (Lloyd and Rangan, 2010) and get rid of a massive amount of wastes.
re
In the past, OPC was blended with geopolymer cement to merge the merits of geopolymer like

fast hardening (4 h) compared to OPC which needs several days and the low cost of OPC,
lP

especially in the military and industrial buildings (Husbands et al., 1994; Malone et al., 1985).
na

In the present future, there might be wide applications for geopolymer in construction building

material (Aleem and Arumairaj, 2012b). Gourley and Johnson have reported a list of products
ur

that geopolymer has been involved for, included sewer pipes, railway sleepers, and wall panels
Jo

(Gourley and Johnson, 2005), paving material (Davidovits, 2002; van Deventer et al., 2013),

electrical fuses (Davidovits, 2002) (Fig. 14). Wilkinson et al. reviewed the application of

geopolymer in road applications; they draw attention to the importance of putting standards

specific to the production of geopolymers (Wilkinson et al., 2015). Finally, geopolymers have

the ability to stabilize some hazardous materials that cannot be immobilized in OPC (De Weerdt,

2011) like lead (Li et al., 2015; Pereira et al., 2009; Xia et al., 2019) and boron (Ekaputri et al.,
 Journal Pre-proof

2010). Also, they can solidify some radioactive wastes (Shi and Fernández-Jiménez, 2006;

Walkley et al., 2020).

of
Fig. 14: Paver block (Vaz et al., 2012), electrical fuses (Davidovits, 2002), extruded kerb made (Glasby et

ro
al., 2015) of geopolymers.

-p
re
The geopolymer was even recycled in ordinary concrete; it was reported that replacing up to

20% of concrete aggregate with recycled geopolymers results in a small reduction in flexural
lP

strength and modulus of elasticity and a moderate reduction in compressive strength (Mesgari et
na

al., 2020). The environmental impact of fly ash-based geopolymer was assessed, one of the

major findings of the study is that the most negative impact raised from using the alkaline
ur

activator. Also, sustainability raised from good environmental impacts and cost reduction
Jo

achieved by using silica fume as a precursor (Bajpai et al., 2020).

A lot of studies on geopolymers have been published during the past years, but much work still

needed. However, there is some limitation for the sustainability of geopolymers like

efflorescence (formation of white salts on the surface when contact with humid air. These salts

deposit rises from using alkaline solution during geopolymerization (Ribeiro et al., n.d.).

Future studies should focus on:

 Journal Pre-proof

1. Searching for new industrial wastes based on silica and alumina and investigate similar

pozzolanic materials.

2. Replacing expensive alkaline solution with low-cost one.

3. Investigate scaling-up the production of geopolymers.

4. Lowering the cost of the geopolymerization process.

5. Searching for new nanoparticles and additives is an important research area since

nanoparticles may solve challenges like efflorescence, cost, and environmental issues,

of
etc.

ro
6. Contribute to solving climate change problems.

5. Conclusion
-p
re
This paper summarizes the research findings related to the production of geopolymers. The

current knowledge shows that the precursors' type, precursors/alkaline ratio, mixing mechanism,
lP

and curing- time and temperature are essentials for achieving the optimum mechanical properties
na

of geopolymer. The precursors can be activated by the alkaline solution of sodium/potassium

hydroxides and silicates. The molarity of the alkaline solution plays different important roles in
ur

the synthesis process, the optimum molarity in numerous studies was 12 M of NaOH. Some
Jo

geopolymers can be cured at room temperature, but it preferable to increase the temperature (>

60˚C), especially when the precursor didn’t receive any heat treatment. The maximum curing

time was 24 h; behind this period, the curing will not be sufficient. Although recent studies in

the application of nanoparticles in the geopolymer matrix were reviewed, however, there is still a

gap to transfer such technology from the laboratory to the large scale. It can be concluded that

the activator is the governing factor in geoploymerzation process and cost. Searching for new

activators is mendatory for lowering the cost at the large scale production and the sustainability.
 Journal Pre-proof

It is also strongly suggested that incorporating nanotechnology in the production of geopolymer

through nano-sized additives will yield good impact in reducing the cost and enhancing the

mechanical properties. The hope is that this paper will help researchers for searching how to

minimize environmental negative impact.

References

A Kamel, A., Rezk, H., Shehata, N., Thomas, J., 2019. Energy management of a DC microgrid composed
of photovoltaic/fuel cell/battery/supercapacitor systems. Batteries 5, 63.

of
Abdel-Gawwad, H.A., Abo-El-Enein, S.A., 2016. A novel method to produce dry geopolymer cement
powder. HBRC J. 12, 13–24.

ro
Abdel-Gawwad, H.A., El-Aleem, S.A., 2015. Effect of Reactive Magnesia on the Properties of Alkali
Activated Slag Cement Pastes. Int. J. Sci. Res. 4.
-p
Abdelkareem, M.A., Assad, M.E.H., Sayed, E.T., Soudan, B., 2018. Recent progress in the use of
re
renewable energy sources to power water desalination plants. Desalination 435, 97–113.

Abdelkareem, M.A., Elsaid, K., Wilberforce, T., Kamil, M., Sayed, E.T., Olabi, A., 2020a. Environmental
lP

aspects of fuel cells: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 141803.

Abdelkareem, M.A., Sayed, E.T., Mohamed, H.O., Obaid, M., Rezk, H., Chae, K.-J., 2020b. Nonprecious
anodic catalysts for low-molecular-hydrocarbon fuel cells: Theoretical consideration and current
na

progress. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 77, 100805.

Abdelkareem, M.A., Sayed, E.T., Nakagawa, N., 2020c. Significance of diffusion layers on the
performance of liquid and vapor feed passive direct methanol fuel cells. Energy 118492.
ur

Abdulkareem, O.A., Al Bakri, A.M., Kamarudin, H., Nizar, I.K., 2014. Fire resistance evaluation of
lightweight geopolymer concrete system exposed to elevated temperatures of 100-800 C. Trans
Jo

Tech Publ.

Abdullah, M.M.A., Hussin, K., Bnhussain, M., Ismail, K.N., Ibrahim, W.M.W., 2011. Mechanism and
chemical reaction of fly ash geopolymer cement-a review. Int. J. Pure Appl. Sci. Technol 6, 35–44.

Adam, A., 2009. Strength and durability properties of alkali activated slag and fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete.

Akbari, H., Mensah-Biney, R., Simms, J., 2015. Production of geopolymer binder from coal fly ash to
make cement-less concrete, in: World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference in Nasvhille, TN-May. pp.
5–7.

Al-Majidi, M.H., Lampropoulos, A., Cundy, A., 2016. Effect of alkaline activator, water, superplasticiser
and slag contents on the compressive strength and workability of slag-fly ash based geopolymer
mortar cured under ambient temperature. Int. J. Civil, Environ. Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 10, 308–
312.
 Journal Pre-proof

Al-Majidi, M.H., Lampropoulos, A., Cundy, A.B., 2017. Steel fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete
(SFRGC) with improved microstructure and enhanced fibre-matrix interfacial properties. Constr.
Build. Mater. 139, 286–307.

Al Bakri, A.M., Abdulkareem, O.A., Rafiza, A., Zarina, Y., Norazian, M., Kamarudin, H., 2013a. Review
on Processing of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7, 342–349.

Al Bakri, A.M., Kamarudin, H., Bnhussain, M., Liyana, J., Ghazali, C.M.R., 2013b. Nano Geopolymer
for Sustainable Concrete using Fly Ash Synthesized by High Energy Ball Milling, in: Applied
Mechanics and Materials. Trans Tech Publ, pp. 169–173.

Aleem, M.I.A., Arumairaj, P.D., 2012a. Geopolymer concrete–a review. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Emerg. Technol.
1, 118–122.

Aleem, M.I.A., Arumairaj, P.D., 2012b. Optimum mix for the geopolymer concrete. Indian J. Sci.

of
Technol. 5, 2299–2301.

Allahverdi, A., Skvara, F., 2006. Sulfuric acid attack on hardened paste of geopolymer cements-part 2.

ro
Corrosion mechanism at mild and relatively low concentrations. Ceram. Silikaty 50, 1.

Allahverdi, A., Skvara, F., 2005. Sulfuric acid attack on hardened paste of geopolymer cements-Part 1.

-p
Mechanism of corrosion at relatively high concentrations. Ceram. Silikaty 49, 225.

Allahverdi, A., Skvara, F., 2001. Nitric acid attack on hardened paste of geopolymeric cements, Part 1.
re
Ceram. SILIKATY 45, 81–88.

Alomayri, T., Shaikh, F.U.A., Low, I.M., 2014. Effect of fabric orientation on mechanical properties of
lP

cotton fabric reinforced geopolymer composites. Mater. Des. 57, 360–365.

Alonso, S., Palomo, A., 2001. Alkaline activation of metakaolin and calcium hydroxide mixtures:
na

influence of temperature, activator concentration and solids ratio. Mater. Lett. 47, 55–62.

Alshaaer, M., Alkafawein, J., Al-Fayez, Y., Fahmy, T., Hamaideh, A., 2015. Synthesis of Geopolymer
Cement Using Natural Resources for Green Construction Materials, in: Recent Advances in Earth
ur

Sciences, Environment and Development. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on

Engineering Mechanics, Structures, Engineering Geology (EMESEG’15), Konya, Turkey.
Jo

Amran, Y.H.M., Alyousef, R., Alabduljabbar, H., El-Zeadani, M., 2020. Clean production and properties
of geopolymer concrete; A review. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119679.

Assaedi, H., Shaikh, F.U.A., Low, I.M., 2016. Influence of mixing methods of nano silica on the
microstructural and mechanical properties of flax fabric reinforced geopolymer composites. Constr.
Build. Mater. 123, 541–552.

Assi, L.N., Carter, K., Deaver, E., Ziehl, P., 2020. Review of availability of source materials for
geopolymer/sustainable concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 121477.

Bajpai, R., Choudhary, K., Srivastava, A., Sangwan, K.S., Singh, M., 2020. Environmental Impact
Assessment of Fly Ash and Silica Fume Based Geopolymer Concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 120147.

Bakharev, T., 2005. Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack. Cem. Concr. Res. 35, 658–670.

Banah, U.K., 2014. Introduction to Geopolymer Binders. Ballyclare Banah UK.

 Journal Pre-proof

Barbosa, V.F.F., MacKenzie, K.J.D., Thaumaturgo, C., 2000. Synthesis and characterisation of materials
based on inorganic polymers of alumina and silica: sodium polysialate polymers. Int. J. Inorg.
Mater. 2, 309–317.

Barnard, R., 2014. Mechanical properties of fly ash/slag based geopolymer concrete with the addition of
macro fibres. Masters. Stellenbosch Univ.

Bhikshma, V., KOTI, R.M., SRINIVAS, R.A.O.T., 2012. An experimental investigation on properties of
geopolymer concrete (no cement concrete).

Bhutta, A., Borges, P.H.R., Zanotti, C., Farooq, M., Banthia, N., 2017. Flexural behavior of geopolymer
composites reinforced with steel and polypropylene macro fibers. Cem. Concr. Compos. 80, 31–40.

Bidwe, S.S., Hamane, A.A., 2015. Effect of different molarities of sodium hydroxide solution on the
strength of geopolymer concrete. Am. J. Eng. Res 4, 139–145.

of
Bondar, D., Lynsdale, C.J., Milestone, N.B., Hassani, N., Ramezanianpour, A.A., 2010. Geopolymer
cement from alkali-activated natural pozzolans: Effect of addition of minerals, in: 2nd International

ro
Conference On Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Università Politecnica Delle
Marche, Ancona, Italia. pp. 28–30.

-p
Boonserm, K., Sata, V., Pimraksa, K., Chindaprasirt, P., 2012a. Microstructure and strength of blended
FBC-PCC fly ash geopolymer containing gypsum as an additive. ScienceAsia 38, 175–181.
re
Boonserm, K., Sata, V., Pimraksa, K., Chindaprasirt, P., 2012b. Improved geopolymerization of bottom
ash by incorporating fly ash and using waste gypsum as additive. Cem. Concr. Compos. 34, 819–
lP

824.

Bouaissi, A., Li, L.Y., Moga, L.M., Sandu, I.G., Abdullah, M., Sandu, A.V., 2018. A review on fly ash as
a raw cementitious material for geopolymer concrete. Rev. Chim 69, 1661–1667.
na

Brahammaji, G.S. V, Muthyalu, P.V., 2015. A study on performance of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer
concrete in Chemical Atmosphere. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Technol. 8, 574.
ur

Buchwald, A., Dombrowski, K., Weil, M., 2005. The influence of calcium content on the performance of
geopolymeric binder especially the resistance against acids. Proc. world geopolymer 35–39.
Jo

Canfield, G.M., Eichler, J., Griffith, K., Hearn, J.D., 2014. The role of calcium in blended fly ash
geopolymers. J. Mater. Sci. 49, 5922–5933.

Cappelletto, E., 2014. Characterization of material for civil engineering.

Chareerat, T., Lee-Anansaksiri, A., Chindaprasirt, P., 2006. Synthesis of high calcium fly ash and
calcined kaolin geopolymer mortar, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Pozzolan,
Concrete and Geopolymer, Khon Kaen, Thailand. pp. 327–335.

Chawakitchareon, P., Veesommaia, C., 2013. Geopolymer mortar production using silica waste as raw
material. Am. Trans. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2, 3–13.

Cheema, D., Lloyd, N., Rangan, B.V., 2009. Durability of geopolymer concrete box culverts-A green
alternative, in: Proceedings of 34th Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures. CI
Premier Pty Ltd, pp. 85–92.

Cheng, T.W., Chiu, J.P., 2003. Fire-resistant geopolymer produced by granulated blast furnace slag.
 Journal Pre-proof

Miner. Eng. 16, 205–210.

Chindaprasirt, P., Chareerat, T., Sirivivatnanon, V., 2007. Workability and strength of coarse high
calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cem. Concr. Compos. 29, 224–229.

Chindaprasirt, P., Rattanasak, U., Taebuanhuad, S., 2013. Resistance to acid and sulfate solutions of
microwave-assisted high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Mater. Struct. 46, 375–381.

Cioffi, R., Maffucci, L., Santoro, L., 2003. Optimization of geopolymer synthesis by calcination and
polycondensation of a kaolinitic residue. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 40, 27–38.

Cui, Y., Wang, D., 2019. Effects of Water on Pore Structure and Thermal Conductivity of Fly Ash-Based
Foam Geopolymers. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019.

Dai, Y.S., Yang, L.C., Ding, Y.C., Jhong, C.W., Cheng, T.W., Lin, K.L., 2013. A study on application of

of
geopolymeric green cement. I 3–26.

Damanabi, A.T., Servatan, M., Mazinani, S., Olabi, A.G., Zhang, Z., 2019. Potential of tri-reforming

ro
process and membrane technology for improving ammonia production and CO2 reduction. Sci.
Total Environ. 664, 567–575.

-p
Damilola, O.M., 2013. Syntheses, characterization and binding strength of geopolymers: A review. Int. J.
Mat. Sci. Appl. 2, 185–193.
re
Davidovits, J., 2008. Geopolymer chemistry and applications. Geopolymer Institute.

Davidovits, J., 2002. years of successes and failures in geopolymer applications. Market trends and
lP

potential breakthroughs, in: Geopolymer 2002 Conference. Geopolymer Institute Saint‐Quentin,

France; Melbourne, Australia, p. 29.
na

Davidovits, J., 1994. Properties of geopolymer cement Proceedings of the First International conference
on Alkaline Cements and Concretes. KIEV Ukr. 131.

De Rossi, A., Simão, L., Ribeiro, M.J., Hotza, D., Moreira, R. de F.P.M., 2020. Study of cure conditions
ur

effect on the properties of wood biomass fly ash geopolymers. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9, 7518–
7528.
Jo

De Weerdt, K., 2011. Geopolymers—State of the art. SINTEF Build. Infrastruct. COIN Proj. Rep. 37.

Deivabalan, B., Saravanan, D., 2015. Fatigue Behaviour of Geopolymer Concrete Beam. Int. J. Res. Eng.
Sci. Technol. 1, 39–45.

Deja, J., Uliasz-Bochenczyk, A., Mokrzycki, E., 2010. CO2 emissions from Polish cement industry. Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Control 4, 583–588.

Dias, D.P., Thaumaturgo, C., 2005. Fracture toughness of geopolymeric concretes reinforced with basalt
fibers. Cem. Concr. Compos. 27, 49–54.

Diaz, E.I., Allouche, E.N., Eklund, S., 2010. Factors affecting the suitability of fly ash as source material
for geopolymers. Fuel 89, 992–996.

Dimas, D., Giannopoulou, I., Panias, D., 2009. Polymerization in sodium silicate solutions: a fundamental
process in geopolymerization technology. J. Mater. Sci. 44, 3719–3730.
 Journal Pre-proof

Douiri, H., Louati, S., Baklouti, S., Arous, M., Fakhfakh, Z., 2016. Enhanced dielectric performance of
metakaolin–H3PO4 geopolymers. Mater. Lett. 164, 299–302.

Duan, P., Yan, C., Luo, W., Zhou, W., 2016. Effects of adding nano-TiO2 on compressive strength,
drying shrinkage, carbonation and microstructure of fluidized bed fly ash based geopolymer paste.
Constr. Build. Mater. 106, 115–125.

DUFKOVÁ, I., KOVAČIČ, V., n.d. GEOPOLYMER NANOCOMPOSITES.

Dutta, R., Saha, P., Barma, S., Dutta, D., Biswas, T.G., n.d. Characteristic Variations in Different Fly Ash
Geopolymers, Activated with Conjunctive Approach of K2O and Na2O Activator in a Constant
Ratio.

Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., Palomo, A., van Deventer, J.S.J., 2007.
Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. J. Mater. Sci. 42, 2917–2933.

of
Duxson, P., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., Mallicoat, S.W., Kriven, W.M., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 2005.
Understanding the relationship between geopolymer composition, microstructure and mechanical

ro
properties. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 269, 47–58.

Ekaputri, J.J., Maekawa, K., Ishida, T., 2010. The use of geopolymerization process for boron fixation in

-p
fly ash, in: Jinan, China: Proceeding the 7th International Symposium on Cement& Concrete
(ISCC2010) and the 11th International Conference on Advance in Concrete Technology and
re
Sustainable Development.

Ekinci, E., Kazancoglu, Y., Mangla, S.K., 2020. Using system dynamics to assess the environmental
lP

management of cement industry in streaming data context. Sci. Total Environ. 715, 136948.

Ekinci, E., Türkmen, İ., Kantarci, F., Karakoç, M.B., 2019. The improvement of mechanical, physical and
durability characteristics of volcanic tuff based geopolymer concrete by using nano silica, micro
na

silica and Styrene-Butadiene Latex additives at different ratios. Constr. Build. Mater. 201, 257–267.

El-Gamal, S.M.A., Selim, F.A., 2017. Utilization of some industrial wastes for eco-friendly cement
production. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 12, 9–17.
ur

El-Salamony, A.-H.R., Mahmoud, H.M., Shehata, N., 2020. Enhancing the efficiency of a cement plant
Jo

kiln using modified alternative fuel. Environ. Nanotechnology, Monit. Manag. 100310.

Elijah, A.D., 2015. FIBRE-REINFORCED MINERAL WOOL GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITES.

Elimbi, A., Tchakoute, H.K., Njopwouo, D., 2011. Effects of calcination temperature of kaolinite clays on
the properties of geopolymer cements. Constr. Build. Mater. 25, 2805–2812.

Elsaid, K., Kamil, M., Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Wilberforce, T., Olabi, A., 2020a. Environmental
impact of desalination technologies: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 141528.

Elsaid, K., Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Baroutaji, A., Olabi, A.G., 2020b. Environmental impact of
desalination processes: Mitigation and control strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 140125.

Elsaid, K., Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Mahmoud, M.S., Ramadan, M., Olabi, A., 2020c.
Environmental Impact of Emerging Desalination Technologies: A preliminary Evaluation. J.
Environ. Chem. Eng. 104099.

Elsaid, K., Sayed, E.T., Yousef, B.A.A., Rabaia, M.K.H., Abdelkareem, M.A., Olabi, A.G., 2020d.
 Journal Pre-proof

Recent progress on the utilization of waste heat for desalination: A review. Energy Convers. Manag.
221, 113105.

Fan, F., 2014. Mechanical and thermal properties of fly ash-based geopolymer cement.

Farhan, K.Z., Johari, M.A.M., Demirboğa, R., 2020. Assessment of important parameters involved in the
synthesis of geopolymer composites: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 264, 120276.

Fauziah, P.Y., Fathullah, M., Abdullah, M.M.A., Faris, M.A., Tahir, F., Shayfull, Z., Nasir, S.M., Lih,
T.C., Wazien, A.Z.W., 2018. A review on cutting tool wear in the machining of fly ash geopolymer,
in: AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing LLC, p. 20066.

Fierro, J.J., Escudero-Atehortua, A., Nieto-Londoño, C., Giraldo, M., Jouhara, H., Wrobel, L.C., 2020.
Evaluation of waste heat recovery technologies for the cement industry. Int. J. Thermofluids
100040.

of
Ganesan, N., Abraham, R., Raj, S.D., 2015. Durability characteristics of steel fibre reinforced geopolymer
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 93, 471–476.

ro
Gao, K., Lin, K.-L., Wang, D., Shiu, H.-S., Hwang, C.-L., Cheng, T.-W., 2013. Effects of nano-SiO2 on
setting time and compressive strength of alkaliactivated metakaolin-based geopolymer. Open Civ.
Eng. J. 7.
-p
Gharzouni, A., Joussein, E., Samet, B., Baklouti, S., Rossignol, S., 2015. Effect of the reactivity of
re
alkaline solution and metakaolin on geopolymer formation. J. Non. Cryst. Solids 410, 127–134.

Gimeno, D., Davidovits, J., Marini, C., Rocher, P., Tocco, S., Cara, S., Diaz, N., Segura, C., Sistu, G.,
lP

2003. Development of silicate-based cement from glassy alkaline volcanic rocks: interpretation of
preliminary data related to chemical-mineralogical composition of geologic raw materials. Bol. Soc.
Esp. Cerám. Vidr. 42, 69–78.
na

Glasby, T., Day, J., Genrich, R., Aldred, J., 2015. EFC geopolymer concrete aircraft pavements at
Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport. Concrete 2015, 1–9.
ur

Gougazeh, M., 2013. Geopolymers from Jordanian metakaolin: influence of chemical and mineralogical
compositions on the development of mechanical properties. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 159, 1–22.
Jo

Gourley, J.T., Johnson, G.B., 2005. Developments in geopolymer precast concrete, in: World Congress
Geopolymer. Geopolymer Institute Saint-Quentin, France, pp. 139–143.

Guo, X., Shi, H., Dick, W.A., 2010. Compressive strength and microstructural characteristics of class C
fly ash geopolymer. Cem. Concr. Compos. 32, 142–147.

Guzmán-Aponte, L., Mejia de Gutierrez, R., Maury-Ramírez, A., 2017. Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer
with Added TiO2 Particles: Physicomechanical Characteristics. Coatings 7, 233.

Hardjito, D., Cheak, C.C., Ing, C.H.L., 2008. Strength and setting times of low calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer mortar. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2, 3–11.

Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Sumajouw, D.M.J., Rangan, B.V., 2005. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.
Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 6, 77–86.

Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Sumajouw, D.M.J., Rangan, B. V, 2004. Factors influencing the compressive
strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Civ. Eng. Dimens. 6, 88–93.
 Journal Pre-proof

Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Sumajouw, D.M.J., Rangan, B. V, 2003. Geopolymer concrete: turn waste into
environmentally friendly concrete, in: International Conference on Recent Trends in Concrete
Technology and Structures (INCONTEST). pp. 10–11.

Hasanbeigi, A., Morrow, W., Masanet, E., Sathaye, J., Xu, T., 2013. Energy efficiency improvement and
CO2 emission reduction opportunities in the cement industry in China. Energy Policy 57, 287–297.

Hassaan, M.M., Khater, H.M., El-Mahllawy, M.S., El Nagar, A.M., 2015. Production of geopolymer
composites enhanced by nano-kaolin material. J. Adv. Ceram. 4, 245–252.

Herbert Sinduja, J., Sakthieswaran, N., Shiny Brintha, G., n.d. Review On Geopolymer Concrete With
Different Additives. Int. J. Eng. Res. 1, 21–31.

Hewayde, E., Nehdi, M., Allouche, E., Nakhla, G., 2006. Effect of geopolymer cement on microstructure,
compressive strength and sulphuric acid resistance of concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 58, 321–331.

of
Horsley, C.M., Tsaknopoulos, D.G., Fitzpatrick-Schmidt, K.L., Zhang, Y., 2015. Geopolymer-The Green
Cement.

ro
Hu, M., Zhu, X., Long, F., 2009. Alkali-activated fly ash-based geopolymers with zeolite or bentonite as
additives. Cem. Concr. Compos. 31, 762–768.

-p
Hung, T.D., Louda, P., Kroisová, D., Bortnovsky, O., Xiem, N.T., 2011. New generation of geopolymer
composite for fire-resistance, in: Advances in Composite Materials-Analysis of Natural and Man-
re
Made Materials. IntechOpen.

Husbands, T.B., Malone, P.G., Wakeley, L.D., 1994. Performance of concretes proportioned with
lP

Pyrament blended cement.

Hwang, C.-L., Huynh, T.-P., 2015. Effect of alkali-activator and rice husk ash content on strength
na

development of fly ash and residual rice husk ash-based geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 101, 1–
9.

Ibrahim, W., Mastura, W., Hussin, K., Al Bakri Abdullah, M.M., Abdul Kadir, A., Binhussain, M., 2015.
ur

A review of fly ash-based geopolymer lightweight bricks, in: Applied Mechanics and Materials.
Trans Tech Publ, pp. 452–456.
Jo

Inayat, A., Nassef, A.M., Rezk, H., Sayed, E.T., Abdelkareem, M.A., Olabi, A.G., 2019. Fuzzy modeling
and parameters optimization for the enhancement of biodiesel production from waste frying oil over
montmorillonite clay K-30. Sci. Total Environ. 666, 821–827.

Izquierdo, M., Querol, X., Davidovits, J., Antenucci, D., Nugteren, H., Fernández-Pereira, C., 2009. Coal
fly ash-slag-based geopolymers: microstructure and metal leaching. J. Hazard. Mater. 166, 561–566.

JAAFAR, A.Z.B.I.N.A., 2014. Mechanical Behavior of Fly Ash based Geopolymer Cement as Well
Cement.

Jouhara, H., Khordehgah, N., Almahmoud, S., Delpech, B., Chauhan, A., Tassou, S.A., 2018. Waste heat
recovery technologies and applications. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 6, 268–289.

Kani, E.N., Allahverdi, A., 2011. Investigating shrinkage changes of natural pozzolan based geopolymer
cementpaste. Iran. J. Mater. Sci. Eng. 8, 50–60.

Karthik, A., Sudalaimani, K., Vijayakumar, C.T., Saravanakumar, S.S., 2019. Effect of bio-additives on
 Journal Pre-proof

physico-chemical properties of fly ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag based self cured
geopolymer mortars. J. Hazard. Mater. 361, 56–63.

Keshari, K., Mudgal, M., Chouhan, R.K., Bisarya, A., 2018. Feasibility Studies for Development of
Cement Free Fly Ash Based Geo-Polymer Mortar Using Potassium Based Alkaline Activator.

Khater, H.M., El Gawaad, H.A.A., 2016. Characterization of alkali activated geopolymer mortar doped
with MWCNT. Constr. Build. Mater. 102, 329–337.

Kim, E., 2012. Understanding effects of silicon/aluminum ratio and calcium hydroxide on chemical
composition, nanostructure and compressive strength for metakaolin geopolymers.

Kinnunen, P., Yliniemi, J., Talling, B., Illikainen, M., 2017. Rockwool waste in fly ash geopolymer
composites. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 19, 1220–1227.

of
Kirschner, A., Harmuth, H., 2004. Investigation of geopolymer binders with respect to their application
for building materials. Ceram. Silikáty 48, 117–120.

ro
Klabprasit, T., Jaturapitakkul, C., Chalee, W., Chindaprasirt, P., Songpiriyakij, S., 2008. Influence of
Si/Al ratio on compressive strength of rice husk-bark ashes and fly ash-based geopolymer paste, in:
The 3rd ACF International Conference-ACF/VCA. pp. 151–157.

-p
Komljenović, M., Baščarević, Z., Bradić, V., 2010. Mechanical and microstructural properties of alkali-
activated fly ash geopolymers. J. Hazard. Mater. 181, 35–42.
re
Komnitsas, K., Zaharaki, D., 2007. Geopolymerisation: A review and prospects for the minerals industry.
Miner. Eng. 20, 1261–1277.
lP

Kong, D., Sanjayan, J., Sagoe-Crentsil, K., 2006. The behaviour of geopolymer paste and concrete at
elevated temperatures.
na

Kong, D.L.Y., Sanjayan, J.G., 2008. Damage behavior of geopolymer composites exposed to elevated
temperatures. Cem. Concr. Compos. 30, 986–991.
ur

Kong, D.L.Y., Sanjayan, J.G., Sagoe-Crentsil, K., 2007. Comparative performance of geopolymers made
with metakaolin and fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures. Cem. Concr. Res. 37, 1583–
1589.
Jo

Krishnan, L., Karthikeyan, S., Nathiya, S., Suganya, K., 2014. Geopolymer concrete an eco-friendly
construction material. Magnesium 1, 1.

Kupaei, R.H., Alengaram, U.J., Jumaat, M.Z. Bin, 2013. A review on fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.
Electron. J. Struct. Eng. 13.

Łach, M., Korniejenko, K., Hebdowska-Krupa, M., Mikuła, J., 2018. The Effect of Additives on the
Properties of Metakaolin and Fly Ash Based Geopolymers, in: MATEC Web of Conferences. EDP
Sciences, p. 6005.

Lee, N.K., An, G.H., Koh, K.T., Ryu, G.-S., 2016. Improved reactivity of fly ash-slag geopolymer by the
addition of silica fume. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016.

Li, Y., Gao, X., Wang, Q., He, J., Yan, D., 2015. Solidification/stabilization and leaching behavior of
PbCl 2 in fly-ash hydrated silicate matrix and fly-ash geopolymer matrix. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
22, 6877–6885.
 Journal Pre-proof

Li, Z., Liu, S., 2007. Influence of slag as additive on compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymer. J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 19, 470–474.

Liew, Y.M., Kamarudin, H., Mustafa Al Bakri, A.M., Luqman, M., Khairul Nizar, I., Heah, C.Y., 2011.
Investigating the possibility of utilization of kaolin and the potential of metakaolin to produce green
cement for construction purposes–A review. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 5, 441–449.

Lloyd, N., Rangan, V., 2009. Geopolymer concrete-sustainable cementless concrete, in: Proceedings of
Tenth ACI International Conference. American Concrete Institute, pp. 33–53.

Lloyd, N.A., Rangan, B.V., 2010. Geopolymer concrete: a review of development and opportunities, in:
The Proceedings of 35th Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures, Singapore Concrete
Institute, Singapore. pp. 25–27.

Ma, C.-K., Awang, A.Z., Omar, W., 2018. Structural and material performance of geopolymer concrete:

of
A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 186, 90–102.

Madani, H., Ramezanianpour, A.A., Shahbazinia, M., Ahmadi, E., 2020. Geopolymer bricks made from

ro
less active waste materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 247, 118441.

Madheswaran, C.K., Gnanasundar, G., Gopalakrishnan, N., 2013. Effect of molarity in geopolymer
concrete. Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. 4, 106.
-p
Madlool, N.A., Saidur, R., Hossain, M.S., Rahim, N.A., 2011. A critical review on energy use and
re
savings in the cement industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 2042–2060.

Malone, P.G., Randal, C.A., Kirkpatrik, T., 1985. Potential for Use of Alkali-Activated Silico-Aluminate
lP

Binders in Military Applications. Report WES/MP/GL-85-15), Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MI,

USA.
na

Marmoush, M.M., Rezk, H., Shehata, N., Henry, J., Gomaa, M.R., 2018. A novel merging Tubular
Daylight Device with Solar Water Heater – Experimental study. Renew. Energy 125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.031
ur

McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A., Corder, G.D., 2011. Costs and carbon
emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. J. Clean. Prod. 19,
Jo

1080–1090.

Mejía, J.M., de Gutiérrez, R.M., Montes, C., 2016. Rice husk ash and spent diatomaceous earth as a
source of silica to fabricate a geopolymeric binary binder. J. Clean. Prod. 118, 133–139.

Mesgari, S., Akbarnezhad, A., Xiao, J.Z., 2020. Recycled geopolymer aggregates as coarse aggregates for
Portland cement concrete and geopolymer concrete: Effects on mechanical properties. Constr. Build.
Mater. 236, 117571.

Mikuni, A., Komatsu, R., Ikeda, K., 2007. Dissolution properties of some fly ash fillers applying to
geopolymeric materials in alkali solution. J. Mater. Sci. 42, 2953–2957.

Mishra, A., Choudhary, D., Jain, N., Kumar, M., Sharda, N., Dutt, D., 2008. Effect of concentration of
alkaline liquid and curing time on strength and water absorption of geopolymer concrete. ARPN J.
Eng. Appl. Sci. 3, 14–18.

Mo, K.H., Alengaram, U.J., Jumaat, M.Z., 2016. Structural performance of reinforced geopolymer
concrete members: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 120, 251–264.
 Journal Pre-proof

Mustafa, M., Bakri, A., Mohammed, H., Kamarudin, H., Nizar, K., Zarina, Y., 2011. Review on fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete without Portland Cement.

Nasvi, M.M.C., Gamage, R.P., Jay, S., 2012. Geopolymer as well cement and the variation of its
mechanical behavior with curing temperature. Greenh. gases Sci. Technol. 2, 46–58.

Natali, A., Manzi, S., Bignozzi, M.C., 2011. Novel fiber-reinforced composite materials based on
sustainable geopolymer matrix. Procedia Eng. 21, 1124–1131.

Nazari, A., Bagheri, A., Riahi, S., 2011. Properties of geopolymer with seeded fly ash and rice husk bark
ash. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528, 7395–7401.

Nazari, A., Sanjayan, J.G., 2015. Hybrid effects of alumina and silica nanoparticles on water absorption
of geopolymers: Application of Taguchi approach. Measurement 60, 240–246.

Nurruddin, M.F., Haruna, S., Mohammed, B.S., Sha’aban, I.G., 2018. Methods of curing geopolymer

of
concrete: a review. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 5, 31–36.

ro
Nuruddin, M.F.N., Kusbiantoro, A.K., Qazi, S.Q., Darmawan, M.S.D., Husin, N.A.H., 2011.
Development of geopolymer concrete with different curing conditions. IPTEK J. Technol. Sci. 22.

-p
Oh, J.E., Monteiro, P.J.M., Jun, S.S., Choi, S., Clark, S.M., 2010. The evolution of strength and
crystalline phases for alkali-activated ground blast furnace slag and fly ash-based geopolymers.
Cem. Concr. Res. 40, 189–196.
re
Olabi, A.G., Elsaid, K., Rabaia, M.K.H., Askalany, A.A., Abdelkareem, M.A., 2020a. Waste heat-driven
desalination systems: Perspective. Energy 118373.
lP

Olabi, A.G., Wilberforce, T., Sayed, E.T., Elsaid, K., Rezk, H., Abdelkareem, M.A., 2020b. Recent
progress of graphene based nanomaterials in bioelectrochemical systems. Sci. Total Environ.
na

141225.

Ouda, A.S., Gharieb, M., 2020. Development the properties of brick geopolymer pastes using concrete
waste incorporating dolomite aggregate. J. Build. Eng. 27, 100919.
ur

Panagiotopoulou, C., Kontori, E., Perraki, T., Kakali, G., 2007. Dissolution of aluminosilicate minerals
and by-products in alkaline media. J. Mater. Sci. 42, 2967–2973.
Jo

Pangdaeng, S., Phoo-ngernkham, T., Sata, V., Chindaprasirt, P., 2014. Influence of curing conditions on
properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer containing Portland cement as additive. Mater. Des.
53, 269–274.

Parthiban, K., Saravanarajamohan, K., Shobana, S., Bhaskar, A.A., 2013. Effect of replacement of slag on
the mechanical properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 5, 2555–2559.

Patankar, S. V, Jamkar, S.S., Ghugal, Y.M., 2013. Effect of water-to-geopolymer binder ratio on the
production of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Adv. Technol. Civ. Eng 2, 79–83.

Pereira, C.F., Luna, Y., Querol, X., Antenucci, D., Vale, J., 2009. Waste stabilization/solidification of an
electric arc furnace dust using fly ash-based geopolymers. Fuel 88, 1185–1193.

Phoo-ngernkham, T., Chindaprasirt, P., Sata, V., Hanjitsuwan, S., Hatanaka, S., 2014. The effect of
adding nano-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 on properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer cured at
ambient temperature. Mater. Des. 55, 58–65.
 Journal Pre-proof

Phoo-ngernkham, T., Chindaprasirt, P., Sata, V., Pangdaeng, S., Sinsiri, T., 2013. Properties of high
calcium fly ash geopolymer pastes with Portland cement as an additive. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater.
20, 214–220.

Qiu, J., Zhao, Y., Xing, J., Sun, X., 2019. Fly ash/blast furnace slag-based geopolymer as a potential
binder for mine backfilling: Effect of binder type and activator concentration. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
2019.

Raijiwala, D.B., Patil, H.S., 2011. Geopolymer concrete: A concrete of the next decade. Concr. Solut.
2011 287.

Raijiwala, D.B., Patil, H.S., Kundan, I.U., 2012. Effect of alkaline activator on the strength and durability
of geopolymer concrete. J. Eng. Res. Stud. 3, 18–21.

Ramkumar, G., Sundarkumar, S., Sivakumar, A., 2015. Development of steel fibre reinforced geopolymer

of
concrete. Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Eng. 4, 1717–1725.

Ramujee, K., 2014. Development of Low Calcium Flyash Based Geopolymer Concrete. Int. J. Eng.

ro
Technol. 6, 1.

Rangan, B.V., 2010. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Geopolymer Cement and Concrete.
December 2010 68–106.

Rangan, B.V., 2008. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.

-p
re
Ranjbar, N., Zhang, M., 2020. Fiber-reinforced geopolymer composites: A review. Cem. Concr. Compos.
107, 103498.
lP

Rashad, A.M., 2019. Effect of nanoparticles on the properties of geopolymer materials. Mag. Concr. Res.
1–19.
na

Rattanasak, U., Chindaprasirt, P., 2009. Influence of NaOH solution on the synthesis of fly ash
geopolymer. Miner. Eng. 22, 1073–1078.
ur

reticulate Blanco, N.M.C., n.d. a) Book Details. Policy 3, 299–306.

Rezk, H., Gomaa, M.R., Marmoush, M.M., Shehata, N., Henry, J., 2019a. Theoretical and experimental
Jo

performance investigation of a newly combined TDD and SWH system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 161,
114156.

Rezk, H., Sayed, E.T., Al-Dhaifallah, M., Obaid, M., Abou Hashema, M., Abdelkareem, M.A., Olabi,
A.G., 2019b. Fuel cell as an effective energy storage in reverse osmosis desalination plant powered
by photovoltaic system. Energy 175, 423–433.

Riahi, S., Nazari, A., 2012. The effects of nanoparticles on early age compressive strength of ash-based
geopolymers. Ceram. Int. 38, 4467–4476.

Ribeiro, R.A.S., Kriven, W.M., Ribeiro, M.G.S., Sankar, K., Miranda, I.P.A., Almeida, F.L., n.d.
Geopolymer Reinforced with Bamboo for Sustainable Construction Materials.

Risdanareni, P., Ekaputri, J.J., 2015. The influence of alkali activator concentration to mechanical
properties of geopolymer concrete with trass as a filler, in: Materials Science Forum. Trans Tech
Publ, pp. 125–134.
 Journal Pre-proof

Saafi, M., Andrew, K., Tang, P.L., McGhon, D., Taylor, S., Rahman, M., Yang, S., Zhou, X., 2013.
Multifunctional properties of carbon nanotube/fly ash geopolymeric nanocomposites. Constr. Build.
Mater. 49, 46–55.

Saafi, M., Tang, L., Fung, J., Rahman, M., Liggat, J., 2015. Enhanced properties of graphene/fly ash
geopolymeric composite cement. Cem. Concr. Res. 67, 292–299.

Saranya, I., Mahesh, Y., Guptha, M.R., n.d. Economical Studies on Sustainable Concrete.

Sarker, P., 2010. Bond strengths of geopolymer and cement concretes, in: Advances in Science and
Technology. Trans Tech Publ, pp. 143–151.

Sarker, P.K., 2009. Analysis of geopolymer concrete columns. Mater. Struct. 42, 715–724.

Sata, V., Sathonsaowaphak, A., Chindaprasirt, P., 2012. Resistance of lignite bottom ash geopolymer

of
mortar to sulfate and sulfuric acid attack. Cem. Concr. Compos. 34, 700–708.

Sayed, E.T., Alawadhi, H., Elsaid, K., Olabi, A.G., Adel Almakrani, M., Bin Tamim, S.T., Alafranji,

ro
G.H.M., Abdelkareem, M.A., 2020a. A Carbon-Cloth Anode Electroplated with Iron Nanostructure
for Microbial Fuel Cell Operated with Real Wastewater. Sustainability 12, 6538.

-p
Sayed, E.T., Shehata, N., Abdelkareem, M.A., Atieh, M.A., 2020b. Recent progress in environmentally
friendly bio-electrochemical devices for simultaneous water desalination and wastewater treatment.
Sci. Total Environ. 141046.
re
Shafeek, A.M., Khedr, M.H., El‐Dek, S.I., Shehata, N., 2020. Influence of ZnO nanoparticle ratio and
lP

size on mechanical properties and whiteness of White Portland Cement. Appl. Nanosci.

Shehata, N., Mohamed, H.S.H., Emam, H.M., Ahmed, S., 2017. FUEL PRODUCED FROM
CATALYTIC PYROLYSIS OF WASTE PLASTIC. Emirates J. Eng. Res. 22, 1–6.
na

Shen, W., Cao, L., Li, Q., Zhang, W., Wang, G., Li, C., 2015. Quantifying CO2 emissions from China’s
cement industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1004–1012.
ur

Shi, C., Fernández-Jiménez, A., 2006. Stabilization/solidification of hazardous and radioactive wastes
with alkali-activated cements. J. Hazard. Mater. 137, 1656–1663.
Jo

Shuaibu, R.A., 2014. Compressive Strength of Low Calcium Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete-A Review.
Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 4, 463–470.

Shubbar, A.A., Sadique, M., Shanbara, H.K., Hashim, K., 2020. Advances in Sustainable Construction
Materials and Geotechnical Engineering.

Silva, F.J., Thaumaturgo, C., 2003. Fibre reinforcement and fracture response in geopolymeric mortars.
Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 26, 167–172.

Singh, B., Mackinnon, I.D.R., Page, D., 2001. Process for forming alumino-silicate derivatives.

Singh, N.B., Saxena, S.K., Kumar, M., 2018. Effect of nanomaterials on the properties of geopolymer
mortars and concrete. Mater. Today Proc. 5, 9035–9040.

Škvára, F., Jílek, T., Kopecký, L., 2005. Geopolymer materials based on fly ash. Ceram.-Silik 49, 195–
204.
 Journal Pre-proof

Song, X., 2007. Development and performance of class F fly ash based geopolymer concretes against
sulphuric acid attack. Sch. Civ. Environ. Eng. Univ. New South Wales, Sydney.

Song, X.J., Marosszeky, M., Brungs, M., Chang, Z.-T., 2005a. Response of geopolymer concrete to
sulphuric acid attack, in: Proceedings of World Congress Geopolymer. pp. 157–160.

Song, X.J., Marosszeky, M., Brungs, M., Munn, R., 2005b. Durability of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete against sulphuric acid attack, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Durability
of Building Materials and Components, Lyon, France. pp. 369–375.

Soudan, B., 2019. Community-scale baseload generation from marine energy. Energy 189, 116134.

Srinivasan, K., Sivakumar, A., 2013. Geopolymer binders: a need for future concrete construction. ISRN
Polym. Sci. 2013.

of
Steveson, M., Sagoe-Crentsil, K., 2005. Relationships between composition, structure and strength of
inorganic polymers. J. Mater. Sci. 40, 2023–2036.

ro
Sukontasukkul, P., Pongsopha, P., Chindaprasirt, P., Songpiriyakij, S., 2018. Flexural performance and
toughness of hybrid steel and polypropylene fibre reinforced geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 161,
37–44.

-p
Sumajouw, D.M.J., Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.E., Rangan, B. V, 2007. Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete:
study of slender reinforced columns. J. Mater. Sci. 42, 3124–3130.
re
Svingala, F., Varela, B., 2009. Alkali activated aerogels, in: Ceramic Engineering and Science
Proceedings. p. 325.
lP

Swanepoel, J.C., Strydom, C.A., 2002. Utilisation of fly ash in a geopolymeric material. Appl.
geochemistry 17, 1143–1148.
na

Tabassum, R.K., Khadwal, A., 2015. A Brief Review on Geopolymer Concrete. Int. J. Adv. Res. Educ.
Technol. 2.
ur

Tempest, B., Sanusi, O., Gergely, J., Ogunro, V., Weggel, D., 2009. Compressive strength and embodied
energy optimization of fly ash based geopolymer concrete, in: World of Coal Ash (WOCA)
Conference.
Jo

Temuujin, J., Minjigmaa, A., Rickard, W., Van Riessen, A., 2012. Thermal properties of spray-coated
geopolymer-type compositions. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 107, 287–292.

Temuujin, J. v, Van Riessen, A., Williams, R., 2009. Influence of calcium compounds on the mechanical
properties of fly ash geopolymer pastes. J. Hazard. Mater. 167, 82–88.

Thakkar, S.P., Bhorwani, D.J., Ambaliya, R., 2014. Geopolymer concrete using different source
materials. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 4, 366–371.

Thokchom, S., 2014. Fly ash geopolymer pastes in sulphuric acid. Int. J. Eng. Innov. Res 3, 943–947.

Thokchom, S., Ghosh, P., Ghosh, S., 2010. Performance of fly ash based geopolymer mortars in sulphate
solution. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev. 3, 36–40.

Thokchom, S., Ghosh, P., Ghosh, S., 2009a. Acid resistance of fly ash based geopolymer mortars. Int. J.
Recent Trends Eng. 1, 36.
 Journal Pre-proof

Thokchom, S., Ghosh, P., Ghosh, S., 2009b. Resistance of fly ash based geopolymer mortars in sulfuric
acid. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci 4, 65–70.

Thokchom, S., Ghosh, P., Ghosh, S., 2009c. Effect of Na2O content on durability of geopolymer mortars
in sulphuric acid. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 3, 508–513.

Tong, K.T., 2020. Lightweight Geopolymer Concrete Panels for a wall in high-rise buildings: Technical-
Economical-Environmental efficiency, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering. IOP Publishing, p. 32048.

Toniolo, N., Boccaccini, A.R., 2017. Fly ash-based geopolymers containing added silicate waste. A
review. Ceram. Int. 43, 14545–14551.

Vaidya, S., Allouche, E.N., 2011. Strain sensing of carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete. Mater.
Struct. 44, 1467–1475.

of
Van Chanh, N., Trung, B.D., Van Tuan, D., 2008. Recent research geopolymer concrete, in: The 3rd ACF
International Conference-ACF/VCA, Vietnam. pp. 235–241.

ro
van Deventer, J., Brice, D., Bernal, S., Provis, J., 2013. Development, standardization, and applications of
alkali-activated concretes, in: Geopolymer Binder Systems. ASTM International.

-p
VAN DEVENTER, J.S.J., 2009. VALORISATION OF FLY ASHES BY GEOPOLYMERISATION.
re
Van Jaarsveld, J.G.S., Van Deventer, J.S.J., Lukey, G.C., 2002. The effect of composition and
temperature on the properties of fly ash-and kaolinite-based geopolymers. Chem. Eng. J. 89, 63–73.
lP

Vaz, A.D., Donal Nixon, D., Kaliveer, N., Satish, K.T., Amar, S.M., Ramaiah, M.S., 2012. Geopolymer
Paver Blocks, in: Proc. of Int. Conf. on Advances in Civil Engineering. Citeseer, pp. 173–178.
na

Vidal, L., Joussein, E., Colas, M., Absi, J., Rossignol, S., 2015. Effect of the addition of ammonium
molybdate on metakaolin-based geopolymer formation: Shrinkage and crystallization. Powder
Technol. 275, 211–219.
ur

Vignesh, P., Vivek, K., 2015. An experimental investigation on strength parameters of flyash based
geopolymer concrete with GGBS. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2.
Jo

Vijai, K., Kumutha, R., Vishnuram, B.G., 1970. Feasibility study on effective utilisation of fly ash from
two thermal power stations on the development of geopolymer concrete. I Control Pollut. 28.

Voney, V., Odaglia, P., Brumaud, C., Dillenburger, B., Habert, G., 2020. Geopolymer Formulation for
Binder Jet 3D Printing, in: RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication.
Springer, pp. 153–161.

Vora, P.R., Dave, U. V, 2013. Parametric studies on compressive strength of geopolymer concrete.
Procedia Eng. 51, 210–219.

Walkley, B., Ke, X., Hussein, O.H., Bernal, S.A., Provis, J.L., 2020. Incorporation of strontium and
calcium in geopolymer gels. J. Hazard. Mater. 382, 121015.

Wallah, S.E., 2010. Creep behaviour of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Civ. Eng. Dimens. 12, 73–78.

Wallah, S.E., 2009. Drying shrinkage of heat-cured fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Mod. Appl. Sci.
3, 14–21.
 Journal Pre-proof

Wang, J.W., Cheng, T.W., 2003. Production geopolymer materials by coal fly ash, in: Proceedings of the
7th International Symposium on East Asian Resources Recycling Technology. p. 266.

Wattimena, O.K., Antoni, Hardjito, D., 2017. A review on the effect of fly ash characteristics and their
variations on the synthesis of fly ash based geopolymer, in: AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP
Publishing LLC, p. 20041.

Wei, J., Cen, K., 2019. Empirical assessing cement CO2 emissions based on China’s economic and social
development during 2001–2030. Sci. Total Environ. 653, 200–211.

Wilberforce, T., Baroutaji, A., El Hassan, Z., Thompson, J., Soudan, B., Olabi, A.G., 2019a. Prospects
and challenges of concentrated solar photovoltaics and enhanced geothermal energy technologies.
Sci. Total Environ. 659, 851–861.

Wilberforce, T., Baroutaji, A., Soudan, B., Al-Alami, A.H., Olabi, A.G., 2019b. Outlook of carbon

of
capture technology and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 56–72.

Wilkinson, A., Woodward, D., Magee, B., Tretsiakova-McNally, S., 2015. A state of the art review into

ro
the use of geopolymer cement for road applications. CRC Press London, UK 147–152.

Xia, M., Muhammad, F., Zeng, L., Li, S., Huang, X., Jiao, B., Shiau, Y., Li, D., 2019.

-p
Solidification/stabilization of lead-zinc smelting slag in composite based geopolymer. J. Clean.
Prod. 209, 1206–1215.
re
Xu, D., Cui, Y., Li, H., Yang, K., Xu, W., Chen, Y., 2015. On the future of Chinese cement industry.
Cem. Concr. Res. ElSEIVERE 78, Part A, 2–13.
lP

Xu, H., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 2002. Geopolymerisation of multiple minerals. Miner. Eng. 15, 1131–1139.

Xu, H., Van Deventer, J.S.J., 2000. The geopolymerisation of alumino-silicate minerals. Int. J. Miner.
na

Process. 59, 247–266.

Yadollahi, M.M., Demirboga, R., Polat, R., Atashafrazeh, M., 2013. BEHAVIOR INVESTIGATION OF
NAOH-ACTIVATED PUMICE-BASED GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITES EXPOSED TO
ur

ELEVATED TEMPERATURE.

Yang, L.Y., Jia, Z.J., Zhang, Y.M., Dai, J.G., 2015. Effects of nano-TiO2 on strength, shrinkage and
Jo

microstructure of alkali activated slag pastes. Cem. Concr. Compos. 57, 1–7.

YellaIah, P., Sharma, S.K., Rao, T.D., 2014. Development of Fly Ash based Geopolymer behaviour of
Fly Cement.

Zawrah, M.F., Farag, R.S., Kohail, M.H., 2018. Improvement of physical and mechanical properties of
geopolymer through addition of zircon. Mater. Chem. Phys. 217, 90–97.

Zawrah, M.F., Sawan, S.E.A., Khattab, R.M., Abdel-Shafi, A.A., 2020. Effect of nano sand on the
properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer: Study on its low rate sintering. Constr. Build. Mater.
246, 118486.

Zerfu, K., Ekaputri, J.J., 2016. Review on alkali-activated fly ash based geopolymer concrete, in:
Materials Science Forum. Trans Tech Publ, pp. 162–169.

Zhang, G., He, J., Gambrell, R.P., 2010. Synthesis, characterization, and mechanical properties of red
mud–based geopolymers. Transp. Res. Rec. 2167, 1–9.
 Journal Pre-proof

Zhang, P., Zheng, Y., Wang, K., Zhang, J., 2018. A review on properties of fresh and hardened
geopolymer mortar. Compos. Part B Eng. 152, 79–95.

Zhang, Z., Yao, X., Zhu, H., Hua, S., Chen, Y., 2009. Preparation and mechanical properties of
polypropylene fiber reinforced calcined kaolin-fly ash based geopolymer. J. Cent. South Univ.
Technol. 16, 49–52.

Zhuang, X.Y., Chen, L., Komarneni, S., Zhou, C.H., Tong, D.S., Yang, H.M., Yu, W.H., Wang, H., 2016.
Fly ash-based geopolymer: clean production, properties and applications. J. Clean. Prod. 125, 253–
267.

Zibouche, F., Kerdjoudj, H., de Lacaillerie, J.-B. d’Espinose, Van Damme, H., 2009. Geopolymers from
Algerian metakaolin. Influence of secondary minerals. Appl. Clay Sci. 43, 453–458.

Živica, V., Palou, M.T., Križma, M., 2015. Geopolymer cements and their properties: a review. Build.

of
Res. J. 61, 85–100.

Zribi, M., Samet, B., Baklouti, S., 2020. Structural Characterization of Phosphate-Based Geopolymer, in:

ro
Advances in Materials, Mechanics and Manufacturing. Springer, pp. 36–42.

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of competing interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as
potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Credit author statement

All authors have equal contribution in preparing the different sections of this paper.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Journal Pre-proof

Graphical abstract

Highlights:

 Geopolymer can replace OPC, and thus decreasing energy consumption.

 Mechanism of geopolymerization, including the controlling parameters summarized.

 Different geopolymer raw materials are thoroughly discussed.

 Geopolymer reduces the environmental impact of the cement industry.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo