Next Article in Journal
Fast Absorbent and Highly Bioorthogonal Hydrogels Developed by IEDDA Click Reaction for Drug Delivery Application
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Alternate Wet and Dry Conditions on the Mechanical and Physical Performance of Limestone Calcined Clay Cement Mortars Immersed in Sodium Sulfate Media
Previous Article in Journal
Aspects and Principles of Material Connections in Restorative Dentistry—A Comprehensive Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Preparation and Pore Structure of Energy-Storage Phosphorus Building Gypsum
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/ma15207130
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Review on the Incorporation of Diatomaceous Earth as a Geopolymer-Based Concrete Building Resource

by
Janet J. Kipsanai
1,*,
Paul M. Wambua
2,
Saul S. Namango
3 and
Sofiane Amziane
4
1
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, School of Engineering, Moi University, Eldoret 30100, Kenya
2
Professor of Materials Engineering, Department of Manufacturing, Industrial and Textile Engineering, School of Engineering, Moi University, Eldoret 30100, Kenya
3
Associate Professor of Chemical & Processing Engineering, Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, School of Engineering, Moi University, Eldoret 30100, Kenya
4
Institut Pascal, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, INP, Clermont, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(20), 7130; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207130
Submission received: 2 August 2022 / Revised: 25 September 2022 / Accepted: 4 October 2022 / Published: 13 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cement, Gypsum, and Lime Composites: Methods, Models, Kinetics, and Recent Advances)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The development of geopolymer building composites at a lower cost with a smaller carbon footprint may lessen the growing concerns about global warming brought on by emissions of a critical greenhouse gas (CO2) paired with the high production costs in the cement sector. Diatomaceous earth, commonly used as an admixture or partial replacement of cement owing to its most effective pozzolanic properties, has been investigated as a precursor in geopolymer concrete development. Several studies have been examined to develop a greater understanding of its characterization, inclusion status, and impacts on the performance aspects of concrete. The literature review showed that using diatomaceous earth is one of the effective ways to create sustainable, insulating, lightweight building materials while minimizing the harmful economic and environmental effects of industrial solid wastes. However, since most studies have focused on its integration as a partial cement substitute or a replacement for fine aggregate, further research on diatomaceous earth-based clinker-free concrete is required. A lack of research on geopolymer concrete’s reinforcement with either natural or synthetic fibers, or a combination of the two, was also discovered. This review also showed that there has been remarkably little effort made towards theoretical property correlation modeling for predicting concrete performance. It is anticipated that the detailed overview presented herein will guide potential researchers in defining their future paths in the study area.

1. Introduction

The construction sector is essential to sustainable development since it contributes significantly to a country’s economy and its activities are critical to achieving the socio-economic development goals of providing housing, infrastructure, and employment [1,2,3]. Building and construction have been found to consume more than 40% of the world’s energy while emitting roughly the same amount of CO2 [4,5,6] as a result of the widespread use of cement-based concrete [7,8], which has led to an estimated global production of around 25 billion tonnes per year [9,10,11]. This eco-footprint is also expected to rise with the significant population growth anticipated by 2050 [3]. Currently, CO2 emissions are to blame for 65% of global warming, with ordinary Portland cement (OPC) production contributing around 8% of all CO2-related greenhouse gas emissions [12,13]. The negative impacts of using cement-based concrete and ceramic bricks can be mitigated by adopting sustainable practices.
Figure 1 summarizes multiple strategies for creating more sustainable concrete alternatives that have been proposed by scholars [7,14,15] to try and reduce the unsustainability of concrete.
Numerous researchers have become interested in cutting-edge geopolymer technology and geopolymer composite production to attain sustainability in the manufacture of concrete. This is because geopolymers may be produced at low temperatures, using little energy, and by using a variety of wastes as either cementitious materials (SCM) or precursors [12]. Numerous scientists are fascinated by geopolymer concrete because it has the potential to be a more environmentally friendly alternative to ordinary Portland cement concrete [16,17,18]. It completely substitutes ordinary Portland cement with pozzolanic material (aluminosilicate-rich components).
Materials with silica and alumina-carrying phases have proven to be ideal for geopolymer synthesis [19]. To reduce the consumption of and dependence on cement, pozzolanic materials have become a major research focus in the field of cement and materials research in recent decades [20]. The most popular geopolymer precursors (aluminosilicate sources) that have been extensively studied thus far include fly ash, ground-granulated blast furnace slag, metakaolin, silica fume, and rice husk ash [21,22]. While many industrial by-products, agricultural wastes, and other waste products have been used as sources of aluminosilicate minerals, there has been comparatively little research on the use of either natural or spent diatomaceous earth as a geopolymer precursor. Its potential use as a precursor material in the creation of geopolymer concrete is made possible by its wide availability and pozzolanic properties.
Diatomaceous earth (DE), also known as diatomite or Kieselguhr, is derived from deposits made by the deposition of fossilized diatom skeletons, which are siliceous skeletons that are linked to clay minerals and quartz [23]. It is a lightweight mineral with a density of 0.25–0.50 ton/m3 possessing a high silica content (60–97%) and an amorphous porous structure [24]. Diatomaceous earth and other minerals containing amorphous SiO2 are practical and appealing materials for the creation of porous geopolymer materials and thus offer the construction industry a sustainable future. [25,26,27,28,29].
Diatomaceous earth has been used as a filtering agent, functional fillers in a variety of paints and plastics, in soil amendment, pesticides, in separation techniques, in nanotechnology, in capacitors, as a super hydrophobic substance, in pharmaceuticals, in biomedical applications, and as pore-forming agents in building materials [23,30]. Industries such as that of food processing and breweries generate a great deal of spent diatomaceous earth (SDE) as industrial waste [23,31,32]. For instance, the brewing industry generates approximately 378.1 million kilograms of SDE annually [33,34]. This spent diatomite is dumped in landfills or used as organic fertilizer in agriculture, which not only wastes land resources but also pollutes the environment [32,35]. Furthermore, the risk of leaching nitrogenous compounds present in the wasted diatomaceous earth could be increased by its use in agriculture. The regeneration of SDE might not be a practicable choice due to the high energy, labor, and financial requirements. Therefore, there is a significant interest in adopting SDE for other cost-effective and environmentally benign applications.
This review paper comprehensively presents the available literature on the incorporation of diatomaceous earth as a geopolymer concrete resource. A deeper understanding of its physical, chemical, and mechanical properties is accordingly required because—as a pozzolanic material—it is readily available in nature. Aside from that, it is also important to consider the performance characteristics of the concrete containing diatomaceous earth and its inclusion status in the literature. The purpose of this article is to bring together and disseminate scientific and technological knowledge to close the knowledge gap regarding the use of diatomaceous earth as a concrete raw material for sustainable development in the building sector.

2. Sustainability of Diatomaceous Earth as a Concrete Production Resource

Diatomaceous earth, being a natural pozzolanic substance, can be used as a supplementary cementitious ingredient. The use of active silica-rich materials, as supplemental cementitious materials (SCMs), has proved to be a viable alternative to Portland cement [36]. According to Snellings et al. [37], there are three advantages of using supplemental cementitious materials in the building and construction industries: the economic savings obtained by replacing cement with inexpensive natural pozzolans or industrial by-products, the diminished environmental effect related to greenhouse gas emissions generated during cement manufacture, and the improved end-product sustainability.
Diatomaceous earth’s carbon footprint with respect to its use as a bio-agricultural input was evaluated by [38,39]. It was found that the chemical fertilizer doses were reduced and thus became an alternative environmental management tool to contribute to the reduction in chemicals in the air, water, and soil. It was determined by Abrão et al. [40] that the amount of CO2 emitted was significantly reduced when Portland pozzolan cement blended with diatomaceous earth was used in concrete production.
Davidovits [41] revealed that geopolymer cement is more sustainable compared to Portland cement because it does not require high-temperature kilns, huge fuel expenditures, or large capital investments in plants and equipment during their manufacture.
This section examines the various ways that diatomaceous earth has been applied to advance concrete’s overall sustainability.

2.1. Diatomaceous Earth as a Cement Replacement Material

Li et al. [42] investigated the replacement of Portland cement (PC) in mortar and concrete mixtures with up to 40% highly reactive pozzolanic diatomaceous earth (DE) and found that a 30% by weight replacement of PC with DE was the optimum alternative, increasing strength development while reducing energy use and global warming potential by over 30%. Degirmenci and Yilmaz [43] demonstrated that the mortar’s compressive strength and sulfate resistance greatly increased while water absorption and mortar weight decreased when diatomite was used up to 15% by weight.
Diatomite powder, according to Ahmadi et al. [44], can replace up to 40% of the cement in mortars without compromising compressive strength while also enhancing tensile strength and transport characteristics. However, the mortars that had been amended with 15% calcined diatomite powder showed the best mechanical characteristics both at low and high temperatures [45]. The optimal percentage of diatomite replacement for cement, according to Macedo et al. [46], was determined to be 10%, since better results were yielded indicating that diatomite has a good potential as a partial substitute for cement in concrete construction.
Regarding the use of waste marble powder (WMP) as an aggregate and up to 20% diatomite and fly ash as binders to partially replace natural hydraulic lime in mortars, Xu et al. [47] found that a 20% diatomite/fly ash addition improved mechanical properties, which was attributed to the pozzolanic reaction between the mineral admixtures and calcium hydroxide (Ca (OH)2) that mainly occurs during the curing period. Contrarily, Ergün [48] substituted diatomite and waste marble powder for cement, and the concrete containing 10% uncalcined diatomite and 5% waste marble dust was shown to have the best mechanical properties among its series.
In addition to replacing cement, diatomite has also been used as a filler to act as a pore-forming agent in asphalt mixtures [49], magnesium phosphate cement [50], and straw fiber cement-based composites [51], where it improves the resistance to stripping, resistance to moisture damage, setting time, porosity, and thermal insulation, as well as facilitating the hydrogenation reaction.
Although the majority of studies came to the conclusion that using diatomite as a cement replacement material enhanced the mechanical properties, Pokorný et al.’s [36] investigation led to increased flexural strength and a decline in compressive strength. In contrast to a mechanical property analysis, Hasanzadeh and Sun [52] investigated the impact of cement replacement levels up to 10% on the transport properties and found that adding DE to cement paste increased viscosity while decreasing flow diameters, bleeding rate, setting times, and the heat of hydration.

2.2. Diatomaceous Earth as Lightweight Aggregate (LWA) Resource

Lightweight aggregates have a granular and porous structure, with a loose bulk density of less than 1.20 g/cm3 [53]. The use of lightweight aggregates with strong thermal insulation characteristics due to their porous structure can be a solution to improve the insulation potential of concrete elements, allowing for the avoidance of heavy building materials while adhering to thermal regulation standards [54]. According to [28,55,56], diatomaceous earth may be used as lightweight aggregates in mortar and concrete for insulating purposes because of its unique properties, such as its low density and porous structure, which are desirable for thermal performance, fire resistance, and sound absorption.
The strength and weight of the laboratory aggregates produced by Fragoulis et al. [57] after combining diatomite with 2–5% sawdust and pelletizing them at 1100 °C were comparable to commercial lightweight aggregates (LWAs). Additionally, the mechanical, physical, and thermal research findings by Posi et al. [58] determined that diatomite is a suitable lightweight aggregate for the production of pressed lightweight concrete blocks. Furthermore, Taoukil et al. [54] and Hasan et al. [59] investigated the feasibility of replacing sand in mortars with up to 100% diatomite; the results demonstrated that the thermal insulation capacity improved while the compressive and flexural strengths decreased.
The use of up to 40% of cement by volume as a binder in the manufacture of diatomite-based lightweight building elements was examined by Mehmedi Vehbi GÖKÇ [60], who found it to be inconvenient and recommended further research to bond diatomite more sustainably. However, according to Ünal et al. [61], lightweight concretes with diatomite can be utilized in buildings to achieve excellent insulation while reducing the structure’s self-weight or dead load. By combining diatomite with other aggregates and paraffin to create stable phase transition materials (PCMs), Xu and Li [62], Benayache et al. [63], and Costa et al. [64] also showed that the produced composites (PCMs) are promising candidates for thermal energy storage in buildings with maximum service temperatures of around 40 °C due to their high thermal resilience and energy storage capability.
Diatomite’s ability as a pore-forming agent for building elements such as waterproofing barriers [65], pyrophyllite support layers [66], and humidity control materials [67] has been investigated, and the results have demonstrated its excellent performance towards construction applications at low costs. Galán-Arboledas et al. [32] also attempted to replace clay, which is usually used to make bricks, with diatomaceous earth (DE) residues up to 10% by weight and noticed that doing so improved open porosity, lowered bulk density by up to 10%, and significantly reduced the flexural modulus to about 10 Mpa.
A mixture of low-grade diatomite (LDE) and oyster shells (OS) [68]; diatomite, rice husk ash, and sawdust [24]; diatomaceous earth and Brazil nut shells [69]; clay with kieselguhr [31,70,71]; and diatomite, sugar-filtered mud, and dolomite [72] were combined to produce porous refractory composites. The refractory products exhibited technical qualities that satisfied the expectations of porous and insulating materials, despite reductions in bending and compressive strength and the use of an unsustainable sintering technique.

2.3. Diatomaceous Earth’s Geopolymerization as a Source of Clinker-Free (Cementless) Concrete

Geopolymers are binding substances that differ from ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and are generated by activating silica and alumina-containing source materials (pozzolanic materials) with alkali solutions. This results in sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-S-H) gel or calcium aluminosilicate hydrate (C-A-S-H) gel products, which trigger the geopolymers’ hardening mechanism and produce materials with exceptional structural integrity and durability with the added benefit of lower greenhouse emissions [73,74]. By creating geopolymer construction composites with a lower carbon footprint, it is hoped that the growing concerns about global warming caused by emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a key greenhouse gas, from the ordinary Portland cement industry can be lessened [12,14].
Figure 2 presents the geopolymer system’s components as summarized by Payá et al. [75].
The fundamental processes of geopolymerization, presented in Figure 3, are the dissolution of solid aluminosilicate oxide in an M–OH solution, where M is an alkali metal (mostly Na and K); the dissolution of Al and Si complexes in an interparticle space; the formation of a gel phase by polymerization between silicate solution and Al and Si complexes; and the hardening of the formed gel phase at the end [73,76].

2.3.1. Lime (Earth Alkaline) Activation of Diatomaceous Earth

Many ancient civilizations employed lime pozzolan concrete, and it is increasingly regaining prominence as an environmentally friendly alternative to cement for masonry and concrete applications [77] because of its abundance, low-cost production process, and ease of application [78]. Studies have demonstrated that lime activation is a pozzolanic reaction in which pozzolanic minerals react with lime in the presence of water to form cementitious compounds [79,80]. Quicklime (CaO) or hydrated lime (Ca (OH)2) can both be used to produce the desired result; therefore, naturally occurring pozzolana minerals containing silica and alumina have a high potential for lime activation.
It was established through research on the production of concrete made of diatomaceous earth, lime, and gypsum[81] as well as diatomite and lime/limestone [27,82,83,84], that diatomaceous earth possesses a pozzolanic property that establishes it as a potential sustainable building material.

2.3.2. Chemical Solutions as Diatomaceous Earth Activators

The interaction of solid aluminosilicates with a highly concentrated aqueous alkali hydroxide or silicate solution yields a synthetic alkali aluminosilicate substance known as a geopolymer, also known as an inorganic polymer or alkali-activated binder, with unique properties and characteristics, including a high compressive strength, high-temperature stability, and low thermal conductivity [73,76]. Sodium and potassium-based alkali activators are the most commonly used alkali activators, that is, a combination of sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) or potassium silicate (K2SiO3) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH)or potassium hydroxide (KOH) [85], although a combination of Na2SiO3 and NaOH have been widely used as activators in previous studies [76,86].
An alkali treatment of diatomaceous earth powder with the solutions of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) [87], potassium hydroxide (KOH) [88], and potassium silicate (K2SO4) [89] used to produce porous diatomite-based composites at ambient temperatures confirmed that diatomaceous earth can be exploited successfully as a silica source in geopolymeric systems.
To produce porous silica ceramics, some researchers have attempted to activate diatomaceous earth using substances such as gelatin solution [90], boric acid [91], and polyethylene glycol (PEG) [92]. Although the products had good ceramic properties, the production methods are deemed unsustainable since they need high compaction pressures and sintering temperatures.
The effects of incorporating up to 40% calcined diatomite into high calcium fly ash geopolymer paste with sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solutions as alkaline activators were investigated by Phoo-ngernkhama et al. [93]. It was evident that the addition of diatomite accelerated the setting time, raised the strain capacity, and lowered the density of hardened paste; nonetheless, a diatomite substitution of 15% was determined to be optimal, yielding a compressive strength of 64.0 MPa.

2.4. Diatomaceous Earth Incorporation with Recycled Materials

Recycling waste plastics and agricultural residues is an excellent option for global sustainable development, and it is now a prevalent practice in the manufacturing sector [94,95]. Studies have demonstrated that various industrial and domestic wastes can be recycled and utilized as concrete elements in the development of green concrete [9].
Despite possessing good thermal and durability characteristics, geopolymers are brittle by nature and have a low resistance to tensile and flexural loadings, rendering them unsuitable for a range of structural applications [96]. Focusing on strengthening geopolymers with synthetic and natural fibers to boost their ductility and resistance to tensile stresses would help to solve this problem and enable the attainment of sustainability objectives.

2.4.1. Polymeric Additives

Polymeric additives in the building sector may help to reduce raw material and energy consumption, as well as their environmental effects, while also assisting in the development of low-cost bricks with improved thermophysical qualities [97,98]. Regarding geopolymers, the addition of fibers can greatly enhance their mechanical and thermal characteristics [99].
Polyethylene, which is probably the most common type of plastic in the world, is the most commonly used synthetic material in the manufacturing of compressed earth blocks and other construction materials such as concrete [100,101,102].
The combined effects of waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) particles and pozzolanic materials on the rheological, mechanical, and durability-realted properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC) revealed that waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) particles can be reused as aggregates in concrete, although they decrease compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths while reducing the brittleness of concrete and the dead load of buildings due to their low unit weight [103]. The use of ultra-fine palm oil fuel ash (UPOFA) with shredded Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) in concrete, according to Alani et al. [100], showed superior enhancement in terms, of porosity, initial surface absorption, gas permeability, water permeability, and rapid chloride permeability.
The change in the mechanical properties of concrete with the addition of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastics and fly ash in concrete was investigated by Venkateswara Rao and Srinivasa Rao [104]. It was observed that there was a drop in strength with the increasing HDPE content; however, the compressive strength of all the mixes fell within the acceptable strength range for most structural applications since the observed compressive strength was more than 20 MPa at 28 days. Nematollahi et al. [105] investigated the polyethylene (PE) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber reinforcement of one-part geopolymers made using fly ash and blast furnace slag or lime, showing that geopolymer composite matrixes may be successfully created using polymeric additives of about 2%.
The majority of the existing research on the combined influence of plastic aggregates and pozzolanic materials on concrete characteristics has focused on the usage of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), whereas articles on high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and other forms of plastics are scarce. However, the practicality of stabilizing geopolymer binders (pozzolanic material), particularly those based on diatomaceous earth, with plastic wastes for the creation of sustainable construction materials has not been thoroughly studied, if at all.

2.4.2. Natural Fibers

As a more sustainable alternative, natural fibers have been used in adobe and other traditional forms of earthen construction to reduce plastic shrinkage cracking and improve ductility, durability, and tensile and shearing strengths [106,107,108]. Generally, the use of natural fibers enhances the properties of structural building materials. Animal fibers are less desirable than plant fibers because large-scale animal fiber collection is more challenging [109] and, hence, not viable for large-scale production.
Plant fibers have been regarded to be excellent reinforcing elements for geopolymer matrices because geopolymerization occurs in high alkaline settings and lignocellulose fibers have a considerable tolerance to these conditions [110,111]; the addition of pozzolanic materials and alkaline activators in the composition of the geopolymer matrix act as specific fiber treatments [111]. Recent advances in the production of natural fiber-reinforced geopolymers as promising sustainable construction materials were reviewed by Silva et al. [110] and Li et al. [112]; a survey of successful reinforcements with natural fibers was reported, with a majority of the studies focusing on industrial by-products such as fly ash, ground-granulated blast furnace slag, construction and demolition wastes, and mine-tailings. Fibers act as concrete’s microcracking control units such that when the first fracture appears, the fibers function as bridges in the cracked portion, transmitting loads from the crack to the concrete, thereby making fiber-reinforced concrete more efficient [96,112,113].
Numerous investigations on geopolymeric composites reinforced with vegetable fibers have been published in the literature, including on cotton [114,115,116], bamboo [117], flax [118,119], sisal [111,116,120,121,122,123], coconut [120], and jute [110]. However, the interaction of vegetable fibers with a diatomaceous earth-based geopolymeric matrix has rarely been investigated.
In a literature review on the long-term mechanical properties of cellulose fiber-reinforced cement mortars that incorporated diatomite as a substitute for quartz sand, Ince et al. [124] discovered that pozzolans can enhance the durability properties of cellulose cement composites.

3. Characterization of Diatomaceous Earth

Diatomaceous earth, which is a plentiful resource in many parts of the world, is a white to grayish rock that is porous, soft, and weakly bonded with a high SiO2 content, in addition to being amorphous with crystalline phases, (quartz, muscovite, and cristobalite), as well as possessing a high permeability of (0.1–10 mD) and a porosity of (35–65%) [56,125]. According to Mehmedi et al. [60] and other related researchers, natural diatomite is chemically composed of 67.80 to 90.07% silica (SiO2), 0.62 to 10.30% alumina (Al2O3), 0.20 to 6.85% iron oxide (Fe2O3), 0.05 to 1.21% titanium oxide (TiO2), 0.04 to 0.21% phosphate (P2O3), 0.19 to 3.0% limestone (CaO), 0.11 to 1.64% magnesium (MgO), 0.13 to 0.97% sodium (Na2O), and 0.13 to 1.47% potassium (K2O), wherein the first values are the minimum while the second values are the highest. Hasan et al. [126] defined diatomite as microparticles that can be utilized to substitute cement in concrete production, even though its silica content and structure differ greatly from one source to the next.
Diatomite is made up of cylindrical particles with a square cell structure and a surface covered with micropores, which explains its high porosity and low density [46]. It has unique engineering properties including a high specific surface area, low dry density, high friction angle, high compressibility, and an unstable response under dynamic loads [127]. The high amount of amorphous SiO2 and accompanying pozzolana activity in diatomaceous earth is a significant aspect of its application in construction [27,84].
Diatomaceous earth, as determined by Reka et al. [125], represents a sedimentary rock of a biogenic origin; it is a soft solid, which can be easily disintegrated, with a white to greyish color, a bulk density of 0.51–0.55 g/cm3, a total porosity of 61–63%, and a specific gravity of 2.25 g/cm3. Diatomite’s industrial value is derived from its lightweight, low density, high porosity, high surface area, inertness, and high absorption capacity [24,128].
Modern analytical methods, such as the Nitrogen Adsorption Isotherm, X-Ray diffraction (XRD), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), Zeta potential, Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA), and atomic absorption spectrophotometry [129]; Fourier-Transform Infra-Red (FT-IR) [63]; X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) [47,68,126]; wet chemical analysis (WCA) [91]; and inductively coupled plasma sector field mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) [69], which can be used to identify and characterize clay minerals, have been applied to diatomaceous earth by different researchers.
It is evident from the sampled studies presented in Table 1 that the main chemical component of diatomaceous earth is silica (SiO2), which ranges between 56–93.5% wt, followed by alumina (Al2O3) between 0.05–12.28% wt, iron oxide (Fe2O3) between 0.23–26.4% wt, and calcium oxide CaO between 0.2–16.25% wt. Its other minor constituents are MgO (0.05–2.25% wt), MnO (0.005–0.22% wt), TiO2 (0.031–0.56% wt), K2O (0.09–2.28% wt), P205 (0.03–1.53% wt), and Na2O (0.1–5.69% wt). The loss on ignition (LOI) ranges between 0.35–14.65% wt. The review supports the claim made by Hasan et al. [126] wherein diatomite varies by geographic location.
According to Luhar [12], a pozzolanic material with properties such as a low calcium content, a high vitreous phase, possessing between 80 and 90% particle sizes that are less than 45 µm, a content of unburned material at less than 5%, a reactive silica content more than 40%, and less than 10% Fe2O3 content results in the optimal binding characteristics. Low-calcium binders are preferable for making geopolymers because the high amount of calcium can hinder the polymerization-setting rate resulting from an alteration of the microstructure [131]. Nyale [132] clarifies that a geopolymer binder is considered siliceous when the three key constituents, SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3, total up to 70% or when their total and the reactive calcium oxide is less than 10%.
ASTM C618 [133] classifies a pozzolanic material that has a total content of SiO2, Fe2O3, and Al2O3 beyond 70% by weight and less than 10% CaO content by weight as a Class F normal type of pozzolan or aa silicate glass material.
According to the sampled data in Table 2, the earth-based concrete raw materials’ physical features are more of a concern than their mechanical properties. The bulk density (g/cm3) ranges between 0.32–0.767, the porosity (%) is between 73–77, and the specific gravity is about 1.9.
To produce geopolymer concretes, scientists have used a variety of precursors, including fly ash (FA), rice husk ash (RHA), ground-granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), silica fume (SF), and palm oil fuel ash (POFA). Table 3 displays the properties and compositions of these precursors.
When diatomaceous earth is compared to the materials shown in Table 3, it seems to be the lightest, with a similar chemical composition to Rice husk ash (RHA), Silica fume (SF), and Palm oil fuel ash (POFA).

4. Production Process of Diatomaceous Earth-Based Concrete

The fundamental components used in the manufacture of geopolymer elements are pozzolanic material and activator additives used to accelerate the hydration process [73]. In the literature under review, some researchers used either the one-part or the two-part geopolymer preparation approaches.
For the one-part approach, all of the ingredients (the precursor material and the solid activator) are dried and mixed uniformly, after which water is gradually added to the mixture while stirring slowly [134,135,136].
The manufacturing parameters for lightweight concrete discussed in Section 2.2 are displayed in Table 4.
The research by [24,32,57,69,75] seems to be unsustainable given the high compaction pressure and high sintering temperatures needed by their concrete production systems. Cost sustainability may be a challenge for Reka et al. [27], Galán-Arboledas et al. [32], and Pimraksa and Chindaprasirt [81], due to the need for extrusion and autoclaving equipment.
Even though Loganina et al.’s [83] experiment was carried out at room temperature without the use of compaction pressure, the output specimens were feeble, reaching a maximum strength of 3.92 MPa after a 28-day curing period. To bind the lightweight diatomaceous earth aggregates together, [54,60,61] employed cement as a binder. In addition to using cement as a binder, Hasan et al. [59] had to pelletize diatomaceous earth at a temperature of 650 °C.
In the case of a two-part geopolymer preparation, the activator solution is prepared 24 h beforehand, added to the dry precursor material, and mixed until homogeneity is obtained. Subsequently, molding and curing follow [137]. The production parameters for the two-part geopolymer mixes discussed in Section 2.3 are shown in Table 5.
The most often utilized alkali activators are those based on sodium and potassium. Previous research has demonstrated that sodium-based alkali activators have a higher activation efficiency than potassium-based activators [86].
Using potassium hydroxide (KOH) as an alkaline activator and diatomite as a precursor, Nakashima et al. [88] and Bagci et al. [89] developed promising geopolymer specimens with a maximum strength of 5.78 MPa and 71 MPa, respectively. The sustainability potential of the obtained geopolymers was diminished by the high compaction pressure and high-temperature sintering methods used by Matsunaga et al. [90], Šaponjić et al. [91], and Akhtar et al. [92].
The alkaline activation of metakaolin with sodium silicate solution plus NaOH was reported by Elahi et al. [22] to produce better compressive strength than in the samples activated with NaOH alone. Fernandez and Palomo [138] reported more than twice as much strength for FA-based concrete when activated by NaOH and water glass in combination instead of by NaOH alone. Sodium silicate has been known to act as an activator that enhances the polymerization process resulting in a silica-rich reaction product and, hence, improving the strength of geopolymers.
Researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of lithium hydroxide solution as an alkali initiator; lithium can be coated with geopolymer particles to reduce the dissolution of active silica, and the chance that dissolved active silica will form an Alkali–silica reaction (ASR) gel. With the use of solid Na2CO3 and hydrated lime as activators of fly ash and silica fume-based geopolymers, the strength of about 50 and 85 MP was obtained in 28 d at curing temperatures of 25 and 85 °C, respectively [86].
The ratio of Na2SiO3 to NaOH (SS/SH) is another effective factor that has been found to govern the compressive strength (CS) of geopolymer concretes (GPC). The effective ratio of SS/SH used to prepare GPC with a sufficient CS fall in the range of 1.0 to 3.0, with 2.0 being the most frequently and effectively employed [139]. The best NaOH solution molarity value for the alkali solution was found to be 12 in other studies while some studies determined 14 as the optimum molarity [140].
Although high-performance geopolymers were developed by Phoo-ngernkhama et al. [93], it is difficult to determine the potential of diatomite in the mixture because it only used up to 40% of high calcium fly ash. The same goes for Font et al. [87], who substituted diatomite for rice husk ash. It has also been noted that the water to geopolymer solids ratio by mass is very important in the design of a geopolymer concrete mix [141]
Figure 4 depicts the general geopolymer production system adopted by most of the researchers.
The curing process is one of the most important phases in the synthesis of geopolymers since it has a substantial impact on the final product’s features. Depending on the system of alkali-activated materials, heating (thermal curing or oven), sealing (wrapping), steaming, and water immersion are the usual techniques used to achieve optimum properties [21]. Researchers have tried several curing techniques for geopolymer concrete, including heating in an oven, membrane curing, steam curing, hot gunny curing, hydrothermal curing, room temperature curing, and water curing; of these, oven curing turned out to be the most effective [140]. Thermal curing within the first 3 days has been widely advocated to increase the chemical reactivity at the first hardening stages, preferably at temperature ranges of 60–80 °C [142], 60 to 90 °C [143], 80 to 90 °C [138], 40 to 85 °C [144], 40 to 100 °C [145], and 40 to 90 °C [146] during the initial 24 h. Thermal curing has been shown to minimize porosity and provide a considerable strength gain, according to recent research [147,148,149]. Optimal curing temperatures, such as 50 [89], 60 [17,150,151], 70 [88,152], and 80 °C [153] have been proposed by several studies.
Practical applications, according to Abdullah, Ibrahim [152], do not require heat curing to last more than 24 h since the rate of strength rise is rapid up until a certain point; however, beyond 24 h, the rate of strength increase is only modest. After a 24-hour thermal curing, and to avoid an unfavorably high degree of water evaporation during the setting of the geopolymer binder, which decreases the strength and causes sample breaking, geopolymer products are cured under controlled humidity at an ambient temperature [99,154,155,156].
Table 6 presents the basic standards and procedures that were employed by the researchers in the process of developing the different concrete mixes.

5. Performance Properties of Mixtures Incorporating Diatomaceous Earth

A substantial body of research has demonstrated that the properties of concrete from alkaline-activated binders depend on a wide range of variables, such as the physical and chemical composition of the source materials, the type and concentration of the alkaline solution, the mixing ratios, and curing regimes. As a result, the vast majority of research has largely focused on the microstructural and mechanical properties of hardened concrete as well as the durability aspects [22,167].
For structural work and safety assessments, mechanical characterization, which includes compression strength, flexural strength, shear strength, and hardness testing, is required. In particular, compressive strength and durability tests are regarded as key indicators of the viability of masonry [168,169]. The physical attributes are also more important since they can be used to predict shrinkage, apparent bulk density, size or texture, moisture content, porosity, permeability, adhesion, and thermal properties [170].
Table 7a,b illustrate categorically that the most frequent characteristic properties taken into account in the majority of the studies under review are porosity, bulk density, thermal conductivity, and compressive strength. The concrete mixes containing diatomaceous earth appear to be porous, with porosity varying from 25 to 92.5%; lightweight, with densities falling between 0.37 and 1.81 g/cm3, with low thermal conductivity ranging from 0.09 to 0.45 W/Mk; and the majority of them exhibit noticeably high compressive strengths. Additionally, it can be seen that using diatomite as an alkaline activated binder rather than a lightweight aggregate can result in stronger concretes.
According to Cong and Cheng [86], the durability of geopolymers is not only affected by their strength but also their resistance to harsh environments, such as their abrasion performance, porosity, chemical erosion resistance, dry shrinkage, carbonization resistance, and other parameters.
Verma et al. [13] report that geopolymer concrete has better physical, mechanical, and durability properties than Portland cement concrete and it is highly resistant to acid, sulphate, and salt attacks. The performance properties of concrete reported by various studies in Table 7a,b agree with the findings of Luhar [12] that geopolymer’s properties may differ not only by the origin, morphology, and particle size of the binder but also by the metal, alkali, and amorphous contents. It has been established that the properties of geopolymers also depend on various parameters such as the alkaline activator concentration, alkaline solution to binder ratio, sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio, alkaline liquid to binder ratio, curing duration, curing temperature, superplasticizer dose, water to binder ratio, and the curing period.
The required 28-day compressive strength values for normal and heavyweight concrete, as specified by the European Standard EN 206-1 [171] are 8–100 and 10–115 MPa for cylindrical samples with a diameter of 150 mm and a height of 300 mm and a cubic sample with a side length of 150 mm, respectively. The specifications of 8–80 and 9–88 MPa are similar requirements for lightweight concrete [136]. According to Mackenzie and Welter [99], the compressive strengths of geopolymer matrix materials span a wide range, from 1 MPa for the very weak products of solid-state synthesis through 26 MPa for sol-gel synthesized geopolymers to 110 MPa for a product synthesized from fly ash activated with sodium silicate and NaOH solution.
Table 8 shows the standard test procedures that were referenced for the evaluation of the various performance properties.

6. Conclusions

This literature review demonstrates the use of diatomaceous earth as one of the efficient methods for developing lightweight, insulating, and sustainable building materials while reducing the negative economic and environmental effects of industrial solid wastes; nevertheless, further research is needed to sustainably use diatomaceous earth and other additives in the construction sector. This comprehensive survey of the information from the literature on the issue of diatomaceous earth’s incorporation in geopolymer concrete development is concluded as follows:
❖
Diatomaceous earth is one of the naturally occurring pozzolanic materials, which finds applications in the development of geopolymers, as shown in Figure 2; however, there has been relatively little research to determine its viability as a geopolymer binder to create cementless (clinker-free) concrete. Most of the studies have concentrated on its integration either as a partial cement replacement or replacement for fine aggregate.
❖
Although silica-based raw materials have been the subject of many studies as resources for geopolymeric concrete, the reinforcement of geopolymeric concretes, particularly those based on diatomaceous earth, with either natural or synthetic fibers or a combination of the two, has not been addressed.
❖
Despite the authors’ keen interest in the mechanical, physical, and thermal qualities of building materials, this review showed that there has been remarkably little effort made towards theoretical property correlation modeling for performance prediction. Accordingly, the review undertaken by Mohammed et al., [140] revealed the same concern.

Author Contributions

J.J.K.: validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, visualization, and project administration. P.M.W.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, resources, writing—review and editing, and supervision. S.S.N.: conceptualization, validation, writing—review and editing, and supervision. S.A.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, resources, writing—review and editing, visualization, and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Moi University, Kenya and the French Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in the references that were cited accordingly.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the facilitation of research resources by Université Clermont Auvergne, France.

Conflicts of Interest

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.

References

  1. Dianingrum, A.; Rahmadaniyati, D. Evaluation of sustainable housing concept on kampung sepoloh, an informal settlement in surabaya, indonesia. J. Archit. Environ. 2017, 16, 033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Olga, B.; Antonios, R. Housing Construction as a Leading Economic Indicator. Stud. Bus. Econ. 2019, 14, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Rostami, R.; Khoshnava, M.; Lamit, H. Green and Sustainability Policy, Practice and Management in Construction Sector, A Case Study of Malaysia. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 9, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pramanik, P.K.D.; Mukherjee, B.; Pal, S.; Pal, T. Green Smart Building, In Research Anthology on Environmental and Societal Well-Being Considerations in Buildings and Architecture; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 25–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pásztory, Z.; Anh Le, D.H. An overview of factors influencing thermal conductivity of building insulation materials. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yadav, M.; Agarwal, M. Biobased building materials for sustainable future: An overview. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 43, 2895–2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pradena, M.; César, A. Different Approaches to Develop More Sustainable Concrete Alternatives. In Sustainability of Concrete with Synthetic and Recycled Aggregates; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aghdam, K.A.; Rad, A.F.; Shakeri, H.; Sadroud, J.M. Approaching green buildings using eco-efficient construction materials: A review of the state-of-the-art. J. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag. 2018, 8, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  9. Olofinnade, O.M.; Ede, A.N.; Booth, C.A. Sustainability of Waste Glass Powder and Clay Brick Powder as Cement Substitute in Green Concrete, In Handbook of Environmental Materials Management; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 2927–2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Joshua, O.; Matawal, D. Development of a fully pozzolanic binder for sustainable construction: Whole cement replacement in concrete applications. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  11. Meyer, C. Concrete and Sustainable Development; ACI Special Publications: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2002; Volume 206, pp. 501–512. [Google Scholar]
  12. Luhar, I.; Luhar, S. A Comprehensive Review on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Verma, M.; Dev, N.; Rahman, I.; Nigam, M. Geopolymer Concrete: A Material for Sustainable Development in Indian Construction Industries. Crystals 2022, 12, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hassan, H.S.; Abdel-Gawwad, H.A.; Vasques, S.; Israde-Alcántara, I. Cleaner production of one-part white geopolymer cement using pre-treated wood biomass ash and diatomite. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 1420–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Duxson, P.; Provis, J.L.; Lukey, G.C.; Van Deventer, J.S.J. The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of ‘green concrete’. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 1590–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. El-Dieb, A.S. Cementless concrete for sustainable construction. MOJ Civ. Eng. 2016, 1, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lloyd, N.; Rangan, V. Geopolymer concrete-sustainable cementless concrete. Proceedings of Tenth ACI International Conference, Seville, Spain, 12 October 2009; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2009; pp. 33–53. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nurruddin, F.M.; Haruna, S.; Mohammed, B.S.; Shaaban, I.G. Methods of curing geopolymer concrete: A review. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2018, 5, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mucsi, G.; Ambrus, M. Raw materials for geopolymerisation. In Proceedings of the MultiScience—XXXI. microCAD International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference, 21–22 April 2017; University of Miskolc: Miskolc, Hungary. [Google Scholar]
  20. Danso, H.; Adu, S. Characterization of compressed earth blocks stabilized with clay pozzolana. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2019, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nodehi, M.; Taghvaee, V.M. Alkali-activated materials and geopolymer: A review of common precursors and activators addressing circular economy. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 2, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Elahi, M.M.A.; Hossain, M.M.; Karim, R.M.; Zain, M.F.M.; Shearer, C. A review on alkali-activated binders: Materials composition and fresh properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 260, 119788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nanayakkara, R.; Gunathilake, C.; Dassanayake, R. Suitability of Reusing the Spent Diatomaceous Earth in Brick Production: A Review. Adv. Technol. 2022, 2, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thang, N.H. Novel Porous Refractory Synthesized from Diatomaceous Earth and Rice Husk Ash. J. Polym. Compos. 2020, 8, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dobrosielska, M.; Dobrucka, R.; Gloc, M.; Brząkalski, D. A New Method of Diatomaceous Earth Fractionation-A Bio-Raw Material Source for Epoxy-Based Composites. Materials 2021, 14, 1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sharma, N.; Sharma, P.; Verma, S.k. Influence of Diatomite on the properties of mortar and concrete: A Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1116, 012174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Reka, A.A.; Pavlovski, B.; Makreski, P. New optimized method for low-temperature hydrothermal production of porous ceramics using diatomaceous earth. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 12572–12578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Escalera, E. Characterization and Preparation of Lightweight Silica-Based Ceramics for Building Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå Tekniska Universitet, Luleå, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bakr, H. Diatomite: Its characterization, modifications and applications. Asian J. Mater. Sci. 2010, 2, 121–136. [Google Scholar]
  30. Seckbach, J.; Gordon, R. Diatoms: Fundamentals and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mateo, S.; Cuevas, M.; La Rubia, M.D.; Eliche-Quesada, D. Preliminary study of the use of spent diatomaceous earth from the brewing industry in clay matrix bricks. Adv. Appl. Ceram. 2017, 116, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Galán-Arboledas, R.; Palomino, M.T.C.; Bueno, S.; Martínez-García, C. Evaluation of spent diatomite incorporation in clay based materials for lightweight bricks processing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 144, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. dos Thiago, R.S.M.; de Pedro, P.M.M.; Eliana, F.C.S. Solid wastes in brewing process: A review. J. Brew. Distill. 2014, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Gong, X.; Tian, W.; Wang, L.; Bai, J.; Qiao, K.; Zhao, J. Biological regeneration of brewery spent diatomite and its reuse in basic dye and chromium (III) ions removal. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 128, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tanniratt, P.; Wasanapiarnpong, T.; Mongkolkachit, C.; Sujaridworakun, P. Utilization of industrial wastes for preparation of high performance ZnO/diatomite hybrid photocatalyst. Ceram. Int. 2016, 42, 17605–17609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pokorný, J.; Pavlíková, M.; Medveď, I.; Pavlík, Z.; Zahálková, J.; Rovnaníková, P.; Černý, R. Influence of various amount of diatomaceous earth used as cement substitute on mechanical properties of cement paste. AIP Conf. Proc. 2016, 1738, 280007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Snellings, R.; Mertens, G.; Elsen, J. Supplementary Cementitious Materials. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2012, 74, 211–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Escobar, N.; Espejo, J.; Rodríguez, L. Evaluation of the effect of diatomaceous earth as a sustainable alternative in commercial interest crops in Colombia. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 181, 409–418. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ren, X.; Wang, Q.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Li, R.; Li, J.; Zhang, Z. Elucidating the optimum added dosage of Diatomite during co-composting of pig manure and sawdust: Carbon dynamics and microbial community. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 146058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Abrão, P.C.R.A.; Cardoso, F.A.; John, V.M. Evaluation of Portland pozzolan blended cements containing diatomaceous earth. Cerâmica 2019, 65, 6–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Davidovits, J. Properties of geopolymer cements. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes; Kiev State Technical University Kiev: Kiev, Ukraine, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, J.; Zhang, W.; Li, C.; Monterio, P.J.M. Green concrete containing diatomaceous earth and limestone: Workability, mechanical properties, and life-cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 662–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Degirmenci, N.; Yilmaz, A. Use of diatomite as partial replacement for Portland cement in cement mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ahmadi, Z.; Esmaeili, J.; Kasaei, J.; Hajialioghli, R. Properties of sustainable cement mortars containing high volume of raw diatomite. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2018, 16, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sarıdemir, M.; Çelikten, S.; Yıldırım, A. Mechanical and microstructural properties of calcined diatomite powder modified high strength mortars at ambient and high temperatures. Adv. Powder Technol. 2020, 31, 3004–3017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Macedo, A.R.S.; Silva, A.S.; da Luz, D.S.; Ferreira, R.L.S.; Lourenço, C.S.; Gomes, U.U. Study of the effect of diatomite on physico-mechanical properties of concrete. Cerâmica 2020, 66, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xu, S.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Q.; Zhang, S. Study of natural hydraulic lime-based mortars prepared with masonry waste powder as aggregate and diatomite/fly ash as mineral admixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 119, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ergün, A. Effects of the usage of diatomite and waste marble powder as partial replacement of cement on the mechanical properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 806–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mohd Shukry, N.A.; Hassan, N.A.; Abdullah, M.E.; Hainin, M.R.; Yusoff, N.I.M.; Jaya, R.P.; Mohamed, A. Effect of various filler types on the properties of porous asphalt mixture. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 342, 012036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Luan, X.; Li, J.; Liu, L.; Yang, Z. Preparation and characteristics of porous magnesium phosphate cement modified by diatomite. Materials Chem. Phys. 2019, 235, 121742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xiao, L.-G.; Liu, X.-X. Effect of Diatomite on Thermal Insulation Properties of Straw Fiber Cement-based Composites. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 295, 032047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hasanzadeh, B.; Sun, Z. Impacts of Diatomaceous Earth on the Properties of Cement Pastes. J. Build. Mater. Struct. 2019, 5, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Martínez-García, C.; Andreola, F.; Lancellotti, I.; Farías, R.D.; Cotes-Palomino, M.T.; Barbieri, L. Cleaner Design and Production of Lightweight Aggregates (LWAs) to Use in Agronomic Application. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Taoukil, D.; El Meski, Y.; Lahlaouti, M.L.; Djedjig, R.; El Bouardi, A. Effect of the use of diatomite as partial replacement of sand on thermal and mechanical properties of mortars. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 42, 103038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gencel, O.; del Diaz, J.J.C.; Sutcu, M.; Koksal, F.; Rabanal, F.P.A.; Martínez-Barrera, G. A novel lightweight gypsum composite with diatomite and polypropylene fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 113, 732–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Stefanou, E.; Kantiranis, N.; Chatzicharalambous, K.; Mytiglaki, C.; Stamatakis, M.; Georgiadis, G. Diatomaceous Silica in Environmental Applications: A Case Study from the Lacustrine Deposit of Limnos Island, Aegean Sea, Greece. Minerals 2022, 12, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fragoulis, D.; Stamatakis, M.G.; Chaniotakis, E.; Columbus, G. Characterization of lightweight aggregates produced with clayey diatomite rocks originating from Greece. Mater. Charact. 2004, 53, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Posi, P.; Lertnimoolchai, S.; Sata, V.; Chindaprasirt, P. Pressed lightweight concrete containing calcined diatomite aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 896–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hasan, M.; Saidi, T.; Afifuddin, M. Mechanical properties and absorption of lightweight concrete using lightweight aggregate from diatomaceous earth. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 277, 122324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mehmedi, V.G.E. Use of diatomite in the production of lightweight building elements with cement as binder. Sci. Res. Essays 2012, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ünal, O.; Uygunoğlu, T.T.; Yildiz, A. Investigation of properties of low-strength lightweight concrete for thermal insulation. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 584–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xu, B.; Li, Z. Performance of novel thermal energy storage engineered cementitious composites incorporating a paraffin/diatomite composite phase change material. Appl. Energy 2014, 121, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Benayache, S.; Alleg, S.; Mebrek, A.; Suñol, J.J. Thermal and microstructural properties of paraffin/diatomite composite. Vacuum 2018, 157, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Costa, J.A.C.; Martinelli, A.E.; Nascimento, R.M.D.; Mendes, A. Microstructural design and thermal characterization of composite diatomite-vermiculite paraffin-based form-stable PCM for cementitious mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 232, 117167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tavares, A.; Costa, A.; Rocha, F.; Velosa, A. Absorbent materials in waterproofing barriers, analysis of the role of diatomaceous earth. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 102, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ha, J.-H.; Lee, J.; Song, I.-H.; Lee, S.-H. The effects of diatomite addition on the pore characteristics of a pyrophyllite support layer. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 9542–9548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vu, D.-H.; Wang, K.-S.; Bac, B.H.; Nam, B.X. Humidity control materials prepared from diatomite and volcanic ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 1066–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hao, L.; Gao, W.; Yan, S.; Niu, M.; Liu, G.; Hao, H. Preparation and characterization of porous ceramics with low-grade diatomite and oyster shell. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2019, 235, 121741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Escalera, E.; Garcia, G.; Terán, R.; Tegman, R.; Antti, M.-L.; Odén, M. The production of porous brick material from diatomaceous earth and Brazil nut shell ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 98, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Farías, R.D.; García, C.M.; Palomino, T.C.; Arellano, M.M. Effects of Wastes from the Brewing Industry in Lightweight Aggregates Manufactured with Clay for Green Roofs. Materials 2017, 10, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Ferraz, E.; Coroado, J.; Silva, J.; Gomes, C.; Rocha, F. Manufacture of Ceramic Bricks Using Recycled Brewing Spent Kieselguhr. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2011, 26, 1319–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Man, J.; Gao, W.; Yan, S.; Liu, G.; Hao, H. Preparation of porous brick from diatomite and sugar filter mud at lower temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 156, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Razak, R.A.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Hussin, K.; Subaer; Yahya, Z.; Mohamed, R.; Abdullah, A. Performance of Sintered Pozzolanic Artificial Aggregates as Coarse Aggregate Replacement in Concrete. In Sustainable Waste Utilization in Bricks, Concrete, and Cementitious Materials; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 191–210. [Google Scholar]
  74. Singh, N.B. Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Binder: A Future Construction Material. Minerals 2018, 8, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Payá, J.; Agrela, F.; Garcia, J.R.; Morales, M. M, Application of alkali-activated industrial waste, In New Trends in Eco-Efficient and Recycled Concrete; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 357–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Aziz, I.H.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Yong, H.C.; Ming, L.Y.; Hussin, K.; Surleva, A.; Azimi, E.A. Manufacturing parameters influencing fire resistance of geopolymers: A review. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2016, 233, 721–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Walker, R.; Pavía, S. Physical properties and reactivity of pozzolans, and their influence on the properties of lime–pozzolan pastes. Mater. Struct. 2010, 44, 1139–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Zhang, H. Waterproof Materials. In Building Materials in Civil Engineering, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 253–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kang, S.-H.; Kwon, Y.-H.; Hong, S.-G.; Chun, S.; Moon, J. Hydrated lime activation on byproducts for eco-friendly production of structural mortars. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 1389–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yang, K.-H.; Cho, A.-R.; Song, J.-K.; Nam, S.-H. Hydration products and strength development of calcium hydroxide-based alkali-activated slag mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 29, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pimraksa, K.; Chindaprasirt, P. Lightweight bricks made of diatomaceous earth, lime and gypsum. Ceram. Int. 2009, 35, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Maeda, H.; Kato, S.; Ishida, E.H. Preparation of Hydrothermally Solidified Mesoporous Materials from Diatomaceous Earth for Moisture Control Application. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2009, 6, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Loganina, V.I.; Simonov, E.E.; Jezierski, W.; Małaszkiewicz, D. Application of activated diatomite for dry lime mixes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 65, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Miller, S.A.; Sakulich, A.R.; Barsoum, M.W.; Sierra, E.J. Diatomaceous Earth as a Pozzolan in the Fabrication of an Alkali-Activated Fine-Aggregate Limestone Concrete. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2010, 93, 2828–2836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Shaikh, F.U.A. Review of mechanical properties of short fibre reinforced geopolymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Cong, P.; Cheng, Y. Advances in geopolymer materials: A comprehensive review. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2021, 8, 283–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Font, A.; Soriano, L.; Reig, L.; Tashima, M.; Borrachero, M.; Monzó, J.; Payá, J. Use of residual diatomaceous earth as a silica source in geopolymer production. Mater. Lett. 2018, 223, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Nakashima, Y.M.; Fukushima, M.; Hyuga, H. Preparation of porous diatomite ceramics by an alkali treatment near room temperature. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2020, 41, 849–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bagci, C.G.P.; Kutyla, G.P.; Kriven, W.M. Fully reacted high strength geopolymer made with diatomite as a fumed silica alternative. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 14784–14790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Matsunaga, C.; Fukushima, M.; Hyuga, H.; Yoshizawa, Y.-I. Fabrication of porous silica ceramics by gelation-freezing of diatomite slurry. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2017, 37, 5259–5264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Šaponjić, A.; Stanković, M.; Majstorović, J.; Matovic, B.; Ilić, S.; Egelja, A.; Kokunešoski, M. Porous ceramic monoliths based on diatomite. Ceram. Int. 2015, 41, 9745–9752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Akhtar, F.; Rehman, Y.; Bergström, L. A study of the sintering of diatomaceous earth to produce porous ceramic monoliths with bimodal porosity and high strength. Powder Technol. 2010, 201, 253–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Phoo-Ngernkham, T.; Chindaprasirt, P.; Sata, V.; Pangdaeng, S.; Sinsiri, T. Properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer pastes with Portland cement as an additive. Int. J. Miner. Met. Mater. 2013, 20, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jassim, A.K. Recycling of Polyethylene Waste to Produce Plastic Cement. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 8, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Yu, M.; Mao, H.; Huang, R.; Ge, Z.; Tian, P.; Sun, L.; Wu, Q.; Sun, K. Mechanical and Thermal Properties of R-High Density Polyethylene Composites Reinforced with Wheat Straw Particleboard Dust and Basalt Fiber. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2018, 2018, 5101937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Mahmood, A.; Noman, M.; Pechočiaková, M.; Amor, N.; Petrů, M.; Abdelkader, M.; Militký, J.; Sozcu, S.; Hassan, S. Geopolymers and Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Composites in Civil Engineering. Polymers 2021, 13, 2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Limami, H.; Manssouri, I.; Cherkaoui, K.; Khaldoun, A. Study of the suitability of unfired clay bricks with polymeric HDPE & PET wastes additives as a construction material. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 27, 100956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. González-Montijo, M.A.; Soto-Toro, H.; Rivera-Pérez, C.; Esteves-Klomsingh, S.; Suarez, O. Design and characterization of concrete masonry parts and structural concrete using repurposed plastics as aggregate. J. Mech. Behav. Mater. 2019, 28, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mackenzie, K.J.D.; Welter, M. Geopolymer (aluminosilicate) composites: Synthesis, properties and applications. In Advances in Ceramic Matrix Composites; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 445–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Mohammed, M.K.; Al-Hadithi, A.I.; Mohammed, M.H. Production and optimization of eco-efficient self compacting concrete SCC with limestone and PET. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 734–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Poonyakan, A.; Rachakornkij, M.; Wecharatana, M.; Smittakorn, W. Potential Use of Plastic Wastes for Low Thermal Conductivity Concrete. Materials 2018, 11, 1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Alani, A.H.; Bunnori, N.M.; Noaman, A.T.; Majid, T. Durability performance of a novel ultra-high-performance PET green concrete (UHPPGC). Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 209, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sadrmomtazi, A.; Dolati-Milehsara, S.; Lotfi-Omran, O.; Sadeghi-Nik, A. The combined effects of waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) particles and pozzolanic materials on the properties of self-compacting concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2363–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Venkateswara Rao, A.; Srinivasa Rao, K. Effect of Fly Ash on Strength of Concrete. In Circular Economy and Fly Ash Management; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J.; Qiu, J.; Yang, E.-H. High ductile behavior of a polyethylene fiber-reinforced one-part geopolymer composite: A micromechanics-based investigation. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2017, 17, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mostafa, M.; Uddin, N. Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB) with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression forces. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2016, 5, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Ahmad, R.; Hamid, R.; Osman, S.A. Physical and Chemical Modifications of Plant Fibres for Reinforcement in Cementitious Composites. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 5185806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Danso, H.; Martinson, B.; Ali, M.; Williams, J. Physical, mechanical and durability properties of soil building blocks reinforced with natural fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 797–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Mohanty, A.K.; Misra, M.; Drzal, L.T. Natural Fibers, Biopolymers, and Biocomposites, In Natural Fibers, Biopolymers, and Biocomposites; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Silva, G.; Kim, S.; Aguilar, R.; Nakamatsu, J. Natural fibers as reinforcement additives for geopolymers—A review of potential eco-friendly applications to the construction industry. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2019, 23, e00132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. dos Santos, G.Z.B.; de Oliveira, D.P.; Filho, J.D.A.M.; da Silva, N.M. Sustainable geopolymer composite reinforced with sisal fiber: Durability to wetting and drying cycles. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Li, W.; Shumuye, E.D.; Shiying, T.; Wang, Z.; Zerfu, K. Eco-friendly fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete: A critical review on the microstructure and long-term durability properties. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e00894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sofi, I.R.; Manzoor, J.; Bhat, R.A.; Munvar, R. Plastic Pollution and the Ecological Impact on the Aquatic Ecosystem. In Handbook of Research on Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Plastic Pollution; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Zhou, B.; Wang, L.; Ma, G.; Zhao, X.; Zhao, X. Preparation and properties of bio-geopolymer composites with waste cotton stalk materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 245, 118842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Alomayri, T.; Low, I. Synthesis and characterization of mechanical properties in cotton fiber-reinforced geopolymer composites. J. Asian Ceram. Soc. 2013, 1, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Korniejenko, K.; Frączek, E.; Pytlak, E.; Adamski, M. Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Composites Reinforced with Natural Fibers. Procedia Eng. 2016, 151, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ribeiro, R.A.S.; Ribeiro, M.G.S.; Sankar, K.; Kriven, W.M. Geopolymer-bamboo composite—A novel sustainable construction material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 123, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lazorenko, G.; Kasprzhitskii, A.; Kruglikov, A.; Mischinenko, V.; Yavna, V. Sustainable geopolymer composites reinforced with flax tows. Ceram. Int. 2020, 46, 12870–12875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Alzeer, M.; MacKenzie, K. Synthesis and mechanical properties of novel composites of inorganic polymers (geopolymers) with unidirectional natural flax fibres (phormium tenax). Appl. Clay Sci. 2013, 75–76, 148–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Wongsa, A.; Kunthawatwong, R.; Naenudon, S.; Sata, V.; Chindaprasirt, P. Natural fiber reinforced high calcium fly ash geopolymer mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 241, 118143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Silva, G.; Kim, S.; Bertolotti, B.; Nakamatsu, J.; Aguilar, R. Optimization of a reinforced geopolymer composite using natural fibers and construction wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 258, 119697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. da Silva Alves, L.C.; Ferreira, R.A.D.R.; Machado, L.B.; Motta, L.A.D.C. Optimization of metakaolin-based geopolymer reinforced with sisal fibers using response surface methology. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Panwar, R.S.; Sonthwal, V.K.; Kaswan, S. Enhancing the Engineering Properties of Soil by Using Sisal Fibre and Fly Ash. Int. J. Tech. Innov. Mod. Eng. Sci. 2018, 4, 730–735. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ince, C.; Derogar, S.; Ball, R.J.; Ekinci, A.; Yüzer, N. Long-term mechanical properties of cellulose fibre-reinforced cement mortar with diatomite. Adv. Cem. Res. 2019, 31, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Reka, A.A.; Pavlovski, B.; Fazlija, E.; Berisha, A.; Pacarizi, M.; Daghmehchi, M.; Sacalis, C.; Jovanovski, G.; Makreski, P.; Oral, A. Diatomaceous Earth: Characterization, thermal modification, and application. Open Chem. 2021, 19, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hasan, M.; Saidi, T.; Muyasir, A.; Alkhaly, Y.R.; Muslimsyah, M. Characteristic of calcined diatomaceous earth from Aceh Besar District—Indonesia as cementitious binder. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 933, 012008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lee, J. Evaluation of Diatomaceous Earth Content in Natural Soils for Potential Engineering Applications. Master’s Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  128. Lutyński, M.P.; Sakiewicz, P.; Lutyńska, S. Characterization of Diatomaceous Earth and Halloysite Resources of Poland. Minerals 2019, 9, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Kumari, N.; Mohan, C. Basics of Clay Minerals and Their Characteristic Properties. In Clay and Clay Minerals; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Reka, A.A.; Pavlovski, B.; Lisichkov, K.; Jashari, A.; Boev, B.; Boev, I.; Lazarova, M.; Eskizeybek, V.; Oral, A.; Jovanovski, G.; et al. Chemical, mineralogical and structural features of native and expanded perlite from Macedonia. Geol. Croat. 2019, 72, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Chindaprasirt, P.; Phoo-Ngernkham, T.; Hanjitsuwan, S.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Poowancum, A.; Injorhor, B. Effect of calcium-rich compounds on setting time and strength development of alkali-activated fly ash cured at ambient temperature. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2018, 9, e00198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Nyale, S.M.; Eze, C.P.; Akinyeye, R.O.; Gitari, W.M.; Akinyemi, S.A.; Fatoba, O.O.; Petrik, L.F. The leaching behaviour and geochemical fractionation of trace elements in hydraulically disposed weathered coal fly ash. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2013, 49, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Astm C618; Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
  134. Dong, M.; Elchalakani, M.; Karrech, A. Development of high strength one-part geopolymer mortar using sodium metasilicate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 236, 117611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Alrefaei, Y.; Wang, Y.-S.; Dai, J.-G. The effectiveness of different superplasticizers in ambient cured one-part alkali activated pastes. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 97, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Luukkonen, T.; Abdollahnejad, Z.; Yliniemi, J.; Kinnunen, P.; Illikainen, M. One-part alkali-activated materials: A review. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 103, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Mandal, A.K. Synthesis of a two-part geopolymer from red mud and silica fume. J. Met. Mater. Miner. 2021, 31, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Fernandez-Jimenez, A.M.; Palomo, A.; Lopez-Hombrados, C. Engineering Properties of Alkali-Activated Fly Ash Concrete. ACI Mater. J. 2006, 103, 106–112. [Google Scholar]
  139. Ahmed, H.U.; Mahmood, L.J.; Muhammad, M.A.; Faraj, R.H.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Sor, N.H.; Mohammed, A.S.; Mohammed, A.A. Geopolymer concrete as a cleaner construction material: An overview on materials and structural performances. Clean. Mater. 2022, 5, 100111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mohammed, A.A.; Ahmed, H.U.; Mosavi, A. Survey of Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete: A Comprehensive Review and Data Analysis. Materials 2021, 14, 4690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Vora, P.R.; Dave, U.V. Parametric Studies on Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete. Procedia Eng. 2013, 51, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Sturm, P.; Greiser, S.; Gluth, G.; Jager, C.; Brouwers, H.J. Degree of reaction and phase content of silica-based one-part geopolymers investigated using chemical and NMR spectroscopic methods. J. Mater. Sci. 2015, 50, 6768–6778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Duxson, P.P.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Provis, J.L.; Lukey, G.C.; Palomo, A.; van Deventer, J.S.J. Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art. J. Mater. Sci. 2007, 42, 2917–2933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Singh, B.; Ishwarya, G.; Gupta, M.; Bhattacharyya, S. Geopolymer concrete: A review of some recent developments. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 85, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Heah, C.; Kamarudin, H.; Al Bakri, A.M.; Binhussain, M.; Luqman, M.; Nizar, I.K.; Ruzaidi, C.; Liew, Y. Effect of Curing Profile on Kaolin-based Geopolymers. Phys. Procedia 2011, 22, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Wattanachai, P.; Suwan, T. Strength of geopolymer cement curing at ambient temperature by non-oven curing approaches: An overview. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 212, 012014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Provis, J.L.; van Deventer, J.S. Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: Why, how, and what? Mater. Struct. 2014, 47, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Ke, X.; Bernal, S.A.; Ye, N.; Provis, J.L.; Yang, J. One-Part Geopolymers Based on Thermally Treated Red Mud/NaOH Blends. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2014, 98, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Provis, J.L.; Van Deventer, J.S.J. Geopolymers: Structures, Processing, Properties and Industrial Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  150. Phoo-Ngernkhama, T.; Chindaprasirt, P.; Sata, V.; Sinsiri, T. High calcium fly ash geopolymer containing diatomite as additive. Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 2013, 20, 310–318. [Google Scholar]
  151. Vijai, K.; Kumutha, R.; Vishnuram, B. Effect of types of curing on strength of geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2010, 5, 1419–1423. [Google Scholar]
  152. Abdullah, M.M.A.; Ibrahim, W.M.W.; Tahir, M.F.M. The Properties and Durability of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymeric Masonry Bricks, Eco-Efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks: Design, Properties and Durability; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 273–287. [Google Scholar]
  153. Yewale, V.V.; Shirsath, M.; Hake, S. Evaluation of efficient type of curing for geopolymer concrete. Evaluation 2016, 3, 293–295. [Google Scholar]
  154. Huang, G.; Ji, Y.; Li, J.; Hou, Z.; Dong, Z. Improving strength of calcinated coal gangue geopolymer mortars via increasing calcium content. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 166, 760–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Bhutta, A.; Farooq, M.; Banthia, N. Performance characteristics of micro fiber-reinforced geopolymer mortars for repair. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 215, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Hadi, M.N.; Al-Azzawi, M.; Yu, T. Effects of fly ash characteristics and alkaline activator components on compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymer mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 175, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. ASTM D6913/D6913M-17; Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  158. ASTM C136; Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
  159. ASTM C114-10; Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement. Book of Standards. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
  160. ASTM C311/C311M; Standard Test Method for Sampling and Testing Fly Ash or Natural Pozzolans for Use in Portland-Cement Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
  161. ASTM D854-06e1; Standard Test for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
  162. ASTM-D7348; Standard Test Methods for Loss on Ignition (LOI) of Solid Combustion Residues. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
  163. ASTM C187-16; Standard Test Method for Amount of Water Required for Normal Consistency of Hydraulic Cement Paste. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
  164. ASTM C305-14; Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009.
  165. ASTM C191-08; Standard Test Methods for Time of Setting of Hydraulic Cement by Vicat Needle. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008.
  166. ASTM C31-19; Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  167. Mansour, M.B.; Jelidi, A.; Cherif, A.S.; Ben Jabrallah, S. Optimizing thermal and mechanical performance of compressed earth blocks (CEB). Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 104, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Islam, M.S.; Elahi, T.E.; Shahriar, A.R.; Mumtaz, N. Effectiveness of fly ash and cement for compressed stabilized earth block construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 255, 119392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Saeed, I.A.; Mohammed, T.J.; Jihad, S.A.-A. Production of Earth Units Compressed and Stabilized by Using Cement and Pozzolana. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 745, 012126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Yalley, P.P.-K.; Manu, D. Effect of Cow Dung on Compressive Strength, Density, Abrasion Resistance and Permeability Properties of Earth Brick. In New Visions in Science and Technology; Book Publisher International (a part of SCIENCEDOMAIN International): London, UK, 2021; Volume 7, pp. 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. EN 206-1; Performance-Based Specifications and Control of Concrete Durability. Concrete. Part 1, Specification, Performance, Production and Conformity. British Standard Institution: London, UK, 2006.
  172. ASTM C642-13; Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
  173. ASTM C20-00(2015); Standard Test Methods for Apparent Porosity, Water Absorption, Apparent Specific Gravity, and Bulk Density of Burned Refractory Brick and Shapes by Boiling Water. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015. [CrossRef]
  174. ASTM C373-14; Standard Test Method for Water Absorption, Bulk Density, Apparent Porosity, and Apparent Specific Gravity of Fired Whiteware Products. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1999.
  175. ASTM C326-09(2018); Standard Test Method for Drying and Firing Shrinkages of Ceramic Whiteware Clays. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
  176. ASTM C109/C109M; Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens ) 1. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
  177. ASTM-C773; Standard Test Method for Compressive (Crushing) Strength of Fired Whiteware Materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
  178. ASTM C78/C78M-02; Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading). ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2002.
  179. ASTM C 177; Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
  180. ASTM C597-16; Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity through Concrete ASTM C 597. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
Materials 15 07130 g001 550
Figure 1. Sustainable concrete production approaches.
Figure 1. Sustainable concrete production approaches.
Materials 15 07130 g001
Materials 15 07130 g002 550
Figure 2. Geopolymer system’s components.
Figure 2. Geopolymer system’s components.
Materials 15 07130 g002
Materials 15 07130 g003 550
Figure 3. Geopolymerization process.
Figure 3. Geopolymerization process.
Materials 15 07130 g003
Materials 15 07130 g004 550
Figure 4. General geopolymer production process adopted by most of the researchers.
Figure 4. General geopolymer production process adopted by most of the researchers.
Materials 15 07130 g004
Table
Table 1. Chemical compositions for several reported diatomite analyses.
Table 1. Chemical compositions for several reported diatomite analyses.
S/NMajor Oxides (% wt.)Reference
SiO2Al2O3Fe2O3CaOMgOMnOTiO2K2OP2O5Na2OLOI
1.86.32.91.70.80.2-0.50.50.50.36[32]
2.920.050.82--0.080.110.340.040.556.01[44]
3.82.023.765.142.610.6-0.350.20.730.332.35[45]
4.70.776.619.021.14-0.22-0.51---[46]
5.71.354.877.9811.71---3.1---[47]
6.68.67103.5410.710.68--0.71--5.69[48]
7.83.4811.511.820.1630.5540.010.3531.810.04--[50]
8.80.135.431.230.53------12.66[51]
9.93.51.61.10.40.05--0.09-2.510.35[52]
10.79.869.016.290.510.47-0.562.280.10.160.6[58]
11.67.210.092.741.360.63--0.67-0.3610.3[61]
12.60.717.91.1716.250.40.040.251.06--14.65[63]
13.71.1612.252.160.390.5--0.76-0.3410.3[68]
14.70.654.261.070.832.250.010.521.671.535.6911.1[69]
15.73.6812.283.290.70.44--1.01-0.128.26[91]
16.566.526.4--------[126]
17.890.640.230.20.070.0050.0310.110.030.19.1[130]
Table
Table 2. Mechanical and Physical properties of diatomaceous earth.
Table 2. Mechanical and Physical properties of diatomaceous earth.
S/NBulk Density (g/cm3)Porosity (%)Specific
Gravity		Water
Absorption (%)		Dry Compressive Strength (MPa)Reference
1.0.32–0.64----[28]
2.0.55977---[54]
3.0.6-1.85--[58]
4.0.767-1.96.5-[126]
5.0.55–0.6073–75--3.4–4.6[130]
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of other geopolymer precursor materials.
Table 3. Characteristics of other geopolymer precursor materials.
PropertyFly Ash (FA)Rice Husk Ash (RHA)Ground-Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS)Silica Fume (SF)Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA)
Bulk Density (g/cm3)1.30.96–1.61.21.35–1.512.4–2.5
Specific gravity2.22.112.92.22.14
Silica (SO2)38–55>9030–40>85>80
Alumina (Al2O3)20–40>95–20<216–18
Iron oxide (Fe2O3)6–16>2.8<2<18–10
Calcium oxide (CaO)1.8–101–2.235–40-5–18
Magnesium oxide (MgO)1–5>15–18->1.2
Table
Table 4. The manufacturing parameters for lightweight concrete with diatomite as a resource.
Table 4. The manufacturing parameters for lightweight concrete with diatomite as a resource.
S/NWater: BinderSpecimen Size (mm)Compaction Pressure (MPa)Curing/SinteringReference
1.0.4220 × 110 × 65101200 °C[24]
2.0.4Ø16–10
10Autoclaved—130 °C—3 h[27]
3.-120 × 28 × 18
Ø85 × 10		Extrusion850–1050 °C[32]
4.0.5–0.7250 × 250 × 20
160 × 40 × 40		-Room temperature[54]
5.0.5Ø5–10
Ø10–15
Ø15–20		-1100 °C
12–15 min		[57]
6.250 × 50 × 500.85Room temperature[58]
7.0.55–1Ø150 × 300
150 × 150 × 600		-Room temperature[59]
8.2.175–7100 × 100 × 100-Room temperature[60]
9.0.15100 × 100 × 100 Room temperature[61]
10.260 × 8 × 615700–900 °C[68]
11.-Ø35 × 3515750–950 °C[69]
12.-60 × 8 × 615800 °C[72]
13.0.135 × 75 × 1503.5Autoclaved—0.14 Mpa 130 °C—4 h[81]
14.0.5630 × 30 × 30-Room temperature[83]
Table
Table 5. Preparation of diatomite-based geopolymer mixes with diatomite as a precursor.
Table 5. Preparation of diatomite-based geopolymer mixes with diatomite as a precursor.
S/NAlkaline ActivatorSpecimen Size (mm)Compaction Pressure (MPa)CuringReference
1.NaOHMortar pastes-20 °C for 28 days[87]
2.3M KOH40 × 40 × 13
Ø5 × 13		6.2570 °C for 24 h[88]
3.KOH10 × 10 × 100
Ø3 × 6		-50 °C for 24 h[89]
4.GelatineØ40 × 18401150–1350 °C—2 h[90]
5.Boric acidPellets401150 °C[91]
6.Polyethylene glycol (PEG)Ø10 × 1050 MPa900–1400 °C[92]
7.Na2SiO3/
10M.NaOH=2		50 × 50 × 50
Ø50 × 100		-60 °C for 24 h[93]
Table
Table 6. Standard Procedures for raw material and concrete preparation.
Table 6. Standard Procedures for raw material and concrete preparation.
S/NCharacterization TypeStandard
1.Standard Specification for Raw or Calcined Natural
Pozzolan for Use in Concrete		ASTM C618 [133]
2.Particle size distributionASTM D6913 / D6913M-17 [157]
ASTM C136/C136M – 14 [158]
3.Chemical characterizationASTM C114-10 [159]
4.Pozzolanic nature of earth materialASTM C311/C311M [160]
5.Specific gravityASTM-D854 [161]
6.Loss on ignitionASTM D 7348-13 [162]
7.Water to binder ratio for normal consistencyASTM C187 [163]
8.Mixture preparation of mortars and concreteASTM C305-14 [164]
9.Determination of the initial and final setting timesASTM C191-08 [165]
10.Making and Curing Concrete Test SpecimensASTM C31-19 [166]
Table
Table 7. (a): Performance properties of concrete when diatomaceous earth is incorporated as a lightweight aggregate. (b): Performance properties of concrete when diatomaceous earth is incorporated as a clinker-free geopolymer resource.
Table 7. (a): Performance properties of concrete when diatomaceous earth is incorporated as a lightweight aggregate. (b): Performance properties of concrete when diatomaceous earth is incorporated as a clinker-free geopolymer resource.
(a)
S/NPorosity (%)Density (g/cm3)Thermal
Conductivity W/Mk		Sound
Transmission km/s		Compressive Strength MPaWater
Absorption %		Flexural Strength MPaReference
1.74.28–92.450.37–0.60.0878–0.103515.78–17.35---[24]
2.58.530.71–0.91--14.7–19.452.63-[27]
3.301.640.45-16.3-6[32]
4.47.081.140.16-7.6637.192.4–0.74[54]
5.-0.55–0.79-----[57]
6.58–611–1.20.15–0.19-7.8–12.961–72-[58]
7.-1.81--2821.1-[59]
8.45--61.34.29--[60]
9.-0.9–1.19--2.5–8--[61]
10.50.21.26--18.8--[68]
11.491.060.2-8.59-[69]
12.50.391.25----10.05[72]
13.-0.730.13-17.546-[81]
14.----3.92--[83]
(b)
S/NPorosity (%)Density (g/cm3)Thermal
Conductivity W/Mk		Sound
Transmission km/s		Compressive Strength MPaWater
Absorption %		Flexural Strength MPaReference
1.----30--[87]
2.--0.171-5.78--[88]
3.----71-9.2[89]
4.--0.09–0.16----[90]
5.68------[91]
6.251--106--[92]
7.-1.76--17.24--[93]
Table
Table 8. Standard test methods referred to in the literature.
Table 8. Standard test methods referred to in the literature.
S/NProperty TestedStandard Test Method
1.PhysicalDensity
Porosity
Water absorption
Linear Shrinkage		ASTM-C642 [172]
ASTM C20-00 [173]
ASTM C373-14 [174]
ASTM C326-09 [175]
2.MechanicalCompressive strength
Flexural strength		ASTM C109/C109M [176]
ASTM C773-88 [177]
ASTM C78/C78M – 02 [178]
3.InsulationThermal conductivityASTM C 177 [179]
Pulse velocityASTM C597 [180]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kipsanai, J.J.; Wambua, P.M.; Namango, S.S.; Amziane, S. A Review on the Incorporation of Diatomaceous Earth as a Geopolymer-Based Concrete Building Resource. Materials 2022, 15, 7130. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207130

AMA Style

Kipsanai JJ, Wambua PM, Namango SS, Amziane S. A Review on the Incorporation of Diatomaceous Earth as a Geopolymer-Based Concrete Building Resource. Materials. 2022; 15(20):7130. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207130

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kipsanai, Janet J., Paul M. Wambua, Saul S. Namango, and Sofiane Amziane. 2022. "A Review on the Incorporation of Diatomaceous Earth as a Geopolymer-Based Concrete Building Resource" Materials 15, no. 20: 7130. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207130

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop