Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

From Cementitious Systems to Crushed Construction and Demolition Waste-Derived Geopolymers: Advanced Matrices for Radionuclide Immobilization

Submitted:

16 July 2026

Posted:

17 July 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) has been investigated both for radionuclide sorption and as a precursor for geopolymer materials. However, research on C&DW-derived geopolymers has primarily focused on synthesis and characterization, while their role in radionuclide immobilization remains insufficiently explored. This review evaluates C&DW-derived geopolymers as promising matrices for radionuclide immobilization, focusing on retention capabilities and factors influencing immobilization performance. Available studies indicate that waste-derived geopolymer systems can limit radionuclide mobility and leaching, but their performance strongly depends on precursor composition, phase assemblage, and matrix structure. The mineral complexity of C&DW-derived matrices may provide diverse retention pathways, supporting their consideration as immobilization materials. Linking the documented sorption capacity of C&DW materials with the immobilization potential and favorable characteristics of C&DW-derived geopolymer matrices represents a promising approach for developing advanced systems for radionuclide solidification. Due to the limited number of studies directly addressing radionuclide immobilization in C&DW-derived geopolymer systems, evidence from related studies is considered to support assessment of their immobilization capacity. Nevertheless, further clarification is required regarding the integration of existing research findings, precursor heterogeneity, multi-ion interactions, and long-term performance under realistic conditions. Addressing these limitations through systematic investigations is essential to support their application in radioactive waste (RW) management.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction and Motivation

The continuously increasing global demand for energy, driven by industrial expansion, urbanization, and population growth, has intensified the reliance on large-scale energy production systems worldwide. Despite the global aspiration to transition toward low-carbon energy sources, such as renewable energy sources (RES), progress to date has remained limited. This can be attributed to the widespread availability of fossil fuel reserves and their deeply embedded role in current energy infrastructures, which hinders a rapid transition, as well as to the inherent intermittency of RES. According to the latest available data, in 2024 fossil fuels accounted for approximately 59.6% of global electricity generation, marking the first recorded decline of this share below the 60% [1]. Within this fossil-based energy structure, coal remains the leading source of electricity generation, accounting for approximately 35% of global electricity production in 2024, although its share has begun to gradually decline in recent years [1]. As a consequence, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions continue to represent the largest share of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, substantially contributing to global warming and climate change [2]. The energy sector is therefore under growing pressure to transition toward low-carbon and sustainable alternatives capable of ensuring both environmental protection and long-term energy security. In this context, greenhouse gas emissions can be substantially mitigated by optimizing energy consumption, improving energy efficiency, and increasing the share of RES and nuclear power within the energy mix.
Nuclear energy enables large-scale electricity generation with minimal direct CO2 emissions, making it an important contributor to reducing dependence on fossil fuels. On a global scale, nuclear power plants account for approximately 9–10% of total electricity generation, while exhibiting a very low carbon footprint comparable to RES [3,4]. Therefore, nuclear energy is often considered a transitional technology in the decarbonization of the energy sector. Total CO2 emissions associated with nuclear energy are estimated at approximately 5–20 g CO2-eq/kWh, which is significantly lower compared to fossil fuels [4,5]. In contrast to these advantages, nuclear energy inevitably generates radioactive waste (RW), with a single nuclear power plant typically producing about 20–50 m3 of high-level waste and approximately 200–1000 m3 of low- and intermediate-level waste annually, depending on reactor type and operational conditions [6,7,8,9]. In addition, RW is also generated in a wide range of medical, industrial, and research activities, which significantly contribute to the overall inventory of low- and intermediate-level RW. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, more than 90% of the global RW volume is classified as low- and intermediate-level waste [8]. Among these waste streams, liquid RW represents a significant fraction, accounting for approximately 10–30% of the total RW generated, and reaching up to about 40% in specific facilities such as spent fuel reprocessing plants, depending on operational conditions and facility type [9]. Through appropriate treatment processes, such as evaporation and ion exchange, the volume of liquid RW can be reduced by approximately 90–99%, thereby significantly decreasing its disposal requirements [9,10]. Further conditioning of liquid RW requires immobilization matrices capable of preventing radionuclide migration and preventing their leaching into the environment during long-term storage [11,12,13]. Stabilization and long-term isolation of radioactive ions are achieved through solidification into durable matrices in which radioactive species are physically encapsulated and/or chemically bound [12,13,14]. Among the available technologies, cementitious materials, particularly systems based on Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), are widely used for the conditioning of low- and intermediate-level liquid RW [15,16], primarily due to their low cost, simple processing, chemical compatibility, and well-established application in waste management systems [17,18].
Nevertheless, the widespread use of cementitious materials for radionuclide immobilization raises significant sustainability concerns, particularly given that cement is the most widely produced and consumed construction material worldwide and is associated with a substantial environmental burden during production [19,20]. Global cement production reached approximately 4.4 billion tons in 2024 and is projected to surpass 5 billion tons by 2030, corresponding to nearly 0.6 tons per capita per year [19,21,22]. Cement production is an energy-intensive process involving the calcination and sintering of raw materials at temperatures approaching 1450–1500 °C, requiring substantial thermal and electrical energy inputs [19]. On average, the production of 1 t of cement consumes approximately 3.3 GJ of thermal energy and around 110 kWh of electricity, with the clinker sintering stage representing the most energy-demanding step of the process [23]. Depending on the fuel source and production technology, manufacturing 1 t of cement may generate approximately 0.9–1.0 t of CO2 eq [24]. As a result, the cement industry is responsible for approximately 7–8% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, while simultaneously accounting for a considerable share (5%) of industrial energy consumption [19,25]. With an estimated annual growth of 4% in cement production [26], carbon dioxide emissions will increase and cause additional environmental burdens. In addition to its carbon and energy footprint, cement production relies heavily on virgin raw materials such as limestone and clay, contributing to the progressive depletion of natural mineral resources. Accordingly, current research on binder systems has increasingly focused on the principles of sustainable development. This is primarily reflected in reducing the consumption of natural resources and promoting the use of secondary raw materials, including industrial by-products and waste-derived materials, in order to decrease environmental impacts and improve resource efficiency [27,28]. In this context, the development of alternative low-carbon binders has gained significant attention, with geopolymers widely recognized as promising alternatives to OPC due to their reduced carbon footprint and strong potential for waste valorization [29,30]. Geopolymers exhibit a combination of advantageous properties, including high mechanical strength, low permeability, and excellent resistance to chemically aggressive environments. Their three-dimensional aluminosilicate network enables the incorporation of various precursors during the geopolymerization process, providing considerable flexibility in raw material selection [31,32]. Moreover, they facilitate the utilization of diverse waste streams, such as blast furnace slag, fly ash, different types of clay, and agricultural residues, thereby contributing to resource conservation and the advancement of a Circular Economy (CE) [33,34].
Furthermore, from a sustainability and CE perspective, C&DW is recognized as a significant waste stream whose valorization is increasingly investigated through its use in alternative binder systems such as geopolymers [35]. It is particularly important that C&DW is produced and disposed of in large quantities and therefore represents an economically advantageous raw material [36]. Owing to its high availability and heterogeneous mineralogical composition, often rich in aluminosilicate phases, C&DW is considered a promising secondary raw material and precursor for geopolymer production for their production [37,38,39,40,41]. In addition, materials obtained from construction sources show compatibility with conventional matrices for immobilization (mortar, concrete, glass and bitumen) of liquid RW and sorbents for wastewater treatment [13,42,43]. Consequently, the sorption properties of C&DW components (concrete, bricks, ceramic residues, and asphalt) have been widely investigated for radionuclide ions present in liquid RW, demonstrating significant sorption capacity for metal ions such as Co, Ni, Sr, and Cs, which are relevant contaminants in liquid RW systems [14,17,18,36,40,41,44,45,46].
This review provides an overview of research on the transition from conventional cementitious systems to C&DW-derived geopolymers for radionuclide immobilization, with a focus on integrating two complementary research directions: the sorption properties of C&DW and the structural and environmental advantages of geopolymer matrices. Although waste-based geopolymers have been widely investigated as sustainable construction materials [39,47,48,49], their application in radionuclide or toxic metal ion encapsulation remains relatively underexplored [50,51]. These findings indicate that C&DW can simultaneously support both sorption and encapsulation mechanisms, thereby facilitating the immobilization of contaminants within a stable matrix [50,52]. Accordingly, this review aims to encourage further experimental research on C&DW-based geopolymer systems for radionuclide immobilization, while highlighting their potential to contribute to reduced energy consumption and emissions, mitigation of climate change, and valorization of C&DW through decreased disposal and conservation of natural resources. C&DW has emerged as a particularly promising secondary resource, not only due to its abundance but also owing to its physicochemical characteristics [53]. Therefore, understanding its generation, composition, and functional properties is essential for evaluating its potential in advanced applications such as geopolymer production and radionuclide immobilization.

2. Construction and Demolition Waste as a Secondary Resource for Advanced Applications

2.1. Generation and Environmental Impact of C&DW

Rapid urbanization, infrastructure renewal, and demolition activities have made construction and demolition waste (C&DW) one of the largest waste streams globally, accounting for approximately 30–40% of total solid waste generation worldwide [54,55]. In the European Union (EU), C&DW represents the largest waste stream, accounting for approximately 33–35% of total waste generation [56,57]. In the United States of America (USA), C&DW accounts for approximately 40% of total solid waste [58], while in China it contributes approximately 30–40% of total urban solid waste, representing the dominant waste stream in urban areas [59].
Recycling rates of C&DW vary significantly across regions, reflecting differences in waste management systems, regulatory frameworks, and available technologies. The EU reports highly heterogeneous performance, ranging from below 10% to above 90% depending on the member state [60,61,62], whereas in the USA recovery levels typically range between 30% and 70% depending on material type [63]. In China, reported recycling and reuse rates are generally lower and more variable, typically ranging from approximately 50% to 70% in urban regions [64,65].
From a practical perspective, C&DW is suitable for recycling and is commonly used as recycled aggregate in non-structural applications such as road base layers, embankments, sub-base systems, backfilling, and other infrastructural works [66,67]. Concrete, asphalt, and bricks are among the most recoverable fractions, with reported recovery rates typically ranging from approximately 80–95% for asphalt, 70–90% for concrete, and 60–85% for masonry materials, depending on local processing technologies and waste management systems [68,69,70]. For example, the EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC sets a target of at least 70% recycling and recovery of C&DW, explicitly promoting improvements in waste management systems [71]. However, achieving this target requires not only optimization of conventional recycling technologies but also the development of alternative high-value valorization pathways that extend beyond traditional construction applications.
Despite these efforts, current practices indicate a limited level of material circularity, resulting in continued dependence on primary raw materials. This issue is further exacerbated by the significant environmental footprint of the construction sector, which contributes approximately 50% of climate change impacts, 40% of energy consumption, and 50% of landfill waste generation, while also causing air and water pollution, ecosystem degradation, and adverse effects on human health [72,73,74].
Accordingly, C&DW should not be regarded solely as a waste stream, but rather as a significant environmental and economic challenge, associated with substantial costs related to its collection, transport, processing, and disposal. These challenges highlight the urgent need for innovative, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable solutions for its management and valorization.

2.2. Composition and Physicochemical Properties of C&DW

C&DW includes a wide range of materials of different origin and composition [41]. Following selective demolition, reconstruction, renovation, and removal of non-mineral components (e.g., metals, glass, wood, plastic, and plaster), a predominantly mineral fraction, referred to as crushed C&DW (stony waste), is obtained. This fraction is highly heterogeneous, reflecting the diversity of source materials and processing conditions.
Crushed C&DW mainly consists of cementitious and ceramic-derived materials, including concrete, mortar, bricks, and ceramics, with smaller contributions from aged asphalt originating from building access roads. The mineralogical evolution of these constituents is governed by long-term environmental exposure, including relative humidity, precipitation, wet–dry cycles, atmospheric CO2, and temperature fluctuations, which induce decalcification and secondary transformations [75,76,77,78,79]. Concrete and mortar represent the dominant fraction and are composite materials consisting of water, cement, and silica-rich aggregates [80]. The cement component, typically OPC is produced by high-temperature processing of limestone and aluminosilicate clays [19,81], yielding calcium silicate phases that, upon hydration, form calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) as the main binding phase, along with calcium aluminate hydrates (C–A–H) and calcium aluminosilicate hydrates (C–A–S–H) [75,76]. Under the influence of long-term environmental exposure, these hydration products undergo progressive transformation due to decalcification, silicate polymerization, and carbonation of portlandite [82,83], leading to the formation of a Si–Ca–O matrix with reduced porosity observed by SEM–EDS [14]. As a result, in aged concrete, quartz (SiO2) and calcite (CaCO3) become the dominant crystalline phases [14,17,44].
Brick materials originate from clay-based raw mixtures subjected to thermal treatment, which induces mineralogical transformations depending on firing temperature [84]. During firing, kaolinite transforms into metakaolinite, while higher temperatures promote the formation of quartz, mullite, anorthite, and sanidine [84,85]. Bricks are typically composed of quartz and calcite with additional silicate and aluminosilicate phases reflecting raw material variability [44], while higher firing temperatures lead to simplified mineral assemblages due to progressive phase transformations [84,85,86,87,88].
Minor constituents of crushed C&DW, including ceramic and roof tiles as well as asphalt materials, also exhibit distinct mineralogical characteristics. Ceramic and roof tiles, similarly to clay-based materials, contain quartz, albite, and calcite as dominant phases, with additional minor metallic compounds associated with pigments and opacifiers [18]. Fresh asphalt consists of mineral aggregates bound by a bituminous organic phase, while aging is characterized by oxidation and the loss of lighter organic fractions, accompanied by the formation or enrichment of secondary mineral phases such as quartz, calcite, and dolomite [17,44,89].
From a chemical perspective, literature data from concrete, brick, ceramic, and asphalt materials collectively indicate that crushed C&DW is predominantly composed of SiO2, Al2O3, and CaO [14,17,18,44,90,91]. Minor contributions of Fe2O3, MgO, and alkali oxides are also typically reported in C&DW systems [90,92]. FT-IR analysis confirms the ubiquitous presence of Si–O and carbonate groups across C&DW fractions, while asphalt additionally exhibits alkyl C–H vibrations associated with bituminous binders [14,18,44]. In general, cement-based materials behave as silicate–carbonate systems, where carbonation of portlandite leads to CaCO3 formation and progressive transformation of hydration products [93,94], whereas asphalt undergoes oxidation-driven aging and degradation of its organic phase [95,96].
Beyond bulk composition, the reactivity of C&DW is strongly governed by the presence of amorphous and poorly crystalline phases originating from both cementitious and ceramic components, including decalcified C–S–H and thermally transformed aluminosilicates. These phases exhibit higher structural disorder and free energy, making them significantly more reactive under alkaline conditions [94,97]. Their dissolution represents the rate-controlling step of geopolymerization [96,98], releasing silicate and aluminate species that subsequently form three-dimensional aluminosilicate networks such as N–A–S–H gels or calcium-modified C–(A)–S–H structures [99,100]. Consequently, the coexistence of crystalline and amorphous phases, together with variable calcium content, governs dissolution kinetics, gel formation, and final physicochemical performance, highlighting the strong potential of properly processed C&DW as a precursor for alkali-activated and geopolymer materials.

2.3. Sorption and Immobilization Performance of Crushed C&DW

The composition and physicochemical properties of crushed C&DW fundamentally govern its interaction with dissolved species. The presence of reactive mineral phases, surface functional groups, and developed porosity provides a variety of active sites for contaminant binding [14,17,18,36,44]. Consequently, crushed C&DW should be regarded as a heterogeneous system with essential functional properties relevant to environmental applications. This heterogeneity arises from the coexistence of cementitious, ceramic, and mineral phases, each contributing differently to sorption behavior [101,102].
Sorption in such systems is a multi-mechanistic process involving surface adsorption driven by attractive molecular forces, ion exchange, formation of ion pairs, precipitation, specific sorption (often combining adsorption and precipitation), hydrogen bonding, and complexation, as well as their combined effects [36,41]. Sorption mechanisms mostly depend on the physico-chemical properties of the sorbent material and the target species. They are further influenced by operational parameters such as pH, contact time, temperature, and the presence of competing ions [11,12,13,41,103,104]. In C&DW systems, elevated pH values induced by cementitious phases additionally enhance metal ion immobilization through precipitation and surface complexation mechanisms [14,18,44].
Construction industry by-products and C&DW-derived materials have consistently demonstrated strong potential as low-cost sorbents for inorganic contaminants. Brick-derived materials, particularly brick dust, exhibit high affinity toward metal ions such as Pb2+, Cd2+, and Cs+ [105,106,107], and have been widely reported as efficient aluminosilicate-based sorbents in aqueous systems, primarily due to ion exchange and surface complexation mechanisms. In addition, ceramic-derived materials have demonstrated the capability for interaction with radionuclide-relevant oxyanions As(V), Cr(VI) and U(VI), under solution conditions governed by their speciation, surface reactivity, and pH-dependent charge characteristics [107,108]. Comparative studies further indicate that thermally treated brick powders outperform raw clays in the removal of Pb2+, Cd2+, and Zn2+, due to firing-induced structural modifications that enhance surface reactivity and the density of active sites [109]. Similarly, crushed concrete fines derived from recycled aggregates demonstrate efficient immobilization of Cu2+, Zn2+, and Pb2+ ions, with performance comparable to other established low-cost sorbents, confirming the functional relevance of cementitious waste fractions beyond their structural reuse [110]. Subsequent studies further expanded the application of crushed concrete fines toward the immobilization of Cr3+, Ni2+, Sr2+, Cd2+, Co2+, and molybdate species, emphasizing the important role of cement-rich fine fractions in the retention of metal ions and radionuclide-relevant contaminants [111,112].
In addition to these general trends, more detailed investigations into specific C&DW fractions reveal pronounced differences in the uptake of transition metal ions. Cementitious materials exhibit the highest sorption capacities for Co2+ and Ni2+, significantly outperforming ceramic-, brick-, and asphalt-derived fractions. Reported Sr2+ uptake values reach up to 0.25 mmol/g, while Co2+ and Ni2+ sorption can exceed 0.32 and 0.55 mmol/g in cement-based samples, respectively, whereas other fractions showed lower capacities [14,44]. This behavior is consistent with the known affinity of calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) phases toward divalent cations, confirming their central role in immobilization processes. In addition to adsorption and ion exchange, precipitation of metal hydroxides may contribute to Co2+ and Ni2+ removal under near-neutral to alkaline conditions, where the formation of Co(OH)2 and Ni(OH)2 becomes thermodynamically favorable [14,44]. In multi-component systems, competitive interactions between Co2+ and Ni2+ may occur, although cementitious phases maintain relatively stable sorption performance even under equimolar conditions [14,36,41,44]. Additionally, significant amounts of Ca2+ ions contained in the C&DW itself can easily be transferred into solution and assume the role of a competing cation [41]. Sorption efficiency is strongly influenced by process parameters such as particle size, solid-to-liquid ratio, and surface accessibility, with finer fractions exhibiting enhanced reactivity due to increased specific surface area [41,113].
From a mechanistic perspective, sorption behavior is primarily governed by the coexistence of calcium-rich phases and aluminosilicate structures, which provide reactive surfaces for interaction with aqueous species. These interactions proceed through ion exchange (particularly involving Ca2+ and Na+), electrostatic attraction, and surface precipitation under alkaline conditions. The role of Ca-bearing phases has been consistently highlighted in studies on recycled concrete, where Ca2+ release and subsequent exchange reactions significantly influence sorption efficiency [112,114].

3. C&DW-Derived Geopolymers as Sustainable Cementitious Alternatives

Geopolymers are alkali-activated aluminosilicate binders that enable the incorporation of industrial by-products and secondary raw materials into structurally stable networks [34,115]. The integration of C&DW into such systems has attracted increasing research attention as a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of conventional cement production while promoting material circularity [30,31,116].
A Scopus-based analysis of geopolymer research incorporating C&DW identified 221 publications for the period 2016–2026 when the search was restricted to studies involving reactive fractions such as powders, fines, precursors, and binder-related systems. This indicates that only a subset of the broader C&DW–geopolymer literature explicitly addresses the chemically active role of waste-derived materials in geopolymerization processes. Qualitative screening of the retrieved publications, combined with commonly used terminology, shows that recycled concrete-derived materials—typically in the form of recycled concrete powder or fines—represent the most frequently studied C&DW fraction as a geopolymer precursor. This is consistent with their wide availability and Ca-rich composition, which supports the formation of hybrid C-(A)-S-H and (N,C)-A-S-H binding phases. Brick-derived waste follows as the second most commonly investigated precursor due to its aluminosilicate-rich composition and increased reactivity after mechanical activation. Ceramic waste-based systems are also reported, although less frequently, and are typically characterized by lower intrinsic reactivity, which limits their role to supplementary or partial precursors. In contrast, mixed C&DW systems remain less explored due to their heterogeneous composition and associated variability in performance. Fine and dust fractions generated during C&DW processing are the least studied category, despite their high specific surface area and potential for enhanced dissolution kinetics. The observed distribution is derived from a qualitative assessment of publication focus and keyword usage. No strict bibliometric quantification per fraction was performed due to overlapping terminology and inconsistent descriptor usage across studies, which limits direct numerical comparison between individual C&DW categories. The identified trend nevertheless points to a clear research preference for well-defined, single-source precursors, while more complex or highly processed fractions remain underrepresented.
C&DW can be incorporated into geopolymer systems through different pathways depending on its processing and particle size. Its function may range from that of an inert aggregate to a reactive aluminosilicate precursor capable of participating in geopolymerization reactions. When used as recycled aggregate, C&D waste primarily acts as a filler or aggregate phase, rather than actively participating in geopolymerization reactions [66,67]. Experimental studies on unseparated C&DW streams confirm that coarse fractions mainly influence packing density, while fine fractions control the variability of mechanical performance [117]. In this case, its role is predominantly physical, with limited contribution to binding phase formation, and is typically associated with low- to medium-strength construction materials. This is consistent with the reported compressive strength range of approximately 25–35 MPa for such systems, depending on precursor composition and curing conditions [117,118,119]. Nevertheless, higher strengths may be achieved through optimized mixture design and incorporation of ceramic-rich fractions, with values exceeding 55 MPa and, in some cases, approaching ~70 MPa [120,121]. At the same time, finely ground C&DW fractions can exhibit significant chemical reactivity, particularly when enriched in brick- and ceramic-derived materials [122,123]. Such fractions may contain partially amorphous aluminosilicate phases capable of dissolving under alkaline conditions and contributing to geopolymer network formation [41,124,125,126,127]. The extent of this reactivity is largely governed by the amorphous phase content and particle fineness, both of which influence dissolution kinetics and the availability of reactive Si and Al species. Enhanced dissolution following mechanical milling has been reported for brick- and ceramic-rich fractions, facilitating partial geopolymerization under highly alkaline conditions [31,53,125,126,127,128]. However, certain ceramic fractions (e.g., sanitary ware, porcelain, and roof tiles) contain a relatively high proportion of crystalline phases such as quartz and feldspars, and therefore often exhibit lower reactivity compared to brick-derived materials.
The reaction products formed during alkali activation depend strongly on the chemical composition of the precursor, particularly its calcium content. In low-calcium systems, N-A-S-H-type gel is generally the dominant binding phase, whereas calcium-rich fractions may promote the formation of C-(A)-S-H gels or hybrid gel structures resulting from the coexistence of sodium- and calcium-bearing aluminosilicate networks [31,53,125,126,127,128]. Calcium present in C&DW, primarily originating from hydrated cement phases and carbonate-containing fractions, therefore plays a key role in directing the development of calcium-bearing reaction products during alkali activation.
Since mixed C&DW streams contain varying proportions of concrete, brick, ceramic, and mortar components, their alkali activation commonly results in complex multi-gel systems. The fine dust fraction, in particular, exhibits variable reactivity due to its heterogeneous composition, mixed amorphous–crystalline character, and fluctuating calcium content. Consequently, alkali-activated C&DW frequently contains a combination of N-A-S-H, C-(A)-S-H, and hybrid (N,C)-A-S-H gel phases, whose relative abundance depends on the precursor composition and processing conditions. In contrast, crystalline phases such as quartz and calcite remain largely inert under alkaline conditions and primarily serve as microstructural fillers [30,31,32].
An overview of the principal C&DW fractions employed in geopolymer systems, together with their composition, role, reactivity, and dominant binding products, is provided in Table 1.
Pre-treatment strategies, including mechanical and thermal activation, significantly influence the reactivity of C&DW by increasing structural disorder and accelerating dissolution kinetics, thereby facilitating more efficient geopolymerization [132]. Thermomechanical processing, in particular, has been reported to enhance the amorphization of precursor phases and improve early-stage geopolymer gel formation by increasing the availability of reactive aluminosilicate species [53,132].
Despite these advantages, the application of C&DW in geopolymer systems is constrained by its inherently heterogeneous composition, which typically includes varying proportions of concrete, brick, ceramic, mortar, and natural stone fractions [41,124]. This variability directly affects dissolution behavior, ionic release, and subsequent gel formation, resulting in fluctuations in microstructure and mechanical performance. Additionally, the presence of hydrated cement phases and carbonation products can influence alkalinity consumption and alter reaction pathways during alkali activation [30,33,99]. Reviews consistently identify heterogeneity as a key barrier to large-scale application, as it leads to inconsistent Na–Al–Si gel formation across different waste sources [53,133,134]. At the same time, enhanced dissolution of aluminosilicate phases has been linked to the formation of more homogeneous binding gels and refined pore structures, which contribute to improved mechanical performance [132].
To overcome limitations associated with low and variable reactivity, hybrid geopolymer systems incorporating highly reactive aluminosilicate precursors such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, and metakaolin have been extensively investigated [30,31,67,135,136,137,138]. These additions enhance dissolution kinetics, increase the availability of reactive species, and promote the formation of more homogeneous and mechanically stable binding gels. Hybrid systems incorporating C&DW with fly ash or slag have been widely reported to enhance compressive strength and durability relative to single-source C&DW-based binders, primarily due to improved gel formation and microstructural densification [51,139,140,141]. Additionally, binary systems incorporating OPC have also been proposed to improve early-age strength, particularly in low-reactivity C&DW-based binders [34,142]. This approach is especially relevant for concrete-derived waste, which is typically rich in calcium-containing phases but relatively poor in reactive aluminosilicates. In such systems, OPC contributes to the formation of calcium–aluminosilicate hydrate (C-(A)-S-H) phases alongside geopolymeric N-A-S-H gels, resulting in hybrid binding mechanisms with improved mechanical performance [30,143]. The relative contribution of these phases depends on calcium availability and activator composition, which together control gel chemistry and microstructural evolution [99,144]. Within this framework of composition–structure–property relationships, it has been widely reported that optimized C&DW-based alkali-activated systems can achieve mechanical performance comparable to conventional cementitious binders [53,117]. However, reproducible performance requires careful control of precursor composition, particle fineness, and activation parameters.
The ability of geopolymer systems to accommodate diverse C&DW-derived precursors while forming stable aluminosilicate networks has established them as promising multifunctional materials [53]. Their flexibility in composition and durability support applications beyond conventional construction materials, particularly in environmentally oriented fields [145]. Such developments reinforce their relevance to circular economy strategies [116], while highlighting the need for further investigation of long-term performance under application-specific conditions [76,146].

4. Geopolymer Matrices from C&DW for Radionuclide Immobilization

In this review, radionuclide immobilization is considered as a combined process involving encapsulation and sorption. Encapsulation refers to the physical and chemical incorporation of radionuclides into the geopolymer matrix, where metal ions are either trapped within pores or integrated into the aluminosilicate structure. Sorption, on the other hand, involves interactions occurring at the material surface and within its pore network [147,148,149,150].
The high immobilization efficiency of geopolymers is largely attributed to their well-developed three-dimensional aluminosilicate network, which forms a negatively charged and highly reactive framework [31,32,99,100]. This structure provides energetically favorable sites for binding various metal ions and supports multiple retention pathways [151,152,153]. In addition, the dense geopolymer gel contributes to immobilization by physically restricting mass transport, thereby enhancing long-term stability of incorporated species [53,128]. Radionuclide retention in geopolymer systems is governed by several concurrent mechanisms, including physical entrapment, structural incorporation into the aluminosilicate network, ion exchange with alkali and alkaline-earth cations, and binding to silicate and aluminate groups [99,100]. Functional groups such as silanol (–Si–OH) and aluminol (–Al–OH) play a key role by facilitating ion exchange and surface complexation, leading to the formation of stable metal–hydroxyl bonds (–Si–O–M and –Al–O–M). These interactions promote the incorporation of metal ions into the geopolymer framework and contribute to their effective encapsulation [148,149,150]. The relative importance of these mechanisms depends strongly on the chemical environment, particularly the high alkalinity and the composition of the activating solution [148,149,150].
Sorption processes are driven by surface functional groups and involve a combination of physical and chemical interactions, including surface adsorption, ion exchange, ion pair formation, and precipitation occurring both at the solid–liquid interface and within the pore structure under highly alkaline conditions [11,12,13,36,41,103,104]. In many cases, sorption proceeds through coupled adsorption–precipitation mechanisms, often accompanied by the formation of hydrogen bonds or inner-sphere complexes [18,36,41]. Highly alkaline conditions further promote the formation of low-solubility metal phases, which additionally enhances immobilization efficiency [18,44,154].
The combined action of encapsulation and sorption significantly reduces radionuclide mobility and leaching, ensuring long-term physicochemical stability under disposal conditions [18,36,41,44,53,128]. Accordingly, immobilization in geopolymer systems can be described as a multi-pathway process involving precipitation, ion exchange, adsorption, and physical encapsulation occurring simultaneously within a structurally and chemically evolving matrix.

4.1. Waste-Derived Geopolymers for Radionuclide Immobilization

A wide range of waste-derived precursor materials, including fly ash, blast furnace slag, and other industrial by-products, have been successfully utilized in geopolymerization processes due to their partial solubility in alkaline activating solutions and their ability to form stable aluminosilicate frameworks [52]. Owing to these properties, such systems have been extensively investigated for both hazardous waste stabilization and RW management, demonstrating the ability to immobilize a broad spectrum of contaminants, including metal ions (Ni(II), Pb(II), Cu(II), Cd(II), Cr(III/VI), Mn(II)) and radionuclides or activation products such as 63Ni, 137Cs, 90Sr, and 60Co, as well as surrogate ions including U(VI) and Th(IV) [155,156,157,158]. Among radionuclides of major environmental concern, cesium and strontium are the most extensively studied due to their high mobility and long half-lives, with numerous studies confirming their effective incorporation and strong leaching resistance in geopolymer matrices [159,160,161,162,163]. In addition to these, other radionuclides such as technetium, iodine, and europium-based actinide surrogates have also been investigated. From a mechanistic perspective, radionuclide immobilization in these systems is primarily governed by ion exchange processes involving Na+ and Ca2+ species within the geopolymer structure [155], as well as direct chemical interactions with Si–O– and Al–O– functional groups. Such interactions have been reported for various ions, including Pb(II), Cd(II), Cu(II), U(VI), and Th(IV), contributing to their stable incorporation within the geopolymer matrix.
Within this broader context, C&DW-based geopolymer systems offer particularly attractive prospects by coupling radionuclide immobilization performance with the valorization of C&DW [11,14,16,17,18,36,40,44,45,47,48,49].

4.2. C&DW-Derived Geopolymers for Radionuclide Immobilization

In systems where C&DW is used as the primary precursor, often combined with industrial or secondary aluminosilicate sources, the formation of a stable geopolymer network has been consistently observed. This network enables effective immobilization of metal ions such as Pb, Ni, Co, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, and Zn through a combination of mechanisms. These ions interact electrostatically with negatively charged AlO4- tetrahedra and become physically entrapped within the gel pore structure, resulting in reduced mobility and leachability [164,165,166,167,168].
C&DW-based geopolymers, particularly when blended with aluminosilicate-rich materials such as fly ash, slag, or ceramic fractions, form heterogeneous gel systems characterized by the coexistence of N-A-S-H and C-A-S-H phases. This effect is especially pronounced in blended systems where C&DW is combined with additional waste streams, such as incineration ash or industrial by-products, leading to improved microstructural densification and reduced metal leaching. The formation of dense C-(A)-S-H and N-A-S-H gels plays a key role in the long-term stabilization of contaminants [166,169]. Furthermore, the formation of hydration products such as C–S–H and ettringite phases has been shown to significantly reduce the leaching of Zn, As, and Ni, highlighting the important role of secondary mineral phases in binding and retaining metal species within the solid matrix [170]. These phases can act as additional sinks for metal ions through incorporation, surface complexation, or precipitation mechanisms, further enhancing overall immobilization efficiency.
Although studies explicitly addressing radionuclide immobilization in such systems remain limited, existing reviews suggest that similar binding mechanisms can be extended to radionuclides such as Co, Cs, and Sr, due to their comparable ionic characteristics and their ability to be incorporated into aluminosilicate frameworks [47]. In particular, monovalent and divalent radionuclides may readily participate in ion-exchange processes or occupy charge-balancing sites within the geopolymer structure, supporting their effective retention.

4.3. Quantitative Overview and Research Trends

To assess the current state of research on radionuclide immobilization using C&DW-based geopolymers, a series of targeted Scopus searches was conducted employing combinations of terms related to C&DW, geopolymer technology, radionuclides, RW, immobilization processes, and contaminant release. The results revealed a very limited number of publications directly addressing radionuclide-related applications. Searches explicitly combining C&DW-derived geopolymers with radionuclide immobilization or RW management returned only 2–3 publications. Broader searches involving radionuclide-relevant elements such as Cs, Sr, Co, and U yielded 24 records, while the inclusion of general immobilization-related terms (immobilization, encapsulation, stabilization, solidification, and fixation) resulted in 16 publications.
In contrast, a larger body of literature (18 publications) was identified when focusing on the leaching behavior of C&DW-based geopolymer systems. These studies do not target intentional immobilization of contaminants, but rather evaluate the release of elements originally present in the raw C&DW-derived precursors under different environmental conditions. As such, leaching tests provide indirect insight into the retention capacity and structural stability of geopolymer matrices. An even broader set of studies (284 publications) addresses the behavior of heavy metals and metal-containing species in C&DW-based geopolymers, primarily through leaching and durability assessments. Although these investigations are not designed as radionuclide immobilization studies, they offer relevant insight into the ability of geopolymer networks to incorporate and retain metal species within their aluminosilicate structure.
These observations highlight the need for a more comprehensive and systematic evaluation of radionuclide immobilization in C&DW-based geopolymer systems, particularly in relation to the existing body of knowledge on metal retention and leaching behavior, which is further discussed in the following section.

5. Knowledge Gaps and Future Perspectives

Despite the demonstrated potential of geopolymer systems for the immobilization of hazardous and radioactive species, their practical application remains constrained by several unresolved scientific and technological challenges. These limitations are particularly pronounced in C&DW-based systems, where compositional heterogeneity and multi-phase complexity introduce additional uncertainties.
An important aspect in this context is the limited integration between two parallel but related research domains: sorption (immobilization) studies performed on raw C&DW materials [14,17,18,36,40,41,43,44,45,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112] and investigation of geopolymer systems derived from C&DW [38,39,49,51,53,67,117,121,125,126,127,128,132,133,136,137,138,139,140,142]. The existing studies have demonstrated that C&DW fractions can effectively sorb a wide range of metal ions and radionuclides, revealing their intrinsic retention capacity. However, these findings are typically considered independently from studies on C&DW-based geopolymer. As a result, the potential relationships between sorption behavior of raw precursors and immobilization performance of the resulting geopolymer matrices remain insufficiently explored, limiting the ability to directly relate these two aspects.
Although research on the immobilization of metal ions in C&DW-derived geopolymers remains limited, a growing body of literature indicates that geopolymer matrices can effectively incorporate a wide range of metal ions and radionuclides, including 63Ni, 137Cs, 90Sr, and 60Co, as well as species such as U(VI) and Th(IV) [155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163]. However, immobilization performance has been shown to depend strongly on system composition and redox conditions [171], as well as on the precursor composition and the resulting matrix structure [160]. These dependencies highlight the need for a more systematic understanding of structure–performance relationships in geopolymer systems.
In the specific case of C&DW-derived geopolymers, the heterogeneous mineral composition, the presence of residual cementitious phases, and the coexistence of calcium-rich and aluminosilicate-rich domains promote diversified retention mechanisms [31,32,37,38,39,40,41,43,53,67,76,99,100,125,126,127,128,163]. While such complexity may enable the simultaneous immobilization of radionuclides with different chemical behaviors, it also introduces significant uncertainty in predicting radionuclide partitioning and long-term stability.
Hybrid gel systems characterized by the coexistence of N-A-S-H and C-(A)-S-H phases further contribute to this complexity. These structures facilitate the incorporation of metal ions and may exhibit behavior analogous to radionuclide immobilization through sorption, physical encapsulation, and chemical stabilization mechanisms [169]. However, the relative contribution of these mechanisms remains insufficiently quantified, particularly in multi-phase systems.
A critical limitation in the current body of research is the scarcity of studies explicitly addressing radionuclide immobilization in C&DW-based geopolymer systems. Although existing reviews suggest that similar binding mechanisms may apply to radionuclides such as Cs, Sr, and Co [47], direct experimental validation under realistic conditions remains limited.
This gap is further supported by a quantitative analysis of the available literature. Despite increasing research activity in the field of C&DW-based geopolymers, only a very limited number of studies directly address radionuclide immobilization or RW management. In contrast, a significantly larger body of work focuses on leaching behavior and the retention of metal species. These studies provide valuable, but largely indirect, evidence of immobilization performance. The lack of systematic translation of these findings to radionuclide systems represents a major research gap and suggests that the application of C&DW-derived geopolymers for targeted radionuclide immobilization is still in its early stage of development. The most relevant knowledge gaps and future research needs are summarized in Table 2.
Bridging the gap between the sorption behavior of raw C&DW materials and the immobilization performance of geopolymer matrices represents a key research priority. Establishing quantitative relationships between precursor characteristics and final waste-form performance could enable the transition from empirical formulations toward predictive, performance-driven design of geopolymer-based immobilization systems. Such an approach is essential for advancing these materials from laboratory-scale studies to practical applications in RW management.

6. Conclusions

This review highlights the potential of C&DW-derived geopolymer systems as advanced matrices for radionuclide immobilization by integrating knowledge from two closely related but largely separated research directions: sorption studies on crushed C&DW and the development and characterization of C&DW-derived geopolymers. The available literature demonstrates that C&DW materials possess intrinsic retention capacity toward a range of metal ions and radionuclides, including Co2+, Ni2+, Sr2+, Cs+, Pb2+, Cd2+, Zn2+, As(V), Cr(VI), and U(VI). At the same time, C&DW-derived geopolymers have been extensively investigated as sustainable cementitious alternatives, with particular emphasis on their mechanical properties and phase evolution.
However, the translation of these findings into radionuclide immobilization performance of C&DW-derived geopolymer matrices remains insufficiently developed. Direct studies addressing radionuclide retention in C&DW-based geopolymers are still limited, and existing knowledge is often derived indirectly from other waste-based geopolymer systems. Establishing clear relationships between precursor composition, sorption behavior, geopolymer structure, and radionuclide retention represents a key research priority.
Further progress requires standardized approaches for heterogeneous C&DW feedstocks, comprehensive assessment under realistic multi-ion conditions, and long-term evaluation beyond conventional short-term leaching tests. Integrating advanced characterization, experimental validation, and predictive modelling will be essential for transforming C&DW-derived geopolymers from promising materials into reliable matrices for RW immobilization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S., I.J.; methodology, A.S., I.J.; data curation, I.J.; writing—original draft preparation, I.J.; writing—review and editing, A.S., I.J., D.A., J.Š., M.S.I. The authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia through the institutional funding of scientific research at the University of Belgrade, Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences (Contract No. 451-03-33/2026-03/200017), the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Civil Engineering (Contract No. 200092), and the University of Belgrade, Innovation Centre of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering (Contract No. 200213).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper was done with financial support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia, within the funding of scientific research work at the University of Belgrade, Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences (Contract No. 451-03-33/2026-03/200017), the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Civil Engineering (Contract No. 200092), and the University of Belgrade, Innovation Centre of Faculty of Mechanical Engineering (Contract No. 200213).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
C&DW Construction And Demolition Waste
RES Renewable Energy Sources
RW Radioactive Waste
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
CE Circular Economy

References

  1. International Energy Agency (IEA). Global Energy Review 2025. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025 (accessed on 22 April 2026).
  2. Rajković, M.; Jelić, I.; Janković, M.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M. From fossil fuels to sustainability: Lignite transition and innovations for climate mitigation in Serbia. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Science, Education, Technology and Innovation (SETI 2024), Belgrade, Serbia, 11–12 October 2024; pp. 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. International Energy Agency (IEA). Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-clean-energy-system (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  4. Warner, E.S.; Heath, G.A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear electricity generation: Systematic review and harmonization. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, S73–S92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. International Energy Agency (IEA). Electricity 2025 – Analysis and Forecast to 2026. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2025 (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  6. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Classification of Radioactive Waste. Safety Guide No. GSG-1; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2009; Available online: https://www.iaea.org/publications/ (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  7. World Nuclear Association. Radioactive Waste Management. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  8. Ember. Global Electricity Review 2024; Chapter 3: Global Electricity Trends; Ember: London, UK, 2024; Available online: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2024/global-electricity-trends/ (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  9. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Status and Trends in Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2018; Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/p15525-PUB2109_web.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  10. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Treatment and Conditioning of Radioactive Waste (IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 448); IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2004; Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS448_web.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  11. Jelić, I.; Savić, A.; Miljojčić, T.; Rajković, M.; Janković, M.; Dimović, S.; Sarap, N.; Ćurčić, M.; Stanić, V.; Zakić, D.; Antonijević, D.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M. Toward sustainable solidification of liquid radioactive waste. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Science, Education, Technology and Innovation (SETI 2024), Belgrade, Serbia, 11–12 October 2024; pp. 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, J.; Wang, J. Advances in cement solidification technology for waste radioactive ion exchange resins: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 135, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ojovan, M.I.; Lee, W.E. An Introduction to Nuclear Waste Immobilisation, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Jelić, I.; Dimović, S.; Antonijević, D.; Jović, M.; Mraković, A.; Šmičiklas, I. Exploring innovative solutions for aged concrete utilization: Treatment of liquid radioactive waste. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 2018, 20, 1343–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Behaviour of Cementitious Materials in Long-Term Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste (IAEA-TECDOC-1701); IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2013; Available online: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1701_web.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2026).
  16. Jelić, I.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Miljojčić, T.; Ćurčić, M.; Dimović, S. Radioactive waste management: Construction and demolition debris in geopolymers. Proceedings of IcETRAN 2021, Ethno Village Stanišići, Republic of Srpska, 8–10 September 2021; pp. 428–431. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jelić, I.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Dimović, S.; Antonijević, D.; Jović, M.; Vujović, Z.; Šmičiklas, I. Radionuclide immobilization by sorption onto waste concrete and bricks—Experimental design methodology. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2019, 230, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jelić, I.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Dimović, S.; Antonijević, D.; Jović, M.; Serović, R.; Šmičiklas, I. Utilization of waste ceramic and roof tiles for radionuclide sorption. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2016, 105, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Andrew, R.M. Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2018, 10, 195–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jevtić, D.; Zakić, D.; Savić, A. Investigation of cement-based composites made with recycled rubber aggregate. Hem. Ind. 2012, 66, 609–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cement Market. Available online: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/cement-market (accessed on 22 April 2026).
  22. Benhelal, M.; Zahedi, G.; Shamsaei, E.; Bahadori, A. Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 51, 142–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tan, T.H.; Mo, K.H.; Lin, J.; Onn, C.C. An overview of the utilization of common waste as an alternative fuel in the cement industry. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2023, 17, 7127007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ali, M.B.; Saidur, R.; Hossain, M.S. A review on emission analysis in cement industries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2252–2261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Business Wire. Available online: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250423546569/en/Cement-Market-Analysis-Trends-and-Forecasts-to-2030-Global-Cement-Production-is-Projected-to-Reach-5.55-Billion-Tons-and-Cement-Consumption-is-Anticipated-to-Rise-to-5.54-Billion-Tons-in-2030---ResearchAndMarkets.com (accessed on 22 April 2026).
  26. Kusuma, G.H.; Budidarmawan, J.; Susilowati, A. Impact of concrete quality on sustainability. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 754–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Scrivener, K.L.; John, V.M.; Gartner, E.M. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 2–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Habert, G.; Miller, S.A.; John, V.M.; Provis, J.L.; Favier, A.; Horvath, A.; Scrivener, K.L. Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 559–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Davidovits, J. Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications; Geopolymer Institute: Saint-Quentin, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Provis, J.L. Alkali-activated materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Duxson, 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]
  32. Komnitsas, K. Potential of geopolymer technology towards green buildings and sustainable construction. Appl. Clay Sci. 2011, 50, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shi, C.; Krivenko, P.V.; Roy, D. Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Deventer, J.S.J.; Provis, J.L.; Duxson, P. Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement. Miner. Eng. 2012, 29, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jelić, I.; Antonijević, D.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Dimović, S. Application of Composite Construction and Demolition Debris in Heavy Metals Removal from Industrial Wastewater. Therm. Sci. 2023, 27(1A), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Jalali, S. Alkali-activated binders: A review: Part 1. Historical background, terminology, reaction mechanisms and hydration products. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22(7), 1305–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abdollahnejad, Z.; Mastali, M.; Falah, M.; Luukkonen, T.; Mazari, M.; Illikainen, M. Construction and Demolition Waste as Recycled Aggregates in Alkali-Activated Concretes. Materials 2019, 12, 4016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Radina, L.; Sprince, A.; Pakrastins, L.; Gailitis, R.; Sakale, G. Potential Use of Construction Waste for the Production of Geopolymers: A Review. Mater. Proc. 2023, 13, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jelić, I.; Savić, A.; Miljojčić, T.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Dimović, S.; Janković, M.; Stanić, V.; Zakić, D.; Antonijević, D. Reuse of Solid Brick Waste Mix in Geopolymerization – A Preliminary Investigation. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Science, Education, Technology and Innovation (SETI 2023), Belgrade, Serbia, 13–14 October 2023; pp. 416–422. [Google Scholar]
  41. Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Smičiklas, I. Utilization of C&D Waste in Radioactive Waste Treatment–Current Knowledge and Perspectives. In Advances in Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling; Pacheco-Torgal, F., Ding, Y., Colangelo, F., Tuladhar, R., Koutamanis, A., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 475–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stefanovsky, S.; Yudintsev, S.; Giere, R.; Lumpkin, G. Nuclear Waste Forms; The Geological Society of London: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  43. Koťátková, J.; Zatloukal, J.; Reiterman, P.; Kolář, K. Concrete and cement composites used for radioactive waste deposition. J. Environ. Radioact. 2017, 178–179, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jelić, I.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Dimović, S.; Antonijević, D.; Jović, M.; Mirković, M.; Smiciklas, I. The Applicability of Construction and Demolition Waste Components for Radionuclide Sorption. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Jelić, I.; Dimović, S. Cementitious Waste Materials Utilization in Radionuclide Immobilization by Sorption. In Proceedings of the XIV International Mineral Processing and Recycling Conference (IMPRC 2021), Belgrade, Serbia, 12–14 May 2021; pp. 339–344. [Google Scholar]
  46. Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Jelić, I.; Lončar, A.; Nikezić, D.; Dimović, S.; Lončar, B. The Application of Experimental Design Methodology for the Investigation of Liquid Radioactive Waste Treatment. Nucl. Technol. Radiat. Prot. 2017, 32(3), 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dimović, S.; Jelić, I.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M. Utilization of Waste-Based Geopolymers for Radionuclide Immobilization – A Review. In Proceedings of the IcETRAN 2020, Belgrade, Serbia, 28 September 2020; pp. 537–540. [Google Scholar]
  48. Dimović, S.; Jelić, I.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Jović, M.; Smiciklas, I. Geopolymers Based on Red Mud. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Science, Education, Technology and Innovation (SETI 2019), Belgrade, Serbia, 12 April 2019; pp. 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jelić, I.; Bošnjaković, J.; Kostić, A.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Dimović, S.; Savić, A. Utilization of Waste in Geopolymerization – A Review. In Proceedings of the 51st International October Conference on Mining and Metallurgy, Bor Lake, Serbia, 16–19 October 2019; pp. 268–271. [Google Scholar]
  50. Cheng, T.; Lee, M.; Ko, M.; Ueng, T.; Yang, S. The heavy metal adsorption characteristics on metakaolin-based geopolymer. Appl. Clay Sci. 2012, 56, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jelić, I.; Savić, A.; Miljojčić, T.; Šljivić-Ivanović, M.; Dimović, S.; Janković, M.; Stanić, V.; Zakić, D.; Antonijević, D. Development of Low-Carbon and Energy-Efficient Geopolymer-Based Paving Blocks. Sci. Sinter. 2025, 57, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fernández-Pereira, C.; Luna-Galiano, Y.; Pérez-Clemente, M.; Leiva, C.; Arroyo, F.; Villegas, R.; Vilches, L.F. Immobilization of heavy metals (Cd, Ni or Pb) using aluminate geopolymers. Mater. Lett. 2018, 227, 184–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alhawat, M.; Ashour, A.; Yildirim, G.; Alper, A.; Aldemir, A.; Sahmaran, M. Properties of geopolymers sourced from construction and demolition waste: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 50, 104104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations, Version 2.2 Rating System; U.S. Green Building Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%20for%20New%20Construction%20v2.2%20Rating%20System%20-%20Marketing.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  55. Mymrin, V.A.; Alekseev, K.P.; Catai, R.E.; Izzo, R.L.S.; Rose, J.L.; Nagalli, A.; Romano, C.A. Construction material from construction and demolition debris and lime production wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 79, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. European Commission. Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW). Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/construction-and-demolition-waste_en (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  57. Statista. Construction waste as a share of all waste generated in the EU-27 from 2004 to 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1399099/construction-waste-as-a-share-of-all-waste-generated-in-the-eu/ (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Construction and Demolition Debris: Material-Specific Data. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2025. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/construction-and-demolition-debris-material (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  59. Ma, Y.; Hao, J.L. Enhancing a circular economy for construction and demolition waste management in China: A stakeholder engagement and key strategy approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 450, 141763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. European Environment Agency. Construction and Demolition Waste: Challenges and Opportunities in a Circular Economy; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/construction-and-demolition-waste-challenges (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  61. European Commission. EU Construction and Demolition Waste Management Protocol, Including Guidelines for Pre-Demolition and Pre-Renovation Audits of Construction Works (Updated Edition 2024). Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d63d5a8f-64e8-11ef-a8ba-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  62. Eurostat. Waste Database. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/waste/database (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  63. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  64. Zhang, Y.; Tan, W. Demolition waste recycling in China: New evidence from a demolition project for highway development. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 696–702, × 20904440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ma, M.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Li, W. Challenges in Current Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling: A China Study. Waste Manag. 2020, 118, 610–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. European Commission; Joint Research Centre. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of construction and demolition waste management in the European Union: Status quo and prospective potential; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2024; Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC135470 (accessed on 28 April 2026).
  67. Panizza, M.; Natali, M.; Garbin, E.; Tamburini, S.; Secco, M. Assessment of geopolymers with construction and demolition waste (CDW) aggregates as a building material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 181, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pacheco, J.; de Brito, J. Recycled Aggregates Produced from Construction and Demolition Waste for Structural Concrete: Constituents, Properties and Production. Materials 2021, 14, 5748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Tam, V.W.Y.; Soomro, M.; Evangelista, A.C.J. A review of recycled aggregate in concrete applications (2000–2017). Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 272–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cristóbal, J.; Caro, D.; Foster, G.; Pristerà, G.; Gallo, F.; Tonini, D. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of construction and demolition waste management in the European Union: Status quo and prospective potential; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2024; Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC135470 (accessed on 24April 2026).
  71. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (Waste Framework Directive). Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, L 312, 3–30. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098 (accessed on 24 April 2026).
  72. Medineckienė, M.; Turskis, Z.; Kazimieras, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K. Sustainable construction taking into account the building impact on the environment. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2010, 18(2), 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Huang, L.; Krigsvoll, G.; Johansen, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X. Carbon emission of global construction sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1906–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials (accessed on 24 April 2026).
  75. Barzgar, S.; Yan, Y.; Tarik, M.; Skibsted, J.; Ludwig, C.; Lothenbach, B. A long-term study on structural changes in calcium aluminate silicate hydrates. Mater. Struct. 2022, 55, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Moudio, A.M.N.; Tchakouté, H.K.; Ngnintedem, D.L.V.; Andreola, F.; Kamseu, E.; Nanseu-Njiki, C.P.; Leonelli, C.; Rüscher, C.H. Influence of the Synthetic Calcium Aluminate Hydrate and the Mixture of Calcium Aluminate and Silicate Hydrates on the Compressive Strengths and the Microstructure of Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer Cements. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2021, 264, 124459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. John, E.; Lothenbach, B. Cement hydration mechanisms through time – a review. J. Mater. Sci. 2023, 58, 9805–9833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Stepkowska, E.; Pérez-Rodríguez, J.L.; Sayagués, M.J.; Martínez-Blanes, J.M. Calcite, vaterite and aragonite forming on cement hydration from liquid and gaseous phase. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2003, 73, 247–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kunhi Mohamed, A.; Moutzouri, P.; Berruyer, P.; Walder, B.J.; Siramanont, J.; Harris, M.; Negroni, M.; Galmarini, S.C.; Parker, S.C.; Scrivener, K.L.; Emsley, L.; Bowen, P. The Atomic-Level Structure of Cementitious Calcium Aluminate Silicate Hydrate. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 11060–11071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Yao, Y.; Xu, G.; Wu, M.; Zhao, M. Exploring the influence of cement and cement hydration products on strength and interfacial adhesion in emulsified cold recycled mixture: A molecular dynamics and experimental investigation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 409, 134050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Liao, Y.; Wang, S.; Wang, K.; Al Qunaynah, S.; Wan, S.; Yuan, Z.; Xu, P.; Tang, S. A study on the hydration of calcium aluminate cement pastes containing silica fume using non-contact electrical resistivity measurement. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 24, 8135–8149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Black, L.; Garbev, K.; Gee, I. Surface carbonation of synthetic C-S-H samples: A comparison between fresh and aged C-S-H using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Cem. Concr. Res. 2008, 38, 745–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kontoleontos, F.; Tsakiridis, P.; Marinos, A.; Katsiotis, N.; Kaloidas, V.; Katsioti, M. Dry-grinded ultrafine cements hydration: Physicochemical and microstructural characterization. Mater. Res. 2013, 16, 404–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Trindade, M.J.; Dias, M.I.; Coroado, J.; Rocha, F. Mineralogical transformations of calcareous rich clays with firing: A comparative study between calcite and dolomite rich clays from Algarve. Appl. Clay Sci. 2009, 42, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. El-Gohary, M.A.; Al-Naddaf, M.M. Characterization of bricks used in the external casing of Roman bath walls “Gadara-Jordan”. Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom. 2009, 9, 29–46. Available online: https://www.maajournal.com/index.php/maa/article/view/283/224. [CrossRef]
  86. Rice, P.M. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  87. Carvalho, A.P.; Vaz, F.M.; Samora, M.J.; Pires, J. Characterisation of ceramic pastes of Portuguese ancient tiles. Mater. Sci. Forum 2006, 514–516, 1648–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jordá, J.D.; Jordán, M.M.; Ibanco-Cañete, R.; Montero, M.A.; Reyes-Labarta, J.A.; Sánchez, A.; Cerdán, M. Mineralogical analysis of ceramic tiles by FTIR: A quantitative attempt. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 115, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Skok, E. Asphalt Paving Technology 2015—; DEStech Publications Inc.: Lancaster, PA, USA, 2016; Volume 84. [Google Scholar]
  90. Silva, R.V.; de Brito, J.; Dhir, R.K. Properties and composition of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste suitable for concrete production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 65, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Xiao, J.; Li, W.; Fan, Y.; Huang, X. An overview of study on recycled aggregate concrete in China. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 31, 364–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ulsen, C.; Kahn, H.; Hawlitschek, G.; Masini, E.A.; Angulo, S.C.; John, V.M. Production of recycled sand from construction and demolition waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 1168–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Taylor, H.F.W. Cement Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  94. Morandeau, A.; Thiéry, M.; Dangla, P. Investigation of carbonation mechanism of CH and C–S–H. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 56, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Petersen, J.C. A Review of the Fundamentals of Asphalt Oxidation: Chemical, Physicochemical, Physical Property, and Durability Relationships; Transportation Research Circular 2126; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  96. Lesueur, D. The colloidal structure of bitumen: Consequences on the rheology and on the mechanisms of bitumen modification. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2009, 145, 42–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Provis, J.L.; van Deventer, J.S.J. (Eds.) Alkali Activated Materials: State-of-the-Art Report of RILEM TC 224-AAM; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  98. Davidovits, J. Geopolymer Cement: A Review; Technical Paper No. 21; Geopolymer Institute: Saint-Quentin, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  99. Bernal, S.A.; Provis, J.L. Durability of alkali-activated materials: Progress and perspectives. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2014, 97, 997–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yip, C.K.; Lukey, G.C.; Provis, J.L.; van Deventer, J.S.J. Effect of calcium silicate sources on geopolymerisation. Cem. Concr. Res. 2008, 38, 554–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Barreto Santos, M.; de Brito, J.; Santos Silva, A. A Review on Alkali-Silica Reaction Evolution in Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Materials 2020, 13, 2625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. da Silva Neto, G.A.; de Oliveira, J.P.V.; Salles, P.V.; Barros, R.T.V.; Paulino, M.T.; dos Santos, W.J. Influence of Heterogeneity, Typology, and Contaminants of Recycled Aggregates on the Properties of Concrete. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 2020, 14, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Maslova, K.; Stepina, I.; Konoplev, A.; Popov, V.; Gusarov, A.; Pankratov, F.; Lee, S.; Ilicheva, N. Fate and transport of radiocesium, radiostrontium and radiocobalt on urban building materials. J. Environ. Radioact. 2013, 125, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Smičiklas, I.; Šljivić, M. Evaluation of factors influencing Co2+ removal by calcinated bone sorbent using experimental design methodology. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2012, 47, 896–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Doušová, B.; Koloušek, D.; Lhotka, M.; Keppert, M.; Urbanová, M.; Kobera, L.; Brus, J. Waste Brick Dust as Potential Sorbent of Lead and Cesium from Contaminated Water. Materials 2019, 12, 1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Kumara, G.M.P.; Kawamoto, K. Applicability of crushed clay brick and municipal solid waste slag as low-cost adsorbents to refine high concentrate Cd(II) and Pb(II) contaminated wastewater. Int. J. GEOMATE 2019, 17, 133–142. Available online: https://geomatejournal.com/geomate/article/view/2157. [CrossRef]
  107. Doušová, B.; Koloušek, D.; Keppert, M.; Machovič, V.; Lhotka, M.; Urbanová, M.; Brus, J.; Holcová, L. Use of waste ceramics in adsorption technologies. Appl. Clay Sci. 2016, 134, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bohara, G.; Pradhanang Shrestha, S.; Nyachhyon Rajbhandari, A. Brick Powder, an Effectual Adsorbent for the Exclusion of Cr(VI) Ion from Aqueous Solution. Amrit J. 2025, 5, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Shahat, M.; Shehata, A.M.A. Adsorption of Lead, Cadmium and Zinc Ions from Industrial Wastewater by Using Raw Clay and Broken Clay-Brick Waste. Asian J. Chem. 2013, 25(8), 4284–4288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Coleman, N.J.; Lee, W.E.; Slipper, I.J. Interactions of aqueous Cu2+, Zn2+ and Pb2+ ions with crushed concrete fines. J. Hazard. Mater. 2005, 121, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Hurt, A.P.; Coleman, A.A.; Coleman, N.J. Interactions of Cr3+, Ni2+, and Sr2+ with Crushed Concrete Fines. Crystals 2022, 12, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Elmes, V.K.; Coleman, N.J. Interactions of Cd2+, Co2+ and MoO42− Ions with Crushed Concrete Fines. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Smiljanić, S.; Smičiklas, I.; Perić-Grujić, A.; Lončar, B.; Mitrić, M. Rinsed and thermally treated red mud sorbents for aqueous Ni2+ ions. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 162, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Lothenbach, B.; Scrivener, K.; Hooton, R.D. Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Davidovits, J. Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm. Anal. 1991, 37, 1633–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Korniejenko, K.; Mikuła, J.; Brudny, K.; Aruova, L.; Zhakanov, A.; Jexembayeva, A.; Zhaksylykova, L. A Review of Industrial By-Product Utilization and Future Pathways of Circular Economy: Geopolymers as Modern Materials for Sustainable Building. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tan, J.; Cai, J.; Li, J. Recycling of unseparated construction and demolition waste (UCDW) through geopolymer technology. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 341, 127771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ren, X.; Zhang, L. Experimental study of geopolymer concrete produced from waste concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2019, 31, 4019114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Mahmoodi, O.; Siad, H.; Lachemi, M.; Sahmaran, M. Synthesis and optimization of binary systems of brick and concrete wastes geopolymers at ambient environment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 276, 122217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Yıldırım, G.; Kul, A.; Özçelikci, E.; Şahmaran, M.; Aldemir, A.; Figueira, D.; Ashour, A. Development of alkali-activated binders from recycled mixed masonry-originated waste. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 33, 101690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Yildirim, G.; Ashour, A.; Ozcelikci, E.; Gunal, M.F.; Ozel, B.F. Development of Geopolymer Binders with Mixed Construction and Demolition Waste-Based Materials. Eng. Proc. 2022, 17, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Retamal-Rojas, M.; Aponte, D.; Valencia-Saavedra, W.; Robayo-Salazar, R.; Barra-Bizinotto, M. Hybrid Binders Through Alkaline Activation of Fine Construction and Demolition Waste. Materials 2025, 18, 3227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Frías, M.; Vigil de la Villa, R.; Martínez-Ramírez, S.; Fernández-Carrasco, L.; Villar-Cociña, E.; García-Giménez, R. Multi-Technique Characterization of a Fine Fraction of CDW and Assessment of Reactivity in a CDW/Lime System. Minerals 2020, 10, 590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Komnitsas, K.; Zaharaki, D. Geopolymerisation: A review and prospects for the minerals industry. Miner. Eng. 2007, 20(14), 1261–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Migunthanna, J.; Rajeev, P.; Sanjayan, J. Waste Clay Bricks as a Geopolymer Binder for Pavement Construction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. He, Y.; Tang, W.; Wu, C.; Zhao, B.; Kou, S. A Comparative Study of Waste Red-Clay Brick Powder (WRCBP) and Fly Ash (FA) as Precursors for Geopolymer Production. Buildings 2025, 15, 4409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Sharmin, S.; Biswas, W.K.; Sarker, P.K. Exploring the Potential of Using Waste Clay Brick Powder in Geopolymer Applications: A Comprehensive Review. Buildings 2024, 14, 2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Manzi, S.; Baldazzi, L.; Saccani, A. Formulating geopolymer mortars through construction and demolition waste recycling. Materials 2023, 16, 7304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Shi, C.; Fernández Jiménez, A.; Palomo, A. New cements for the 21st century: The pursuit of an alternative to Portland cement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 750–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Snellings, R.; Mertens, G.; Elsen, J. Supplementary cementitious materials. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2012, 74, 211–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Poon, C.-S.; Chan, D. The use of recycled aggregate in concrete in Hong Kong. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 50, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Deng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Hu, J.; Yu, Q.; Shi, C. Fundamental study on reactive components and leaching kinetics of ceramic waste for geopolymer production. Compos. Part B Eng. 2025, 295, 112211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Tan, J.; Cizer, Ö.; De Vlieger, J.; Dan, H.; Li, J. Impacts of milling duration on construction and demolition waste (CDW) based precursor and resulting geopolymer: Reactivity, geopolymerization and sustainability. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 184, 106433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Matsimbe, J.; Dinka, M.; Olukanni, D.; Musonda, I. Geopolymer: A Systematic Review of Methodologies. Materials 2022, 15, 6852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Chen, J.; Min, R.; He, Z. Geopolymer Based on Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash, Waste Glass Powder, and Metakaolin: Compressive Strength and Microstructure of Mortar and Application in Pavement Concrete Bricks. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 3080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Azad, N.M.; Samindi, S.M.; Samarakoon, M.K. Utilization of industrial by-products/waste to manufacture geopolymer cement/concrete. Sustainability 2021, 13, 873–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Zedan, S.R.; Maha, M.R.; Doa, A.A.; Aya, M.H. Effect of demolition/construction wastes on the properties of alkali activated slag cement. HBRC J. 2017, 13(3), 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ionescu, B.A.; Lăzărescu, A. A review regarding the use of natural and industrial by-products in the production of geopolymer binders. Proc. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 877, 012033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Javed, I.; Saeed, H.; Ekinci, A. Transforming Construction Waste into High-Performance Alkali-Activated Paste with Microstructural and Predictive π Modelling Insights. Buildings 2025, 15, 3830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Wang, K.; Lei, Y.; Zha, X. Mechanical and Carbonation Performance of Alkali-Activated Mortars Incorporating GGBS and Recycled Construction Spoil. Buildings 2026, 16, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Asim, N.; Badiei, M.; Ghoreishi, K. Alkali-Activated and Geopolymer Systems Through the Lens of Resource Efficiency. Resources 2026, 15, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Vásquez, A.; Cárdenas, V.; Robayo, R.A.; de Gutiérrez, R.M. Geopolymer based on concrete demolition waste. Adv. Powder Technol. 2016, 27(4), 1173–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Bernal, S.A.; Provis, J.L.; Rose, V.; de Gutiérrez, R.M. Evolution of binder structure in sodium silicate-activated slag-metakaolin blends. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Provis, J.L.; Bernal, S.A. Geopolymers and related alkali-activated materials. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2014, 44, 299–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Zhang, Y.; Li, P.; Yu, T.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, Y.; Pei, Y. A State-of-the-Art Review on the Application of Geopolymerization/Geopolymer in Environmental Fields. Buildings 2025, 15, 4054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Amran, M.; Al-Fakih, A.; Chu, S.H.; Fediuk, R.; Haruna, S.; Azevedo, A.; Vatin, N. Long-term durability properties of geopolymer concrete: An in-depth review. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, e00661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Panda, L.; Rath, S.S.; Rao, D.S.; Nayak, B.B.; Das, B.; Misra, P.K. Thorough understanding of the kinetics and mechanism of heavy metal adsorption onto a pyrophyllite mine waste-based geopolymer. J. Mol. Liq. 2018, 263, 428–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Genua, F.; Giovini, M.; Leonelli, C.; Lancellotti, I. Chelating, Reducing, and Adsorbing Agents in Geopolymers for Heavy Metals Stabilization from Galvanic Sludge. Polymers 2026, 18, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Jiang, J.; Luo, H.; Wang, S.; Ou, X.; Su, J.; Lyu, Z.; Chen, J.; Wei, D. Synthesis of Tailing Slurry-Based Geopolymers for the Highly Efficient Immobilization of Heavy Metals: Behavior and Mechanism. Appl. Clay Sci. 2024, 247, 107199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Zhang, B.; Yu, T.; Deng, L.; Li, Y.; Guo, H.; Zhou, J.; Li, L.; Peng, Y. Ion-Adsorption Type Rare Earth Tailings for Preparation of Alkali-Based Geopolymer with Capacity for Heavy Metals Immobilization. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 134, 104768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Mukiza, E.; Phung, Q.T.; Seetharam, S.C.; Nguyen, T.N.; Bruggeman, C.; De Schutter, G. Recent advances in immobilization of radioactive cesium and strontium-bearing wastes in alkali activated materials – A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 370, 122746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Houhou, M.; Leklou, N.; Ranaivomanana, H.; Penot, J.D.; de Barros, S. Geopolymers in nuclear waste storage and immobilization: Mechanisms, applications, and challenges. Discov. Appl. Sci. 2025, 7, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Liu, J.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, W.; Ye, J.; Wang, R. Solidification performance and mechanism of typical radioactive nuclear waste by geopolymers and geopolymer ceramics: A review. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2024, 169, 105106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Brown, G.; Parks, G. Sorption of trace elements onto mineral surfaces: Modern perspectives from spectroscopic studies, and comments on sorption in the marine environment. Int. Geol. Rev. 2001, 43, 963–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Wang, Y.; Han, F.; Mu, J. Solidification/stabilization mechanism of Pb(II), Cd(II), Mn(II) and Cr(III) in fly ash based geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 160, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Genua, F.; Giovini, M.; Santoni, E.; Berrettoni, M.; Lancellotti, I.; Leonelli, C. Factors Affecting Consolidation in Geopolymers for Stabilization of Galvanic Sludge. Materials 2025, 18, 3015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Ahmaruzzaman, M. A review on the utilization of fly ash. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2010, 36, 327–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. El-Eswed, B.I.; Aldagag, O.M.; Khalili, F.I. Efficiency and mechanism of stabilization/solidification of Pb(II), Cd(II), Cu(II), Th(IV) and U(VI) in metakaolin based geopolymers. Appl. Clay Sci. 2017, 140, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Xu, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Wu, D.; Peng, X.; Xu, Y.; Li, N.; Qi, Y.; Li, P. Immobilization of strontium-loaded zeolite A by metakaolin based-geopolymer. Ceram. Int. 2017, 43, 4434–4439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Peng, X.; Xu, Y.; Xu, Z.; Wu, D.; Li, D. Effect of simulated radionuclide strontium on geopolymerization process. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 31, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Tian, Q.; Nakama, S.; Sasaki, K. Immobilization of cesium in fly ash-silica fume based geopolymers with different Si/Al molar ratios. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 1127–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. X Liu, X.; Lu, Y.D.; Lu, X. Immobilization of Simulated Radionuclide 90Sr by Fly Ash-Slag-Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer. Nucl. Technol. 2017, 198, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Walkley, B.; Ke, X.; Hussein, O.H.; Bernal, S.A.; Provis, J.L. Incorporation of strontium and calcium in geopolymer gels. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 382, 121015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Zhu, K.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, C. Microwave-synergistic chemical activation of bayer red mud for geopolymerization. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2025, 13, 118666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Chen, J.; Zhou, J.; Chen, S.; Shi, H.; Hu, Q.; Tang, Y. Evaluation of slag and tannery sludge based geopolymer after thermal exposure: Properties, phase transformation and Cr leaching behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 512, 145716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Tan, J.; De Vlieger, J.; Desomer, P.; Cai, J.; Li, J. Co-disposal of construction and demolition waste (CDW) and municipal solid waste incineration fly ash (MSWI FA) through geopolymer technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Melikoglu, M. Quantitative review of waste-based geopolymers: Analysis of progress, performance metrics, and circular economy pathways. Phys. Chem. Earth 2026, 143, 104359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. van Deventer, J.S.J.; Provis, J.L.; Duxson, P.; Lukey, G.C. Reaction mechanisms in the geopolymeric conversion of inorganic waste to useful products. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 139, 506–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Taki, K.; Mukherjee, S.; Patel, A.K.; Kumar, M. Reappraisal review on geopolymer: A new era of aluminosilicate binder for metal immobilization. Environ. Nanotechnol. Monit. Manag. 2020, 14, 100345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Jamil, M.A.-B.; Waleed, M.; Khalid, R.A.B. Mechanical Performance and Environmental Benefits of Ternary Blends of Phosphogypsum, Calcium Carbide Residue, and Rock Demolition Waste for Use in Road Sub-grade. Rock. Mech. Bull. 2025, 100296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Hanzlicek, T.; Steinerova, M.; Straka, P. Radioactive Metal Isotopes Stabilized in a Geopolymer Matrix: Determination of a Leaching Extract by a Radiotracer Method. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2006, 89, 3541–3543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Main C&DW fractions and their role in geopolymer systems.
Table 1. Main C&DW fractions and their role in geopolymer systems.
C&DW fraction Main composition Typical geopolymer role Reactivity Main binding products References
Recycled concrete fines Hydrated cement phases, calcite, silica-rich phases Hybrid precursor/filler Medium C-(A)-S-H and N-(C)-A-S-H [129,130,131]
Brick waste Amorphous aluminosilicates Primary precursor Medium–high N-A-S-H [40,109,125,126,127]
Ceramic waste Aluminosilicates, quartz, feldspars Primary/Supplementary precursor Medium N-A-S-H [31,40,109,125,126,127]
Mixed C&DW Mixed mineral phases Variable precursor Low–medium Mixed gel systems [23,53,121]
C&DW fine dust fraction Fine amorphous and crystalline phases Reactive precursor/filler Variable N-A-S-H and hybrid gels [122,123]
Table 2. Key Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Directions in C&DW-Based Geopolymer Systems for Radionuclide Immobilization.
Table 2. Key Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Directions in C&DW-Based Geopolymer Systems for Radionuclide Immobilization.
Aspect Identified Gap Implications/Future Needs
Immobilization in C&DW-derived geopolymers Despite existing studies on radionuclide sorption by raw C&DW and on the characteristics of C&DW-derived geopolymers, direct evaluation of radionuclide immobilization in these systems remains limited Direct immobilization studies in C&DW-derived geopolymers, supported by prior sorption knowledge to interpret retention mechanisms and predict performance, together with the development of standardized approaches enabling comparison between precursor sorption behavior and radionuclide retention in final geopolymer matrices.
Sorption vs. encapsulation Strong evidence for radionuclide sorption on raw C&DW materials [14,36,41,44,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114], but limited direct comparison with geopolymer systems Studies linking precursor sorption capacity with final geopolymer performance
Mechanisms of immobilization Insufficient quantification of contributions from encapsulation, ion exchange, and chemical bonding, especially in multi-phase systems Advanced spectroscopic and microstructural studies to resolve radionuclide binding environments
Methodological limitations Immobilization is inferred from short-term leaching tests at low ion concentrations rather than directly demonstrated [164,165,166,167,168,170]. Standardized approaches specifically designed for evaluating radionuclide immobilization in C&DW-derived geopolymer systems are still lacking Development of validated testing methodologies, including higher loading levels, multi-technique validation (spectroscopy, microscopy), and direct assessment of immobilization mechanisms beyond leaching behavior
Multi-ion systems Most studies focus on single-ion systems (Cs+, Sr2+, Co2+), while real RW contains complex mixtures Investigation of competitive interactions and multi-component systems
Feedstock variability High heterogeneity of C&DW affects reactivity, phase evolution, and reproducibility Development of standardized classification and processing protocols
Multi-phase complexity (C&DW systems) Coexistence of N-A-S-H and C-(A)-S-H gels introduces uncertainty in radionuclide partitioning and retention behavior Systematic studies linking phase assemblage with radionuclide speciation and retention
Radionuclide scope Limited data for environmentally relevant radionuclides (e.g., 137Cs, 90Sr, 60Co, 63Ni) in realistic conditions Expanded studies under representative waste compositions
Cross-waste insights Limited integration of findings from other waste systems (e.g., mining residues) Comparative studies to identify transferable immobilization mechanisms (often similar across waste systems), currently underutilized for predicting system behavior
Structure–performance relationships Weak linkage between precursor composition, geopolymerization reactions, and final immobilization efficiency Development of predictive models for rational material design
Mechanical and chemical durability Long-term integrity under environmental exposure not is not fully verified for recycled-material-based systems [11,146] Coupled mechanical–chemical durability assessment under realistic conditions
Long-term performance Limited understanding of stability under repository-relevant conditions (carbonation, wet–dry cycles, radiation, groundwater interaction) [146] Long-term experiments and predictive modelling for multi-decadal to geological timescales
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated

Accessibility

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings