EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 11 (2025) EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol., 11 (2025) 60 References
Issue
EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.
Volume 11, 2025
Euratom Research and Training in 2025: ‘Challenges, achievements and future perspectives’, edited by Roger Garbil, Seif Ben Hadj Hassine, Patrick Blaise, and Christophe Girold
Article Number 60
Number of page(s) 9
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2025058
Published online 30 September 2025
  1. IAEA, in Predisposal Management of Organics in Radioactive Waste (IAEA, 2015), Vol. 427, pp. 1–87 [Google Scholar]
  2. S. Kearney, D.A. Geddes, T. Hanein, S. Nelson, J.L. Provis, B. Walkley, in Cement-Based Stabilization/Solidification of Radioactive Waste. Low Carbon Stabilization and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes (Elsevier, 2022), pp. 407–431. ISBN 9780128240045, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-824004-5.00005-0 [Google Scholar]
  3. M. Atkins, F.P. Glasser, Application of portland cement-based materials to radioactive waste immobilization, Waste Manag. 12, 105 (1992), https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-053X(92)90044-J [Google Scholar]
  4. A. Hasnaoui, C. Reeb, M. De Campos, C.A. Davy, D. Lambertin, Controlling the properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer/liquid organic waste emulsions: A rheological approach, Appl. Clay Sci. 245, 107160, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2023.107160 [Google Scholar]
  5. B. Kim, J. Kang, Y. Shin, T. Min Yeo, J. Heo, W. Um, Effect of Si/Al molar ratio and curing temperatures on the immobilization of radioactive borate waste in metakaolin-based geopolymer waste form, J. Hazard. Mater. 458, 131884 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131884 [Google Scholar]
  6. N.B. Singh, B. Middendorf, Geopolymers as an alternative to Portland cement: An overview, Constr. Build. Mater. 237, 117455 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117455 [Google Scholar]
  7. A. Santi, E. Mossini, G. Magugliani, F. Galluccio, E. Macerata, P. Lotti, G.D. Gatta, D. Vadivel, D. Dondi, D. Cori, H. Nonnet, M. Mariani, Design of sustainable geopolymeric matrices for encapsulation of treated radioactive solid organic waste, Front. Mater. 9, 1 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2022.1005864 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. N.A. Girke, H.-J. Steinmetz, A. Bukaemsky, D. Bosbach, E. Hermann, I. Griebel, Cementation of nuclear graphite using geopolymers, in Processing of Irradiated Graphite to Meet Acceptance Criteria for Waste Disposal (IAEA-TECDOC-1790), IAEA, Vienna (2016) [Google Scholar]
  9. H. Wang, X. Zhao, J. Wang, L. He, A. Zhang, H. Gao, J. Yang, L. Liang, Properties and cementation mechanism of geopolymer backfill paste incorporating diverse industrial solid wastes, Materials (Basel) 16, 1 (2023), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020480 [Google Scholar]
  10. C. Reeb, C. Pierlot, C. Davy, D. Lambertin, Incorporation of organic liquids into geopolymer materials – A review of processing, properties and applications, Ceram. Int. 47, 7369 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.11.239 [Google Scholar]
  11. R.S. Krishna, J. Mishra, M. Zribi, F. Adeniyi, S. Saha, S. Baklouti, F.U.A. Shaikh, H.S. Gökçe, A review on developments of environmentally friendly geopolymer technology, Materialia 20, 101212 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtla.2021.101212 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. W. Huo, Z. Zhu, H. Sun, L. Yang, C. Zhang, Estimating the relationships between initial constituent molar ratios and physical–mechanical properties of RCFP-GBFS based geopolymers, Constr. Build. Mater. 406, 133409 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133409 [Google Scholar]
  13. S.S. Mohapatra, J. Mishra, B. Nanda, S.K. Patro, A review on waste-derived alkali activators for preparation of geopolymer composite, Mater. Today Proc. 56, 440 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.400 [Google Scholar]
  14. S. Adjei, S. Elkatatny, W.N. Aggrey, Y. Abdelraouf, Geopolymer as the future oil-well cement: A review, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 208, 109485 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109485 [Google Scholar]
  15. J. Lee, B. Kim, J. Kang, J. Kang, W.S. Kim, W. Um, Comparative study between geopolymer and cement waste forms for solidification of corrosive sludge, J. Nucl. Fuel Cycle Waste Technol. 18, 465 (2020), https://doi.org/10.7733/jnfcwt.2020.18.4.465 [Google Scholar]
  16. J. Ahn, W.S. Kim, W. Um, Development of metakaolin-based geopolymer for solidification of sulfate-rich HyBRID sludge waste, J. Nucl. Mater. 518, 247 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2019.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  17. F. Pancotti, M. Guerra, M. Fournier, K. Hamadache, A. Hasnaoui, C. Bucur, E. Marquez, E. Lara, M. Hayes, J. Provis, Y. Svitlychnyi, S. Sayenko, D. Cori, E. Mossini, A. Santi, Q.T. Phung, T.N. Nguyen, Investigation, development and assessment of innovative direct conditioning solutions for radioactive liquid organic waste within the PREDIS project, in Proceedings of the ASME 2023 International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management. Stuttgart, Germany. October 3–6, 2023. V001T10A006. (ASME, 2023), https://doi.org/10.1115/ICEM2023-110253 [Google Scholar]
  18. J.H. Jeon, J.H. Lee, W.C. Lee, S.W. Lee, S.O. Kim, Evaluation of the solidification of radioactive wastes using blast furnace slag as a solidifying agent, Materials (Basel) 16, 6462 (2023), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16196462 [Google Scholar]
  19. T. Degen, M. Sadki, E.U. König, G. Nénert, The HighScore suite, J. Powder Diffr. 29, S13 (2014), http://doi.org/10.1017/S0885715614000840 [Google Scholar]
  20. PDF-4+ database, International Centre for Diffraction Data, Newtown Square, PA, U.S.A. release 2023 [Google Scholar]
  21. I.G. Richardson, Tobermorite/jennite- and tobermorite/calcium hydroxide-based models for the structure of C-S-H: Applicability to hardened pastes of tricalcium silicate, β-dicalcium silicate, Portland cement, and blends of Portland cement with blast-furnace slag, metakaolin, or silica fume, Cem. Concr. Res. 34, 1733 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.034 [Google Scholar]
  22. R.J. Myers, S.A. Bernal, J.L. Provis, A thermodynamic model for C-(N-)A-S-H gel: CNASH-ss. Derivation and validation. Cem. Concr. Res. 66, 27 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  23. B. Walkley, A. Kashani, M.A. Sani, T.D. Ngo, P. Mendis, Examination of alkali-activated material nanostructure during thermal treatment, J. Mater. Sci. 53, 9486 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-018-2270-z [Google Scholar]
  24. Y.J. Zhang, L. Kang, L.C. Liu, Alkali-activated cements for photocatalytic degradation of organic dyes, Handbook of Alkali-Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes (Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2015), https://doi.org/10.1533/9781782422884.5.729 [Google Scholar]
  25. D. Medpelli, J.M. Seo, D.K. Seo, Geopolymer with hierarchically meso-/macro-porous structures from reactive emulsion templating, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 97, 70 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.12724 [Google Scholar]
  26. H. Giesche, Mercury porosimetry: A general (practical) overview, Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 23, 9 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1002/ppsc.200601009 [Google Scholar]
  27. J. Klaver, S. Hemes, M. Houben, G. Desbois, Z. Radi, J.L. Urai, The connectivity of pore space in mudstones: Insights from high-pressure Wood’s metal injection, BIB-SEM imaging, and mercury intrusion porosimetry, Geofluids 15, 577 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1111/gfl.12128 [Google Scholar]
  28. S.M. Rao, I.P. Acharya, Mercury intrusion porosimetry studies with geopolymers, Indian Geotech. J. 47, 495 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-017-0245-7 [Google Scholar]
  29. Y. Yao, D. Liu, Comparison of low-field NMR and mercury intrusion porosimetry in characterizing pore size distributions of coals, Fuel 95, 152 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.12.039 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mogul TB 32 S; OL-TB 32 S; ver. 3.3; Paramo: Pardubice, 20.3.2019 [Google Scholar]
  31. Nevastane EP 100; TOT NEV EP100 20; Total: Baisieux, 11.11.2022 [Google Scholar]
  32. Radioactive Waste Repository Authority, Limits and Conditions for the Dukovany Repository – Annex 1: Waste Acceptance Criteria, Directive, reference code: S.15p1, 26 November 2019, 2019 [Google Scholar]
  33. T. Mashifana, M. Sillanpää, The durability and leaching behavior of granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash, and waste foundry sand geopolymers, KEM 922, 153 (2022), https://doi.org/10.4028/p-313339 [Google Scholar]
  34. L. Li, A. Darquennes, K. Hannawi, C. Che, Effect of the alkali-sulphate activators on the hydration process of blast-furnace slag mortars and pastes, Materials (Basel) 18, 514 (2025), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18030514 [Google Scholar]
  35. F. Hanaei, M.S. Sarmadi, M. Rezaee, A. Rahmani, Experimental investigation of the effects of gas oil and benzene on the geotechnical properties of sandy soils, Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 6, 1 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00433-5 [Google Scholar]
  36. B.V. Rangan, Geopolymer concrete for environmental protection, Indian Concr. J. 88, 41 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2005.11464946 [Google Scholar]
  37. A. Albidah, M. Alghannam, H. Abbas, T. Almusallam, Y. Al-Salloum, Characteristics of metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete for different mix design parameters, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 10, 84 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.11.104 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.