www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Experimental studies on mix

design and properties of ceramic-
glass geopolymer mortars using
response surface methodology
Meysam Pourabbas Bilondi1, Vahideh Ghaffarian2,3, Mahdi Amiri Daluee2,
Reyhaneh Pakizehrooh2, Saeed Hosseini Tazik4, Alireza Behzadian3 & Mojtaba Zaresefat5
This study explores the mechanical properties of geopolymer mortars incorporating ceramic and glass
powders sourced from industrial waste. A Box-Behnken design was employed to assess the effects
of ceramic waste powder (CWP) content, alkaline activator ratio, solution-to-binder (S: B) ratio, and
oven curing duration on the mortar’s performance. Compressive strengths were measured at 3 and 28
days, and regression models were developed to predict these outcomes. The relationships between
compressive strength, flexural strength, and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) were also analyzed.
Microstructural and molecular changes were investigated using scanning electron microscopy and
fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. According to response surface methodology results, the
maximum compressive strengths of 22.79 MPa at three days and 25 MPa at 28 days were achieved
using a mix containing 85.8% CWP, a 1.02 sodium hydroxide (NH): sodium silicate (NS) ratio, a 0.647
S: B ratio, and a 12-h oven curing time. Optimal oven curing conditions resulted in 28-day compressive
strength, flexural strength, and UPV values of 25.7 MPa, 5.62 MPa, and 5765 m/s, respectively.
.

Keywords Geopolymer, Ceramic waste powder, Compressive strength, Correlation

Cementitious concrete is the most widely used construction material globally, recognized for its reliability and
versatility, and second only to water in terms of consumption. However, cement production, growing at an annual
rate of 5% 1, has become a significant contributor to environmental concerns, ranking as the second-largest
source of CO₂ emissions after automobiles 2–4. These emissions arise from processes such as mineral grinding,
fossil fuel combustion, and the processing of raw materials in kilns, all of which have a lasting environmental
impact 5,6. Moreover, cement kilns emit large quantities of nitrogen oxides (NOx), contributing to acid rain
and exacerbating the greenhouse effect 7. Energy-intensive cement production and the extensive use of natural
resources have heightened global environmental concerns 7–9. Consequently, there is increasing pressure from
global environmental summits for the cement industry to transition from traditional Portland cement to more
sustainable alternative binders that maintain favorable structural and durability characteristics 10,11.
Geopolymerization presents a promising alternative for sustainable construction materials, synthesizing
geopolymer materials through specific chemical reactions involving inorganic molecules. Typically produced by
activating solid aluminosilicates with alkali solutions, these materials commonly utilize natural resources such
as kaolin and bentonite as sources 12. Geopolymer cement is widely recognized for its sustainability, primarily
because it excludes Portland clinker from its formulation, potentially reducing the carbon footprint by up to
90%13. Moreover, any industrial by-product or waste containing sufficient amounts of silica (Si) and alumina
(Al) can theoretically serve as source material for geopolymer production 7, enabling the recycling and reuse of
industrial waste, reducing the need for raw materials, and addressing landfill disposal issues. The interaction of
Si and Al with hydroxide ions (OH⁻) in the alkali solution contributes significantly to the strength of the final
product 14. The availability of suitable industrial waste and advancements in processing and synthesis techniques
highlight the potential of geopolymer processes in developing new, sustainable construction materials 12.

1Department of Civil Engineering, University of Gonabad, Gonabad, Iran. 2Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Environment, Khavaran Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran. 3Department of Chemical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. 4Quality Control Supervisor, Shargh White
Cement Company, Mashhad, Iran. 5Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht,
The Netherlands. email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 1

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Therefore, studying the mechanical properties, microstructure, durability, and limitations of geopolymer cement
derived from waste materials is crucial to identifying research gaps.
Various waste materials have been explored for geopolymer production, including red mud, rice husk ash,
mine tailings, coal bottom ash, catalyst residues, recycled glass waste, ceramic waste, palm oil fuel ash, and paper
sludge ash 12. Research on geopolymer concrete has predominantly focused on fly ash-based binders due to their
availability, low water demand, and high aluminosilicate content 15–19. However, the quality of fly ash depends
on the type and quality of coal and the power plant’s performance 20. Moreover, with the global shift towards
renewable energy sources, the future availability of fly ash is expected to decline, even as the demand for cement
continues to rise 19.
In this context, ceramic waste powder (CWP) emerges as a viable alternative. Global ceramic tile production
exceeds 10 million square meters annually, with 15–30% resulting in waste from grinding and polishing
processes. This substantial waste is typically landfilled, leading to soil, water, and air pollution in surrounding
areas 21,22. CWP, rich in Si and Al and exhibiting pozzolanic reactivity 23, is a suitable feedstock for geopolymer
production. Although limited research has been conducted on CWP-based mortars or concrete, several studies
have explored the potential of blending CWP with other aluminosilicate sources to achieve desirable geopolymer
compositions. For example, Bhavsar and Panchal 21 demonstrated that CWP could replace 10–15% of fly ash in
geopolymer concrete without compromising mechanical properties.
Similarly, Rashed et al.24 reported that partially replacing fly ash with ceramic waste powder (CWP) up to 40%
enhanced the 28-day compressive strength by 20–43%. However, when CWP replaced metakaolin, a reduction in
compressive strength was observed, attributed to the incomplete reactivity of CWP with alkaline activators and
the combined effects of particle packing and binder phase content12. Huseien et al.25,26 investigated CWP-based
mortars blended with fly ash and granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS), demonstrating satisfactory compressive
strength, enhanced workability, and optimized setting times. Kaya 27,28 evaluated the mechanical characteristics
of geopolymer mortar derived from the alkali activation of raw ceramic powder. In terms of optimization, an
ideal mixture with a silicate modulus of 0.12 and a water-to-binder ratio of 0.425 yielded a flexural strength
of 5.97 MPa and a compressive strength of 26.75 MPa. Incorporating micro-silica and micro-alumina further
improved the compressive strength of the geopolymer paste based on raw ceramic powder, achieving nearly a
three-fold enhancement compared to control samples 29.
Recycled glass powder (RGP), a rich source of silica derived from municipal solid waste, is another potential
material for geopolymer production [11]. However, its reactivity in geopolymerization is limited by the lack of
reactive alumina. To overcome this limitation, combining RGP with materials rich in alumina is recommended
to promote the formation of a sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-S-H) network, which enhances compressive
strength 29. For instance, Çelik et al.16 found that incorporating 10% RGP with 13 M NaOH resulted in an
optimal sustainable fly ash-based concrete with desirable properties. Similarly, Safarzadeh et al.11 combined RGP
with clay and metakaolin to produce a geopolymer mortar, though the compressive strength was lower than that
of traditional cement mortar.
Despite these advancements, limited exploration has been conducted into the fabrication of CWP-based
mortars using appropriate additives and the generation of technical data. In this research, the mechanical
characteristics of geopolymer mortars incorporating CWP and RGP were investigated, focusing on how binder
contents, alkaline activator ratios, S: B ratios, and oven curing times affect compressive strength, flexural strength,
and UPV of the mortars. The significance of this research lies in addressing the growing concerns surrounding
waste management by utilizing CWP and RGP as alternative raw materials in construction. This approach
offers an eco-friendly solution that reduces the demand for traditional cement-based products known for their
high energy consumption and environmental impact. By applying RSM and analyzing the microstructural
and molecular properties of the geopolymer mortars, this study seeks to determine the optimal formulations
and curing conditions that can enhance the performance of these sustainable building materials. The outcome
may facilitate the development of mortars that are not only stronger but also cost-effective, thereby promoting
environmental sustainability and advancing construction technologies.

Material and methods

Materials
Ceramic waste powder (CWP) and recycled glass powder (RGP) were utilised as the primary components in
the preparation of the geopolymer mortar. The CWP was collected from Firouzeh Tile Co. in Mashhad, Iran,
and the RGP was obtained from a glass bead manufacturer in Arak, Iran. Both waste materials were ground to
fine powders and sieved through a No. 200 sieve (75 μm) to achieve the desired particle size distribution. The
physical properties of CWP and RGP are presented in Table 1, and their chemical compositions, determined by
X-ray fluorescence (XRF), are listed in Table 2. The particle size distribution (PSD) curves for CWP and RGP
are shown in Fig. 1.
The SEM images of CWP and RGP, depicted in Fig. 2, reveal that both materials consist of irregular and
angular particles, typical for waste-derived powders. The alkaline activator solution used in the geopolymer

Material Blaine fineness (cm2/g) Specific gravity (g/cm3) Passing 45 μm sieve (%)
CWP 5950 2.47 94
RGP 2840 2.5 88.58

Table 1. Physical properties of CWP and RGP.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 2

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Material SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO K2O Na2O MgO TiO2 P2O5 LOI
CWP 72.03 17.99 2.8 0.95 1.82 1.83 1.17 0.58 0.08 0.23
RGP 75.21 0.88 0.46 8.84 0.13 10.83 3.38 0.06 0.02 0.00

Table 2. Chemical compositions of CWP and RGP (wt.%).

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution curves of CWP and RGP.

Fig. 2. SEM micrographs of (a) CWP and (b) RGP at magnifications of × 5000 and × 10,000, respectively.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 3

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

mortar consisted of a mixture of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na₂SiO₃) solutions. The NaOH
pellets, with a purity of 98%, were procured from DRM Chem, Iran. A 10 M NaOH solution was prepared
by dissolving the appropriate amount of NaOH pellets in tap water and allowing the solution to cool for 24 h
before use. The sodium silicate solution had a composition of 16.32% Na₂O, 32.75% SiO₂, and 50.93% H₂O
by mass. Standard silica sand (Ottawa sand) was used as the fine aggregate following ASTM C349-18 30. A
polycarboxylate-based superplasticiser (Sika ViscoCrete-3110 IR) was added to enhance the fresh mortar’s
flowability. The superplasticiser has a 1.05–1.10 kg/L density and a freezing point of − 4 °C.

Mixing procedure and curing

The geopolymer mortar was prepared by first dry-mixing the sand, CWP, and RGP in a mechanical mixer
for one minute to ensure homogeneity. The dry mixture was then activated by adding the alkaline activator
solution (a mixture of NaOH and Na₂SiO₃ solutions) and mixing at moderate speed for an additional minute.
Subsequently, the superplasticiser and extra water were added, and mixing continued for another minute to
achieve the desired workability. The fresh mortar was then cast into moulds in two layers, with each layer being
consolidated by vibrating for 10 s to eliminate entrapped air. The specimens were cured in an oven at 100 °C for
6, 9, 12, or 24 h. After a cooling period of 2 h following the designated curing time, the specimens were removed
from the moulds. The demoulded samples were then stored at ambient room temperature until reaching a total
curing duration of 3 or 28 days. The binder content for all geopolymer samples was fixed at 350 kg.m-3.
A control sample using 100% Portland cement (PC100) was also prepared for comparison with the geopolymer
samples. The sand-to-solid and water-to-solid ratios for the PC100 control sample were fixed at 2.75 and 0.6,
respectively. The mix proportioning and heat curing schedule of the prepared mortars is presented in Table 3.

Testing methods
The mechanical and physical properties of the geopolymer mortars were evaluated through compressive strength,
flexural strength, and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) tests, with an average of three specimens reported for each
test. Compressive strength tests were conducted on 50 mm × 50 mm × 50 mm cube specimens following ASTM
C349-18 30, with the load applied at 150 kN/min until failure. Flexural strength and UPV tests were performed
on 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm prism specimens following ASTM C348-21 31 and ASTM C597-09 32, respectively.
The microstructure and surface morphology of selected mortar samples were SEM, and Energy-Dispersive X-ray
Spectroscopy (EDS) was employed to analyze the elemental composition. Samples aged 28 days were used for
SEM analysis and were coated with a thin layer of gold to prevent charging during imaging. Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) was performed to identify the functional groups present in the mortar samples.
For FTIR analysis, specimens were prepared by mixing powdered mortar with potassium bromide (KBr) and
pressing the mixture at 295 MPa for 2 min. The spectra were recorded over a range of 400 to 4,000 cm⁻1.

Design of experiments
Response Surface Methodology (RSM) was employed using a Box-Behnken Design (BBD) implemented in
Design-Expert software version 12.0.3.0 to optimize the experimental process and reduce the required tests.
This design enabled the development of quadratic models to assess the interactions among the experimental
factors, as expressed in Eq. (1) 33
∑k ∑k ∑k ( )
Y = β0 + (βi Xi ) + (βij Xi Xj ) + βii Xi2 (1)
i=1 i<j i=1

Binder (mass%)
Mix CWP RGP PC NH: NS S: B Oven duration (hr) Curing times (days)
C90N2S0.7 90 10 – 2 0.7 12, 24 3, 28
C90N0.5S0.7 90 10 – 0.5 0.7 12, 24 3, 28
C90N2S0.5 90 10 – 2 0.5 12, 24 3, 28
C80N1S0.5 80 20 – 1 0.5 12, 24 3, 28
C100N2S0.6 100 – – 2 0.6 12, 24 3, 28
C80N1S0.7 80 20 – 1 0.7 0, 6, 9, 12, 24 3, 28
C100N1S0.7 100 – – 1 0.7 12, 24 3, 28
C90N1S0.6 90 10 – 1 0.6 12, 24 3, 28
C80N2S0.6 80 20 – 2 0.6 12, 24 3, 28
C100N1S0.5 100 – – 1 0.5 12, 24 3, 28
C90N0.5S0.5 90 10 – 0.5 0.5 12, 24 3, 28
C80N0.5S0.6 80 20 – 0.5 0.6 0, 6, 9, 12, 24 3, 28
C100N0.5S0.6 100 – – 0.5 0.6 12, 24 3, 28
Control sample – – 100 – 0.6* 0 3, 28

Table 3. Mixing scheme of mortars. *For PC control sample, S: B refers to water: solid ratio

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 4

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

where Xi and Xj are the variables, Y is the response, β0 is the intercept, while βi, βii, and βij represent the coefficients
of the linear, quadratic, and interactive terms, respectively.

The factors and their corresponding levels used in the BBD are listed in Table 4. The factors included the
percentage of CWP in the CWP/RGP binder (A), the NH: NS ratio (B), the S: B ratio (C), and the oven curing
duration (D). These factor levels were determined based on preliminary experiments and adjusted to optimise
the mortar properties. The required number of experiments is determined using Eq. (2) 34.

N = 2k + 2K + C (2)

The total number of experiments required for the BBD was determined based on the number of factors
and levels, resulting in 30 experimental runs, which included 24 factorial points and 6 centre points. The
experimental design and corresponding response values, including the 3-day compressive strength (y1) and 28-
day compressive strength (y2), are detailed in Table 5.
RSM was applied to estimate the effects of the variables on the responses. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to analyse and validate the regression models, facilitating the interpretation of the results. ANOVA
assesses the relative significance of factors by evaluating their percentage contribution to the response variable.
The analysis was performed at a 5% significance level, corresponding to a 95% confidence level. A p-value of less
than 0.05 indicates that a factor significantly impacts the response, while a p-value of less than 0.01 suggests a
highly significant effect.
Conversely, a p-value greater than 0.1 indicates that the factor is not statistically significant. The adequacy
of the models was assessed using the coefficient of determination (R2) and adjusted R2 values. Numerical
and graphical optimisation techniques provided by the Design-Expert software were applied to optimise the
responses simultaneously. The desired goals for each variable and response were specified, with all variables kept
within their respective ranges while the responses were maximised.

Results and discussion

Response surface analysis
Development of response models using RSM
The experimental design generated by the design expert software is presented in Table 5. Figure 3 compares
the overall compressive strength results of these experiments with the control sample. The data reveal that the
compressive strengths of the geopolymer mortars at both 3 and 28 days were nearly identical for each sample.
Heat curing and high-molarity alkaline solutions accelerate geopolymerization, leading to high early compressive
strength and similar strength values at the studied ages 13,35,36. At high curing temperatures, the dissolution of
primary materials speeds up, resulting in faster reaction rates and extended synthesis of geopolymer precursors.
Additionally, the higher the NaOH concentration, the more Na⁺ ions are available in the solution, which is
crucial for geopolymerization due to their role in balancing charges and forming the alumina-silicate network
36,37.

Generally, the geopolymer mortars exhibited satisfactory compressive strengths compared to the control.
Approximately 90% of the geopolymer mortars showed higher compressive strength at 3 days than the control
sample, which had a compressive strength of 11 ± 1 MPa at the same age. Additionally, 20% of the samples
demonstrated higher compressive strengths at both 3 and 28 days than the control. Notably, in 6.7% of the
samples, the 3-day compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar surpassed the 28-day compressive strength
of the control sample, which was 23 ± 1 MPa. These findings are significant for various reasons, particularly for
early strength development and construction timelines. Improved early strength not only promotes quicker
project advancement but also permits the application of stress on structures at an earlier stage. This facilitates
the prompt removal of formwork and expedites subsequent construction phases, thereby enhancing the overall
speed of project completion. These benefits are particularly advantageous for projects that require swift execution
or have constrained curing periods, such as repair and renovation initiatives.
RSM indicates that the studied factors significantly influence the compressive strengths of CWP-based
geopolymer mortars, including the percentage of CWP in the binder, the NH: NS ratio, the S: B ratio, and the
oven duration. Table 5 shows variations in CWP percentages (80%, 90%, 100%) in the binder. Mortars with
90% CWP generally achieved optimal results, especially when combined with favourable conditions such as a
balanced NH: NS ratio and sufficient curing time. For instance, samples with 80% CWP, such as C80N1S0.7O12,
also demonstrated high compressive strengths (25.7 MPa at 28 days), indicating that a moderate reduction in
CWP content, if balanced by other factors, can still produce strong results. Additionally, including RGP in the
binder composition enhanced compressive strength, likely due to improved bonding between constituents

Effective factors
Levels CWP% (A) NH: NS (B) S: B (C) Oven duration (D)
1 80 1:2 0.5 12 h
2 90 1:1 0.6 24 h
3 100 2:1 0.7

Table 4. Factors and levels used in the BBD.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 5

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Compressive strength
(MPa)
Runs Mix ID* Type A B C D y1 y2
1 C90N2S0.7O24 A2B3C3D2 90 2:1 0.7 24 17.9 20.5
2 C90N0.5S0.7O24 A2B1C3D2 90 1:2 0.7 24 16.1 18.3
3 C90N2S0.5O12 A2B3C1D1 90 2:1 0.5 12 7 7.3
4 C80N1S0.5O24 A1B2C1D2 80 1:1 0.5 24 12 12.4
5 C100N2S0.6O24 A3B3C2D2 100 2:1 0.6 24 16.8 18
6 C80N1S0.7O24 A1B2C3D2 80 1:1 0.7 24 17.3 22
7 C90N2S0.5O24 A2B3C1D2 90 2:1 0.5 24 8.6 10.3
8 C100N1S0.7O24 A3B2C3D2 100 1:1 0.7 24 17.2 19
9 C90N1S0.6O24 A2B2C2D2 90 1:1 0.6 24 20.2 22
10 C80N1S0.7O12 A1B2C3D1 80 1:1 0.7 12 19.2 25.7
11 C80N2S0.6O24 A1B3C2D2 80 2:1 0.6 24 15.6 18.8
12 C90N1S0.6O24 A2B2C2D1 90 1:1 0.6 12 23 23.5
13 C100N1S0.5O24 A3B2C1D2 100 1:1 0.5 24 10.4 15
14 C90N1S0.6O12 A2B2C2D1 90 1:1 0.6 12 22.7 23.6
15 C90N0.5S0.5O12 A2B1C1D1 90 1:2 0.5 12 13.8 13
16 C100N1S0.7O12 A3B2C3D1 100 1:1 0.7 12 18 18.6
17 C90N1S0.6O24 A2B2C2D2 90 1:1 0.6 24 20.5 21.4
18 C90N1S0.6O12 A2B2C2D1 90 1:1 0.6 12 22.3 23.9
19 C90N0.5S0.7O12 A2B1C3D1 90 1:2 0.7 12 21 20
20 C80N0.5S0.6O12 A1B1C2D1 80 1:2 0.6 12 22.5 21.8
21 C100N0.5S0.6O24 A3B1C2D2 100 1:2 0.6 24 18.3 19
22 C90N1S0.6O24 A2B2C2D2 90 1:1 0.6 24 21 22.3
23 C80N0.5S0.6O24 A1B1C2D2 80 1:2 0.6 24 18.4 18.8
24 C90N2S0.7O12 A2B3C3D1 90 2:1 0.7 12 16.8 21
25 C100N1S0.5O12 A3B2C1D1 100 1:1 0.5 12 11.5 14.9
26 C100N0.5S0.6O12 A3B1C2D1 100 1:2 0.6 12 18.7 18.2
27 C80N2S0.6O12 A1B3C2D1 80 2:1 0.6 12 14.9 18.4
28 C90N0.5S0.5O24 A2B1C1D2 90 1:2 0.5 24 12.8 13.3
29 C80N1S0.5O12 A1B2C1D1 80 1:1 0.5 12 11.5 11.7
30 C100N2S0.6O12 A3B3C2D1 100 2:1 0.6 12 16.8 18.1

Table 5. Design and results of BBD test of geopolymer mortars. * C = CWP% in the binder, N = NH: NS ratio,
S = S: B ratio, O = oven duration For example, C80N1S0.7O12 = mortar with 80% CWP-20% RGP as a binder,
with the NH: NS ratio of 1 and the S: B ratio of 0.7, cured in the oven for 12 h

Fig. 3. Compressive strength of the geopolymer mortars.

during gel formation. This finding is consistent with previous studies 37, which observed similar improvements
in compressive strength in calcium carbide-RGP-clay soil geopolymers.
The NH: NS ratios used were 1:1, 1:2, and 2:1. A 1:1 ratio frequently resulted in better compressive strengths.
Combined with optimal S: B ratios and curing conditions, this ratio often produced compressive strengths above

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 6

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

20 Mpa, suggesting a balanced alkaline activator ratio is crucial for effective geopolymerization and strength
development.
The S: B ratios of 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 were also significant. A higher S: B ratio, particularly 0.7, often leads to
higher compressive strengths, as seen in samples like C80N1S0.7O12, due to the enhanced availability of alkaline
solutions, facilitating the geopolymerization process and strengthening the geopolymer matrix. Conversely, a
lower S: B ratio of 0.5 was associated with weaker compressive strengths, typically below 15 MPa, suggesting
insufficient alkaline activation. It underscores the importance of optimizing the S: B ratio to ensure adequate
geopolymerization and mechanical strength. Oven curing duration also had a notable impact. Samples cured
for 12 h, such as C90N1S0.6O12, frequently exhibited compressive strengths comparable to or exceeding those
cured for 24 h, suggesting that 12 h of curing may be sufficient for optimal mechanical properties in certain mix
designs, potentially providing a more efficient process without compromising strength.
Overall, several trends are evident across the samples. C90N1S0.6O12 and C80N1S0.7O12 consistently
produced high compressive strengths, highlighting the synergistic effects of the S: B ratio, NH: NS ratio, and
curing duration. These results emphasize the need to carefully balance these factors to achieve the desired
performance in geopolymer mortars.
The experimental results were modelled to determine the most suitable polynomial function for the data.
Different models were fitted non-linearly by applying model summary statistics, the sum of squared deviations,
and fitting errors. The regression models for each response at two different oven durations are presented in
Eqs. (3 to 6):
For 12-h oven duration:
3dCS (y1 ) = −308.0836 + 2.9741A − 14.7065B + 651.2368C + 0.116AB + 14.456BC − 0.01738A2 − 3.125B 2 − 523.75C 2 (3)

28dCS (y2 ) = −334.5337+2.8463A + 0.1325B + 732.125C − 1.9875AC + 20BC − 0.0097A2 − 5.4292B 2 − 439.7917C 2 (4)

For 24-h oven duration:

3dCS (y1 ) = −306.876 + 2.9741A − 12.4229B + 643.07C + 0.116AB + 14.456BC − 0.017375A2 − 3.125B 2 − 523.75C 2 (5)

28dCS (y2 ) = −336.933 + 2.93125A − 1.3466B + 720.125C − 1.9875AC + 20BC − 0.0097A2 − 5.4292B 2 − 439.9717C 2 (6)

ANOVA results for the models are presented in Table 6. Both models yielded p-values below 0.0001, indicating
that they are statistically significant and that the factors studied had a meaningful impact on compressive
strength at both 3 and 28 days. When analyzing individual factors, Factor A (CWP percentage) showed a highly
significant effect in the 3-day model, with a p-value of less than 0.0001 and an F-value of 27.15, indicating a strong
influence on early compressive strength. However, in the 28-day model, the influence of this factor diminished
(F = 1.61, p = 0.2213). This reduced impact over the curing period can be attributed to rapid geopolymerization
reactions and subsequent microstructural changes. The reactions are more pronounced in the early stages,

Source 3-day compressive strength (y1) 28-day compressive strength (y2)

Df* MS** F-Value P-Value Df MS F-Value P-Value
Model 11 47.12 94.18 < 0.0001 12 46.04 82.14 < 0.0001
A 1 13.58 27.15 < 0.0001 1 0.9037 1.61 0.2213
B 1 49.48 98.91 < 0.0001 1 6.25 11.15 0.0039
C 1 204.99 409.73 < 0.0001 1 305.39 544.79 < 0.0001
D 1 5.05 10.09 0.0052 1 3.64 6.49 0.0208
AB 1 6.39 12.77 0.0022 –
AC – 1 31.60 56.37 < 0.0001
AD – 1 2.89 5.16 0.0365
BC 1 9.93 19.84 0.0003 1 19.00 33.89 < 0.0001
BD 1 12.34 24.67 < 0.0001 1 3.49 6.22 0.0232
CD 1 2.67 5.33 0.0330 1 5.76 10.28 0.0052
A2 1 22.29 44.56 < 0.0001 1 6.99 12.47 0.0026
B2 1 17.15 34.28 < 0.0001 1 51.76 92.34 < 0.0001
C2 1 202.57 404.89 < 0.0001 1 142.83 254.80 < 0.0001
Residual 18 0.5003 17 0.5606
Lack of fit 14 0.6023 4.20 0.0878 13 0.6941 5.48 0.0566
Pure error 4 0.1433 4 0.1267
Cor total 29 29
R2 0.9829 0.9830
Adj R2 0.9725 0.9711
CV% 4.22 4.08

Table 6. ANOVA for the regression model and respective model terms. * Degree of freedom ** Mean square

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 7

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

leading to a more significant contribution from CWP. Over time, as geopolymerization products mature and
the microstructure evolves, the relative influence of CWP percentage on overall strength may be reduced due to
other competing mechanisms becoming more dominant. This observation aligns with the findings reported by
Mermerda et al.38.
Factor C (S: B ratio) exhibited the most substantial influence on compressive strength in both models, with
extremely low p-values (< 0.0001) and very high F-values (409.73 for the 3-day model and 544.79 for the 28-day
model), indicating that Factor C is a critical determinant of compressive strength at both stages. Specifically,
the S: B ratio affects the efficiency of the alkali activation process, which is essential for fully activating the
binder materials of the geopolymer and facilitating the formation of aluminosilicate gels. These gels provide the
structural integrity of the geopolymer matrix, thereby influencing the compressive strength. This relationship
emphasizes the necessity of the S: B ratio during the formulation of geopolymer mortars. Previous studies
have also highlighted the essential role of this ratio in strength improvement 28,39. For instance, Shoaei et al. 23
reported that mortars based on CWP demonstrated increased density at elevated S: B ratios, attributed to higher
liquid content and improved geopolymerization of the components, achieving optimal compressive strength at
the S: B ratio of 0.6.
Factors B and D are also significant in both models, although they have less influence than Factor C. An
evaluation of the interaction effects between various factors revealed significant findings. In the 3-day model,
the interaction between Factors A and B was statistically significant, with a p-value of 0.0022. This means that
the percentage of CWP in the geopolymer mortar significantly influences the 3-day compressive strength,
contingent upon the alkali solution ratio. Consequently, at a certain level of CWP, the compressive strength may
improve when paired with a higher or lower NH: NS ratio. To optimize the 3-day compressive strength, adjusting
the alkali solution ratio while also varying the CWP content could be key.
Furthermore, significant interactions were observed between Factors B and C and Factors B and D, with
p-values of less than 0.0003 and 0.0001, respectively. The interaction between Factors B and C indicates that if
the S: B ratio is high, an adjustment of the NH: NS ratio is required to maintain an efficient geopolymerization
process and prevent excess liquid from diluting the binder strength. Accordingly, neither factor alone can be
adjusted without considering the effect of the other. This interaction is also predominant in the 28-day model,
given the importance of Factor C.
However, in the 28-day model, another significant interaction is observed between Factors A and C. This
interaction suggests that higher S: B ratios might dilute the effects of the CWP percentage, or there may be a
threshold ratio where the benefits of adding CWP peak. Essentially, the amount of solution can either enhance
or inhibit the strength contributed by the CWP, depending on the amount of binder used.
The quadratic terms (A2, B2, and C2) are all highly significant in both models, with p-values below 0.0001,
indicating a nonlinear relationship between factors and compressive strength. This emphasizes the necessity of
including quadratic terms to capture the complex behavior of the factors. The nonlinearity shows that the effects
of these factors on compressive strength do not change at a constant rate. Initially, increases in these factors may
enhance strength rapidly, after which further increases can either diminish or reverse this effect. A comprehensive
understanding of these nonlinear relationships enhances the predictive accuracy of the compressive strength
model across different conditions. Additionally, incorporating these complexities enables adaptability to actual
environmental and curing conditions, ensuring better performance predictions, facilitating iterative research,
and leading to more efficient and sustainable geopolymer formulations. Other researchers have also employed
quadratic equations to predict the compressive strength of geopolymer products 40,41.
Model fitting was further supported by the lack-of-fit p-values, which exceeded 0.05 for both models,
indicating a low likelihood of abnormal errors and confirming that the models fit the data well. The R2 is
exceptionally high, 0.98 for the 3-day model and 0.9830 for the 28-day model, demonstrating a strong correlation
between the predicted and actual compressive strengths. The adjusted R2 values are also close to the R2 values,
suggesting that the models were appropriately fitted without excessive complexity. Moreover, the low coefficients
of variation (CV%) of 4.22% for the 3-day model and 4.08% for the 28-day model indicate high precision and
reliability in the predictions. Figures 4 and 5 display the regression analysis plots for compressive strengths. The
normal plots of residuals indicate a linear distribution for both models, suggesting normal data distribution. The
scatter diagrams in Fig. 5 show the predicted values closely matching the actual values, as evidenced by their
proximity to the y = x line, confirming that the established models are well-fitted.

Factor affecting compressive strength

Response surface plots are valuable tools for analyzing the effects of various factors and their interactions on
specified responses. The significance of a variable is more pronounced when the response surface shows greater
curvature, indicating a strong impact, whereas minimal curvature suggests a lesser effect.
The results from Figs. 6 and 7 indicate that at constant S: B and NH: NS values, a slight increase in CWP
content up to 84–88% enhanced the compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar, particularly in samples
aged 3 days. This improvement is attributed to the presence of Al in CWP, which dissolves more readily than
Si species, leading to the formation of Al-rich gels 42. Furthermore, when either NH: NS or CWP content was
fixed individually, a higher S: B ratio significantly contributed to increased compressive strength, highlighting
the critical role of the alkaline solution.
At constant S: B ratio, the mortars’ 3-day and 28-day compressive strengths initially increased and then
decreased with higher NH: NS content. Peak compressive strengths were observed within NH: NS ranges of 0.5–
1.1 for 3-day aged mortars and 0.7–1.2 for 28-day aged mortars. Since Si dissolves more slowly and with more
difficulty than Al, sodium silicate compensates for this limitation by providing additional Si, thus accelerating
the geopolymerization process. However, if the Si/Na molar ratio exceeds optimal levels, the alkali concentration
diminishes, leading to the adsorption of Si onto solid particles and hindering the reaction 43.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 8

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 4. Normal plot of the residuals for the response models.

Fig. 5. Relationship between the experimental and predicted values of responses.

Determination of factors’ optimal values

The numerical optimization feature of design expert software was employed to determine the optimal area of
independent variables, aiming to maximize the mortar’s 3-day and 28-day compressive strengths simultaneously.
The optimal conditions identified were a CWP content of 85.8%, an NH: NS ratio of 1.02, and an S: B ratio of
0.647, with an oven curing duration of 12 h. Under these conditions, the predicted maximum compressive
strengths are 22.79 MPa for 3-day-aged mortars and 25 MPa for 28-day-aged mortars.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 9

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 6. Response surface of 3-day compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar: (a) D: Oven duration = 12
h, and (b) D: Oven duration = 24 h.

Figure 8 presents the graphical optimization conducted by considering the range of criteria specified in Table
4. The yellow region represents the adjustable range of factors necessary to meet the established conditions,
including a 3-day compressive strength between 18 and 23 MPa and a 28-day compressive strength from 23 to
25.7 MPa. To satisfy these constraints simultaneously, the S: B ratio must exceed 0.59, while the NH: NS ratio
should fall between 0.5 and 1.78. Furthermore, the CWP% needs to be maintained within the range of 80 to 96
to fulfill the conditions above.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 10

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 7. Response surface of 28-day compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar: (a) D: Oven duration = 12
h, and (b) D: Oven duration = 24 h.

These optimized parameter ranges not only highlight the potential of using industrial waste materials,
such as CWP and RGP, in geopolymer production but also demonstrate a competitive performance compared
to traditional cement-based mortars, which typically exhibit compressive strengths ranging from 20 to 28
MPa at 28 days. The high content of CWP contributes to the formation of cementitious compounds due to
its pozzolanic nature as an aluminosilicate source. This observation aligns with previous studies 33 that have
reported an enhancement in overall binder content and increased structural integrity of the product due to
the incorporation of CWP. As a rich source of silica, RGP contributes to the development of a more durable

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 11

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 8. Optimal range of independent variables for a 12-h oven duration.

network of aluminosilicate bonds, thereby strengthening the mortar’s structure 33. The synergistic effects of the
S: B and the alkaline activator ratio enhance workability and provide sufficient activator concentration to initiate
the geopolymerization reaction, leading to stronger bond formations and, consequently, elevated compressive
strength. The optimal range identified falls within those reported in the literature33,44. Concerning Table 5, two
mortar samples, C80N1S0.7O12 and C80N0.5S0.6O12, are identified as the closest to the optimal composition
and compressive strength suggested by Fig. 8. Consequently, further investigations were conducted on these two
samples.

Flexural strength test results

The flexural strengths of the geopolymer specimens at 28 days are illustrated in Fig. 9. The test was performed on
half of the samples defined in Table 5, which had been oven-cured for 24 h.
While the flexural strength of the cement sample was higher than that of C90N2S0.5O24, the figures for most
geopolymer samples surpassed that of the control sample. At constant oven duration, the flexural strength varied
from 2.245 to 5.195 MPa, influenced by alterations in the mix design. The flexural strength results are almost
in the range that was previously reported for CWP-based mortars 23,26. The highest values were obtained for
C80N1S0.7O24, followed by C90N1S0.6O24.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 12

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 9. Flexural strengths of geopolymer mortars.

Fig. 10. Compressive strength, flexural strength, and UPV of geopolymer mortars cured in the oven for 24 h.

Improvements in flexural strength were noticeable with increasing the S: B ratio, which corroborated the
compressive strength results. Shoaei et al. 23 documented the beneficial influence of the S: B ratio on the flexural
strength of the CWP-based mortars, while flexural strength reduction was observed during the production of
natural pozzolan geopolymer 45. The appropriate S: B ratio is strongly influenced by the type of precursor.

Correlation of responses at fixed oven duration

Statistical correlation analysis is a widely used technique to assess the different mechanical and physical
characteristics of mortars and concretes by examining various responses obtained from experimental tests. For
this purpose, the flexural strength and UPV tests were carried out on the geopolymer samples cured in the oven
for 24 h and then aged for 28 days. Figure 10 presents variations of compressive strength, flexural strength, and
UPV results for the examined samples. All three test results follow similar trends; thus, their correlations were
evaluated in detail.

Correlation between flexural and compressive strength

The results of the flexural strength against the compressive strength are given in Fig. 11. The best-fit Equation
was obtained by a linear trendline with a high correlation coefficient of 0.997. Therefore, the developed formula
will help predict the flexural strength of geopolymer mortars based on their compressive strength.
Generally, the relationship between geopolymer products’ compressive and flexural strengths is more complex
than cement-based products. This complexity is due to several factors, including the precursor materials,
mix design, curing conditions, and the type and concentration of the alkaline solution 46. Table 7 depicts the
prediction formulas for flexural strength corresponding to the compressive strength from previous literature for
various geopolymer mortars and concretes. According to the mentioned factors, different linear and nonlinear
equations have been proposed for the defined strength range. Hardjasaputra et al. 47 collected 134 data points
to investigate the correlation between compressive strength and flexural strength of geopolymer concrete. They
confirmed that the data followed a similar trendline to that obtained by other researchers 46,48. Accordingly, in
the present study, the experimental data have been fitted to the most popular model of Fs = 0.5 Cs0.7. As shown
in Fig. 11, experimental values of flexural strength of the geopolymer mortars aligned closely with the values
derived by the model, with a high correlation coefficient of 0.968.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 13

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 11. Relationship between flexural strength and compressive strength of geopolymer mortars cured in the
oven for 24 h.

Reference Equation R2 Mixture Compressive strength (MPa) Flexural strength (MPa)

48
Cyr et al. Fs = 0.5 Cs0.7 – Glass cullet mortar 4.6–55.7 3.5–6.1
Sağır et al. 54 Fs = 1.6907e0.0204Cs 0.87 Slag-Silica fume- waste rubber mortar 30–60 5–10
Swaidani et al. 55 Fs = 0.5 Cs0.7 0.965 Scoria based mortar 5–55 2–8
Ipek and Mermerdas 56 Fs = 0.1155Cs + 1.3211 0.98 Fly ash mortar 11.2–35 2.5–5.5
Verma et al. 57 Fs = 0.16Cs-1.03 0.991 Fly ash-GGBFS concrete 23–35 2.7–4.8
Tanu and Sujatha 58 Fs = 0.04665Cs + 2.62409 0.99 GGBS-SCBA concrete 36–70 4.7–5.7
Shilar et al. 56 Fs = aCs 0.985 Metakaolin-marble concrete 40–56 1.5–5
Fs = 0.2174Cs 0.997
Current study CWP-RGP mortar 10–23 2–5.2
Fs = 0.5 Cs0.7 0.968

Table 7. Comparison of the relationship between compressive strength and flexural strength.

Correlation between compressive strength and UPV

The UPV test propagates an ultrasonic pulse through the specimen and measures the time the pulse travels
through the sample. This nondestructive test evaluates the internal structure of the specimen by detecting
material discontinuities or defects such as cracks, voids, and damages. A higher UPV indicates greater integrity
and quality of the geopolymer mixes 49. Figure 10 shows the UPV results of CWP-RGP mortars ranging from
3300 to 5200 m/s, slightly higher than the UPV values of geopolymer mortars made with glass aggregate 50
and ash 51. However, the UPV values of the CWP-RGP mortars are significantly higher than those reported for
metakaolin-based specimens 52,53.
Among the investigated samples, C80N1S0.7O24 exhibits the highest UPV value, while C90N2S0.5O24
exhibits the lowest. The results are directly proportional to the samples’ compressive strengths due to the effect
of porosity, air void network, and the quality of the mortar structure on the ultrasonic wave transmission.
Figure 12 illustrates the correlation between the compressive strength and UPV experimental values. The R2
of 0.9422 indicates a strong linear relationship between UPV and compressive strength. It is worth noting that
some researchers have reported a linear relationship between these properties 50,56,58–60, and the model proposed
by Choi et al. 60 is almost consistent with the final Equation obtained in this research.

Effect of the oven duration on optimal mix designs

Figure 13 shows the variations in compressive strength over different oven curing periods for the optimal mix
designs C80N1S0.7 and C80N0.5S0.6. Without heat curing, the 28-day compressive strengths were significantly
higher than the 3-day strengths, suggesting that geopolymerization progressed at a slower rate at ambient
temperature. Additionally, prolonged heat exposure notably increased the 28-day compressive strengths. A
similar trend was observed for mortars subjected to a 6-h oven heating period, indicating that insufficient
heat was provided to complete the geopolymerization reaction at earlier ages, resulting in a slower reaction
progression until later stages 61.
Significant improvements in both 3-day and 28-day compressive strengths were observed as the oven curing
duration increased from 6 to 9 h to 12 h. Moreover, the gap between the 3-day and 28-day compressive strengths

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 14

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 12. Relationships between UPV and compressive strength of the geopolymer mortars cured in the oven
for 24 h.

Fig. 13. Compressive strength of optimal mix designs cured at 100 °C in different periods for the geopolymer
mortars at 3 and 28 days.

of the mortars narrowed considerably. Extending the oven curing time from 6 to 12 h resulted in higher density
and hardness of the specimens, driven by rapid dissolution and condensation, which produced a substantial
amount of reactive materials. However, the dissolution and condensation of unreacted particles continued over
time at a diminishing rate, contributing to the gradual decrease in the rate of compressive strength improvement.
This decline can be attributed to the reduced availability of aluminosilicate particles and decreased solvent
accessibility to their inner layers 62.
Curing beyond 12 h led to further moisture loss through the formation of voids and surface cracks 62,63,
which ultimately reduced the compressive strength of the mortars when the heat curing period was extended to
24 h. In line with our studies, the optimal compressive strengths were achieved at 100 °C for 8 h in fly ash-based
mortars 64 and 12 h in metakaolin paste 65.
Figure 14 illustrates the variations in flexural strength and UPV results concerning oven curing time. The
flexural strength of all specimens declined as the curing duration increased from 12 to 24 h. Comparing the
differences in flexural strengths between the 3-day and 28-day aged mortars, C80N1S0.7 generally exhibited
more significant disparities than C80N0.5S0.6, aligning with the compressive strength trends presented in Table
5.
According to the concrete quality classification 66, most assessed specimens exhibited an “excellent” structural
quality, with UPV values ranging from 4624 to 5765 m/s. The exception was the 3-day UPV value of C80N1S0.7,
which measured 4510 m/s, indicating a “good” structural quality, suggesting that the specimens were essentially
free of significant cracks or pores that could compromise structural integrity 67. Although the UPV values
increased with age, they were adversely affected when the oven curing duration was extended to 24 h.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 15

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 14. Effect of oven duration on geopolymer mortars: (a) flexural strength and (b) UPV.

Characterisation of microstructure
SEM and EDS
Figure 15 presents SEM micrographs illustrating the impact of CWP percentage, S: B, NH: NS, and oven
curing duration on the microstructure of various geopolymer mortars at 28 days. Among the specimens
analyzed, C80N0.5S0.6O12 and C80N1S0.7O12 demonstrated the highest density, characterized by compact
and homogeneous structures indicating a substantial presence of reacted products68. The more compact the
structure, the fewer voids and defects are observed in the well-distributed mortar matrix. Fewer weak points
or voids reduce the likelihood of failure under load, leading to superior compressive strength (see Table 5).
Conversely, the low compressive strength of C90N2S0.5O24 is linked to a fragile matrix caused by incomplete
geopolymerization and the formation of large voids and cracks. The microstructure of C90N2S0.5O24 confirms
that at the lowest S: B, the liquid phase was inadequate to fully react with the binding constituents. When the S:
B ratio was increased to 0.7 in C90N2S0.7O24, large voids were replaced by micropores, resulting in a denser
structure compared to C90N2S0.5O24 and thereby enhancing the compressive strength23. The NaOH solution
detaches Si and Al from the mixture, which acts as binding agents, improving the geopolymerization process
69. The Na₂SiO₃ solution, serving as an alkaline medium, promotes the formation of more silica gel from the

mixture, fostering the development of denser Si–O–Si bonds 68. As discussed by Shilar et al.70, the ideal NH: NS
ratio should be assessed for each unique geopolymer formulation due to this ratio’s significant role in forming
hydroxyaluminosilicate complexes and, consequently, in the development of compressive strength.
The impact of the NH: NS ratio on the geopolymer microstructure is effectively demonstrated by comparing
micrographs of C80N0.5S0.6O12 and C80N2S0.6O12. A higher NS content results in a denser structure with
increased compressive strength. This outcome can be attributed to two factors: first, NS has a higher viscosity
than NH; second, incorporating NS introduces additional Si, accelerating the geopolymerization process and
enhancing compressive strength 42. More detailed information on the C80N1S0.7O12 specimen is provided
in Fig. 16 at increased magnification, highlighting non-reacted and partially reacted particles and the dense
surfaces characteristic of geopolymer matrix formation.
The effect of curing duration in the oven is demonstrated by comparing the microstructures of C80N0.5S0.6O12
and C80N0.5S0.6O24. The coarser microstructure observed in C80N0.5S0.6O24, which exhibits higher porosity
and more pronounced cracks, indicates that prolonged oven curing (24 h) leads to excessive moisture escape,
resulting in a simultaneous deterioration of the physical and mechanical properties of the specimens 62. Generally,
the optimal curing duration depends on the morphology and chemical composition of the mortars, leading to
varying findings across studies 61,63,64,71. Micrographs of C100N0.5S0.6O12 and C80N0.5S0.6O12 show that
replacing CWP with RGP up to 20 wt% significantly reduces the porosity of the mortar surface. As a rich source
of amorphous Si, RGP can actively participate in the geopolymerization process, enhancing the formation of
aluminosilicate gels. It is important to note that a suitable alkaline environment and adequate amounts of Al and
Si are essential for favourable geopolymerization conditions 9,37.
The SEM images and EDS spectra of selected areas for C80N0.5S0.6O12, C100N0.5S0.6O12, and
C80N2S0.6O12 are presented in Fig. 17. All three mortars contain Si, Al, sodium, calcium, and trace amounts of
potassium and magnesium. Calcium content (8–12% from CWP and RGP) enhances the likelihood of forming
C–S–H hydrates, which coexist with N–A–S–H, contributing to improved density and homogeneity of the
microstructure 72. The Ca/Si ratio ranges from 0.25–0.37, which is higher than that in glass cullet geopolymer

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 16

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 15. SEM micrograph of the geopolymer mortars at a magnification of 250 and 1000.

mortar (Ca/Si = 0.07–0.21)73, but significantly lower than in various GBFS mortars (Ca/Si > 1.06) 42,68. The
Si/Al ratio is maximized in C80N0.5S0.6O12, correlating with its highest compressive strength and dense
microstructure. A higher Si/Al ratio enhances the densification of the geopolymer gel, leading to more effective
aggregate binding by a dense matrix. Furthermore, higher Si/Al ratios favor the formation of Si–O–Si bonds,
stronger than Si–O–Al and Al–O–Al bonds 73.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 17

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 15. (continued)

FTIR spectra
The geopolymer formation process starts with the dissolution of Si and Al species by alkaline solutions. The
dissolved species then undergo geopolymerization, resulting in the formation of aluminosilicate geopolymers.
FTIR spectroscopy is a valuable technique for examining the atomic structure of these reactive species. Figure 18
presents the FTIR spectra of C80N1S0.7O12 and C80N0.5S0.6O12 mortars and the raw waste materials over
the wavenumber range of 400–4000 cm⁻1 with marked peaks. The absorption peak at 463 cm⁻1 corresponds to
Si–O–Si and O–Si bonds’ bending vibrations. The intensity of this band decreases in the geopolymer samples
compared to the raw wastes, indicating the progression of geopolymerization among the species.
The CWP displays a broad absorption band at 1080 cm⁻1, corresponding to Si–O and Al–O bonds. In the
mortars, this band shifts towards lower frequencies due to the incorporation of Al4⁺ into the Si–O–Si skeletal
structure during the polycondensation process 74. This shift occurs because the Si–O–(Al) bond vibrates at a
lower frequency than the Si–O–Si bond due to bond strength and atomic mass differences. The Si–O-Al bond
exhibits significantly greater resilience than the Si–O-Si and Al bonds 74,75. Integrating Al+4 ions enhances
the connectivity of the geopolymer network, leading to a more robust 3D structure, which allows better load
distribution when the mortar is subjected to compressive forces 76. A well-connected network minimizes the
crack initiation and propagation probability, critical factors in determining the product’s compressive strength.
Similarly, the O–H stretching vibration at 3450 cm⁻1 shifts to lower frequencies in the presence of Al4⁺ within
the reacting binders 77. This O–H stretching is associated with the presence of structural water. Two additional
peaks are identified in the geopolymer mortar at approximately 876 cm⁻1 and 1450 cm⁻1. The peak at 876 cm⁻1
confirms the formation of an Al-rich gel, suggesting the presence of Si–O–Al bonds 12. The peak at 1450 cm⁻1

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 18

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 16. SEM micrographs of C80N1S0.7O12 geopolymer mortars at magnifications of (a), (b) × 2500, and
(c) × 5000.

is attributed to O–C–O stretching in carbonate groups, which form due to the reaction between alkali metal
hydroxides and atmospheric CO₂ 12,78.

Conclusion
This study demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing industrial wastes, specifically ceramic waste powder (CWP)
and recycled glass powder (RGP), in producing geopolymer mortars, marking a significant advancement
toward eco-friendly concrete that meets sustainability standards in the construction industry. By employing
response surface methodology (RSM) and conducting 30 mixing designs, we evaluated the effects of CWP blend
percentage, NH: NS ratio, S: B ratio, and oven curing duration on the 3-day and 28-day compressive strengths.
The optimization results indicated that the optimal mortar mix consists of 85.8% CWP, an NH: NS of 1.02, an S: B
ratio of 0.647, and an oven curing temperature of 100 °C for 12 h, achieving compressive strengths of 22.79 MPa
at 3 days and 25 MPa at 28 days. The experimental findings closely matched these predicted optimization results,
validating the effectiveness of the RSM models developed. The strong correlation between the predicted and
actual compressive strengths confirms the reliability of the optimization process.
Furthermore, the models developed and validated through RSM and ANOVA effectively predicted the
compressive strengths and revealed strong relationships between the influencing factors and the responses.
Correlation analyses showed significant linear relationships between compressive strength, flexural strength,
and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), with flexural strength measurements closely matching the predicted values.
The microstructural analysis confirmed that appropriate alkaline solution levels, incorporation of RGP
into the CWP mortar, and an optimal NH: NS contributed to a denser geopolymer structure, aligning with
the optimization results that indicated the ideal mix proportions. However, prolonged heat curing beyond the
optimal duration resulted in increased porosity and surface cracks due to moisture vaporization, underscoring
the importance of adhering to the optimized curing conditions. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)
provided evidence of successful geopolymerization, validating the transformation of the raw materials into the
geopolymer product as predicted by the optimization models. These findings underscore the potential of using
CWP and RGP as sustainable materials in geopolymer mortar production, contributing to waste reduction and
environmental sustainability in the construction industry. The close alignment between the experimental results

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 19

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 17. SEM images and EDS spectra of (A) C80N0.5S0.6O12, (B) C100N0.5S0.6O12, and (C)
C80N2S0.6O12.

and optimization predictions confirms the effectiveness of the optimization process and provides confidence in
the practical application of these optimized mix designs.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 20

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Fig. 18. FTIR spectra of CWP, RGP, and the geopolymer mortars.

Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to proprietary in-
formation and intellectual property restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.

Received: 27 September 2024; Accepted: 6 December 2024

References
1. Hassan, A., Arif, M. & Shariq, M. A review of properties and behaviour of reinforced geopolymer concrete structural elements: A
clean technology option for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118762 (2020).
2. Rajaee, K., Pourabbas Bilondi, M., Barimani, M. H., Amiri Daluee, M. & Zaresefat, M. Effect of gradations of glass powder on
engineering properties of clay soil geopolymer. Case Stud. Construct. Mater. 21, e03403 (2024).
3. Verma, M. & Nirendra, D. Geopolymer concrete: A way of sustainable construction. IJRRA 5, 201–205 (2018).
4. Safarzadeh, Z., Bilondi, M. P. & Zaresefat, M. Investigating the strength and durability of eco-friendly geopolymer cement with
glass powder additives. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4374847 (2023).
5. Farooq, F. et al. Geopolymer concrete as sustainable material: A state of the art review. Constr. Build Mater. 306, 124762 (2021).
6. Zangooeinia, P., Moazami, D., Bilondi, M. P. & Zaresefat, M. Improvement of pavement engineering properties with calcium
carbide residue (CCR) as filler in Stone Mastic Asphalt. Results Eng. 20, 101501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101501
(2023).
7. Wong, B. Y. F., Wong, K. S. & Phang, I. R. K. A review on geopolymerisation in soil stabilization. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 495,
012070 (2019).
8. Elyamany, H. E., Abd Elmoaty, A. E. M. & Elshaboury, A. M. Setting time and 7-day strength of geopolymer mortar with various
binders. Constr. Build Mater. 187, 974–983 (2018).
9. Pourabbas Bilondi, M., Toufigh, M. M. & Toufigh, V. Experimental investigation of using a recycled glass powder-based geopolymer
to improve the mechanical behavior of clay soils. Constr. Build Mater. 170, 302–313 (2018).
10. Jindal, B. B. Investigations on the properties of geopolymer mortar and concrete with mineral admixtures: A review. Constr. Build
Mater. 227, 116644 (2019).
11. Safarzadeh, Z., Pourabbas Bilondi, M. & Zaresefat, M. Laboratory investigation of the effect of using metakaolin and clay on the
behaviour of recycled glass powder-based geopolymer mortars. Results Eng. 21, 101974 (2024).
12. Sarkar, M. & Dana, K. Partial replacement of metakaolin with red ceramic waste in geopolymer. Ceram. Int. 47, 3473–3483 (2021).
13. Tran, D. T. et al. Precast segmental beams made of fibre-reinforced geopolymer concrete and FRP tendons against impact loads.
Eng. Struct. 295, 116862 (2023).
14. Shilar, F. A. et al. Assessment of destructive and nondestructive analysis for GGBS Based geopolymer concrete and its statistical
analysis. Polymers (Basel) 14, (2022).
15. Azad, N. M. & Samarakoon, S. M. S. M. K. Utilization of industrial by-products/waste to manufacture geopolymer cement/
concrete. Sustainability 13, 873 (2021).
16. Çelik, A. İ et al. Use of waste glass powder toward more sustainable geopolymer concrete. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 24, 8533–8546
(2023).
17. Wasim, M., Ngo, T. D. & Law, D. A state-of-the-art review on the durability of geopolymer concrete for sustainable structures and
infrastructure. Constr. Build. Mater. 291, 123381 (2021).
18. Verma, M. et al. Geopolymer concrete: A material for sustainable development in indian construction industries. Crystals (Basel)
12, 514 (2022).

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 21

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

19. Sharmin, S., Sarker, P. K., Biswas, W. K., Abousnina, R. M. & Javed, U. Characterization of waste clay brick powder and its effect on
the mechanical properties and microstructure of geopolymer mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 412, 134848 (2024).
20. Nazari, A., Bagheri, A. & Riahi, S. Properties of geopolymer with seeded fly ash and rice husk bark ash. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528(24),
7395–7401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2011.06.027 (2011).
21. Bhavsar, J. K. & Panchal, V. Ceramic waste powder as a partial substitute of fly ash for geopolymer concrete cured at ambient
temperature. Civ. Eng. J. 8, 1369–1387 (2022).
22. Luhar, I. et al. Assessment of the suitability of ceramic waste in geopolymer composites: An appraisal. Materials 14, 3279 (2021).
23. Shoaei, P. et al. Waste ceramic powder-based geopolymer mortars: Effect of curing temperature and alkaline solution-to-binder
ratio. Constr. Build. Mater. 227, 116686 (2019).
24. Rashad, A. M., Essa, G. M. F., Mosleh, Y. A. & Morsi, W. M. Valorization of ceramic waste powder for compressive strength and
durability of fly ash geopolymer cement. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 49, 5653–5665 (2024).
25. Huseien, G. F., Ismail, M., Khalid, N. H. A., Hussin, M. W. & Mirza, J. Compressive strength and microstructure of assorted wastes
incorporated geopolymer mortars: Effect of solution molarity. Alex. Eng. J. 57, 3375–3386 (2018).
26. Huseien, G. F. et al. Properties of ceramic tile waste based alkali-activated mortars incorporating GBFS and fly ash. Constr. Build
Mater. 214, 355–368 (2019).
27. Kaya, M. Mechanical properties of ceramic powder based geopolymer mortars. Mag. Civ. Eng. 112 (2022).
28. Kaya, M. The effect of micro-SiO2 and micro-Al2O3 additive on the strength properties of ceramic powder-based geopolymer
pastes. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 24(1), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01323-3 (2022).
29. Vafaei, M., Allahverdi, A., Dong, P. & Bassim, N. Acid attack on geopolymer cement mortar based on waste-glass powder and
calcium aluminate cement at mild concentration. Constr. Build. Mater. 193, 363–372 (2018).
30. ASTM C349–18. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars. Annual Book of ASTM Standards
vol. 04.01 (2018).
31. ASTM C348–21. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars. Annual Book of ASTM Standards vol.
04.01 (2021).
32. ASTM C597–16. Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0597-16 (2016).
33. Sun, Q., Zhu, H., Li, H., Zhu, H. & Gao, M. Application of response surface methodology in the optimization of fly ash geopolymer
concrete. Rev. Rom. Mater. 48, 45–52 (2018).
34. Dashti, P., Ranjbar, S., Ghafari, S., Ramezani, A. & Nejad, F. M. RSM-based and environmental assessment of eco-friendly
geopolymer mortars containing recycled waste tire constituents. J. Clean. Prod. 428, 139365 (2023).
35. Aygörmez, Y., Canpolat, O. & Al-mashhadani, M. M. A survey on one year strength performance of reinforced geopolymer
composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 264, 120267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120267 (2020).
36. Abdellatief, M., Alanazi, H., Radwan, M. K. H. & Tahwia, A. M. Multiscale characterization at early ages of ultra-high performance
geopolymer concrete. Polymers 14(24), 5504. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14245504 (2022).
37. Bilondi, M. P., Toufigh, M. M. & Toufigh, V. Using calcium carbide residue as an alkaline activator for glass powder–clay
geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 183, 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.190 (2018).
38. Mermerdaş, K., Algın, Z. & Ekmen, Ş. Experimental assessment and optimization of mix parameters of fly ash-based lightweight
geopolymer mortar with respect to shrinkage and strength. J. Build. Eng. 31, 101351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101351
(2020).
39. Atabey, İİ, Karahan, O., Bilim, C. & Atiş, C. D. The influence of activator type and quantity on the transport properties of class F
fly ash geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 264, 120268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120268 (2020).
40. Miao, S., Zhong, Q. & Peng, H. Regularized multivariate polynomial regression analysis of the compressive strength of slag-
metakaolin geopolymer pastes based on experimental data. Constr. Build. Mater. 303, 124529. ​h​t​t​p​s:​ ​/​/​d​o​i​.​o​r​g/​ ​1​0​.​1​0​1​6​/​j.​ ​c​o​n​b​u​i​l​d​m​
a​t​.​2​0​2​1​.​1​2​4​5​2​9​​​​ (2021).
41. Srinivasa, A. S., Swaminathan, K. & Yaragal, S. C. Microstructural and optimization studies on novel one-part geopolymer pastes
by Box-Behnken response surface design method. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 18, e01946 (2023).
42. Kubba, Z. et al. Impact of curing temperatures and alkaline activators on compressive strength and porosity of ternary blended
geopolymer mortars. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9, e00205 (2018).
43. Ma, Z., Dan, H.-C., Tan, J., Li, M. & Li, S. Optimization design of MK-GGBS based geopolymer repairing mortar based on response
surface methodology. Materials 16, 1889 (2023).
44. Verma, M. & Dev, N. Effect of liquid to binder ratio and curing temperature on the engineering properties of the geopolymer
concrete. Silicon (2022).
45. Ghafoori, N., Najimi, M. & Radke, B. Natural Pozzolan-based geopolymers for sustainable construction. Environ. Earth Sci. ​h​t​t​p​s​:​
/​/​d​o​i​.​o​r​g​/1​ ​0​.​1​0​0​7​/​s​12​ ​6​6​5​-​0​1​6​-​58​ ​9​8​-​5​​​​ (2016).
46. Girish, M. G., Shetty, K. K. & Nayak, G. Effect of slag sand on mechanical strengths and fatigue performance of paving grade
geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42947-023-00363-2 (2023).
47. Hardjasaputra, H. et al. Study of mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 615,
012009 (2019).
48. Cyr, M., Idir, R. & Poinot, T. Properties of inorganic polymer (geopolymer) mortars made of glass cullet. J. Mater. Sci. 47(6),
2782–2797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-011-6107-2 (2012).
49. Omer, S. A., Demirboga, R. & Khushefati, W. H. Relationship between compressive strength and UPV of GGBFS based geopolymer
mortars exposed to elevated temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 94, 189–195 (2015).
50. Mardani-Aghabaglou, A., Tuyan, M., Cakir, O. A. & Ramyar, K. Effect of recycled aggregates on strength and alkali silica reaction
(ASR) potential of mortar mixtures. In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Ankara
(2012).
51. Akbar, A. et al. Sugarcane bagasse ash-based engineered geopolymer mortar incorporating propylene fibers. J. Build. Eng. 33,
101492 (2021).
52. Mo, K. H., Mohd Anor, F. A., Alengaram, U. J., Jumaat, M. Z. & Rao, K. J. Properties of metakaolin-blended oil palm shell
lightweight concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 22, 852–868 (2018).
53. Kabirova, A. et al. Physical and mechanical properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer mortars containing various waste powders.
Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 27, 437–456 (2023).
54. Sağır, M. A., Karakoç, M. B., Özcan, A., Ekinci, E. & Yolcu, A. Effect of silica fume and waste rubber on the performance of slag-
based geopolymer mortars under high temperatures. Struct. Concrete 24, 6690–6708 (2023).
55. Al-Swaidani, A., Soud, A. & Hammami, A. Improvement of the early-age compressive strength, water permeability, and sulfuric
acid resistance of scoria-based mortars/concrete using limestone filler. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 1–17 (2017).
56. Ipek, S. & Mermerdaş, K. Engineering properties and SEM analysis of eco-friendly geopolymer mortar produced with crumb
rubber. J. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. 7, 95–107 (2022).
57. Verma, M. et al. Experimental analysis of geopolymer concrete: A sustainable and economic concrete using the cost estimation
model. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 1–16 (2022).
58 Tanu, H. M. & Unnikrishnan, S. Mechanical strength and microstructure of GGBS-SCBA based geopolymer concrete. J. Mater.
Res. Technol. 24, 7816–7831 (2023).
59. Qin, T. S., Lim, N. H. A. S., Jun, T. Z. & Ariffin, N. F. Effect of low molarity alkaline solution on the compressive strength of fly ash
based geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 13, 155–164 (2022).

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 22

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

60. Choi, Y., Kang, J.-W., Hwang, T.-Y. & Cho, C.-G. Evaluation of residual strength with ultrasonic pulse velocity relationship for
concrete exposed to high temperatures. Adv. Mech. Eng. 13, 168781402110349 (2021).
61. Adam, A. A. & Horianto, X. X. X. The effect of temperature and duration of curing on the strength of fly ash based geopolymer
mortar. Procedia Eng. 95, 410–414 (2014).
62. Wongpattanawut, W., & Ayudhya, I. N. Effect of Curing Temperature on mechanical properties of sanitary ware porcelain based
geopolymer mortar. Civ. Eng. J. 9, 1808–1827 (2023).
63. Patankar, S. V., Ghugal, Y. M. & Jamkar, S. S. Effect of concentration of sodium hydroxide and degree of heat curing on fly ash-
based geopolymer mortar. Indian J. Mater. Sci. 2014, 1–6 (2014).
64. Bachtiar, E. The connection between oven curing duration and compressive strength on C-type fly ash based geopolymer mortar’.’.
ARPN J. Eng. App. Sci. 15, 577–582 (2020).
65. Yun Ming, L. et al. Effect of curing regimes on metakaolin geopolymer pastes produced from geopolymer powder. Adv. Mat. Res.
626, 931–936 (2012).
66. Mahir Mahmod, H., Farah Nora Aznieta, A. A. & Gatea, S. J. Evaluation of rubberized fibre mortar exposed to elevated temperature
using destructive and non-destructive testing. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21, 1347–1358 (2017).
67. Mansourghanaei, M., Biklaryan, M. & Mardookhpour, A. Experimental study of modulus of elasticity, capillary absorption of
water and UPV in nature-friendly concrete based on geopolymer materials. Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 12, 607–615 (2022).
68. Huseien, G. F., Mirza, J., Ismail, M. & Hussin, M. W. Influence of different curing temperatures and alkali activators on properties
of GBFS geopolymer mortars containing fly ash and palm-oil fuel ash. Constr. Build Mater. 125, 1229–1240 (2016).
69. Shilar, F. A., Ganachari, S. V., Patil, V. B. & Nisar, K. S. Evaluation of structural performances of metakaolin based geopolymer
concrete. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 20, (2022).
70. Shilar, F. A., Ganachari, S. V., Patil, V. B., Neelakanta Reddy, I. & Shim, J. Preparation and validation of sustainable metakaolin
based geopolymer concrete for structural application. Constr. Build Mater. 371 (2023).
71. Shukor Lim, N. H. A. et al. Effect of Curing conditions on compressive strength of FA-POFA-based geopolymer mortar. IOP Conf.
Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 431, 092007 (2018).
72. Nuaklong, P. et al. Properties of high-calcium and low-calcium fly ash combination geopolymer mortar containing recycled
aggregate. Heliyon 5, e02513 (2019).
73. Arellano-Aguilar, R., Burciaga-Díaz, O., Gorokhovsky, A. & Escalante-García, J. I. Geopolymer mortars based on a low grade
metakaolin: Effects of the chemical composition, temperature and aggregate:binder ratio. Constr. Build Mater. 50, 642–648 (2014).
74. Sun, Z. et al. Synthesis and thermal behavior of geopolymer-type material from waste ceramic. Constr. Build Mater. 49, 281–287
(2013).
75. Shilar, F. A. et al. Optimization of Alkaline activator on the strength properties of geopolymer concrete. Polymers (Basel) 14 (2022).
76. Huseien, G. F., Kubba, Z., Mhaya, A. M., Malik, N. H. & Mirza, J. Impact resistance enhancement of sustainable geopolymer
composites using high volume tile ceramic wastes. J. Compos. Sci. 7, 73 (2023).
77. Kaya, M. et al. The effect of sodium and magnesium sulfate on physico-mechanical and microstructural properties of Kaolin and
ceramic powder-based geopolymer mortar. Sustainability 14, 13496 (2022).
78. Ng, C. et al. A review on microstructural study and compressive strength of geopolymer mortar, paste and concrete. Constr. Build
Mater. 186, 550–576 (2018).

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge and appreciate Parsian Pazh laboratory of soil, concrete, and weld that supported this
study.

Author contributions
Meysam Pourabbas Bilondi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Data curation, Writ-
ing—original draft, Project administration. Vahideh Ghaffarian: Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Review and editing, Visualisation, Supervision. Mahdi
Amiri Daluee: Conceptualisation, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition. Reyhaneh Pakizehrooh: Valida-
tion, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Visualisation. Saeed Hosseini Tazik: Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Review and editing, Data curation, Visualisation. Alireza Behzadian: validation, investigation.
Mojtaba Zaresefat: writing—original draft, review and editing, data curation, visualisation.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sec-
tors.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to M.P.B., M.A.D. or M.Z.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 23

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives

4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in
any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide
a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have
permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence
and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit ​h​t​t​p:​ ​/​/​c​r​e​a​t​i​ve​ ​c​o​m​m​o​
n​s​.​or​ ​g​/​l​i​c​e​n​s​es​ ​/​b​y​-​n​c​-​n​d​/​4​.​0​/​​​​.​ ​​

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | 2025 15:282 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82658-3 24