Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021) 28:57308–57320

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14718-4

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Carbonated ground granulated blast furnace slag stabilising

brown kaolin
Ahmed Mohammed Awad Mohammed 1 & Nor Zurairahetty Mohd Yunus 1 & Muhammad Azril Hezmi 1 &
Ahmad Safuan A. Rashid 2 & Suksun Horpibulsuk 3

Received: 15 December 2020 / Accepted: 31 May 2021 / Published online: 4 June 2021
# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Proposals have been made by several researchers to conduct the sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) through calcium and
magnesium-rich materials. From these materials, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) containing 5% magnesium and
45% calcium is seen to be a good candidate and is available to sequester CO2. This study intends to ascertain the ability to absorb
CO2, sequester it, and increase treated kaolin strength with different content of GGBS under various carbonation periods with
varying CO2 pressure. The impacts of carbonated GGBS on the mechanical attributes of soil were examined by conducting the
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test, and microstructure analysis was conducted to identify the changes in the structure
and Crestline phase. Stationary carbonation in a triaxial test with pure CO2 was conducted to accelerate the carbonation process.
The outcome indicates that the strength rises as the carbonation period rises. Likewise, UCS rises as the CO2 pressure rises from
100 to 200 kPa. It could be concluded that augmentation of the strength is because of carbonated calcium and magnesium
products which stuff the soil voids. Changes occur on the microstructure level due to carbonation as well.

Keywords Kaolin clay . Ground granulated blast furnaces slag . Unconfined compressive strength . Carbon dioxide . Ground
improvement . X-ray diffraction

Introduction Korea; in such circumstances, an option was mineral seques-

tration called mineral carbonation (MC). MC is said to be the
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been considered a fore- most promising methodology for permanently storing CO2. It
most and effectual technology for capturing the CO2 from encompasses reaction amongst minerals comprising calcium
power plants and enabling nearly nil emission (Elias et al. (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) with CO2 minerals to produce Ca/
2018). It has been used for sequestering CO2 for hundreds Mg carbonated products (He et al. 2013; Mun and Cho 2013;
of years (Boot-Handford et al. 2014). However, the sources Hu et al. 2017; Jimoh et al. 2018).
utilised for CCS are not available in a few of the nations like

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

* Ahmed Mohammed Awad Mohammed 1

Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, School of Civil
[email protected] Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor,
Malaysia
Nor Zurairahetty Mohd Yunus
[email protected] 2
Centre of Tropical Geoengineering (GEOTROPIK), School of Civil
Muhammad Azril Hezmi Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor,
[email protected] Malaysia

Ahmad Safuan A. Rashid 3

School of Civil Engineering and Center of Excellence in Innovation
[email protected]
for Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Suranaree University of
Suksun Horpibulsuk Technology, Ratchasima, Thailand
[email protected]

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320 57309

Calcium carbonation which encompasses the reaction be- applications. For instance, it can be used in fabricating more
tween calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and carbon dioxide durable concrete structures or producing high-quality slag-ce-
(CO2) to generate calcium carbonate called calcite (CaCO3) ment. GGBS has been utilised extensively in concrete mix-
has exhibited considerable influence in improving soil’s tures, exhibiting better workability and improving the resis-
strength in the initial phases. However, the reaction between tance to chloride ingress and sulphate or other chemical at-
calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) and CO2 decreases soil’s tacks. It can also serve as a stabiliser to strengthen the soil and
strength. Materials rich with calcium could be utilised for is considered a pozzolanic material (Suresh and Nagaraju
carbonating and enhancing soil strength, like cement 2015).
(Nakarai and Yoshida 2015; Cao et al. 2017; Ho et al. GGBS, with its high proportion of CaO, around 47.5%,
2017). The following chemical equation depicts the reaction and a reasonable quantity of MgO, around 4.9%, can be
between carbon dioxide and calcium hydroxide. utilised as a potential carbonated substitute for cement, oliv-
ine, and reactive magnesia to improve soil strength. GGBS
CaðOHÞ2 þ CO2 →CaCO3 þ H2 O
exhibits a comparatively low early strength when utilised
In a similar manner, magnesium carbonation, which is a alone as a pozzolanic material (Manjunath et al. 2012;
process where magnesium-rich materials such as olivine and Pathak et al. 2014; Chandra and Lavanya 2017;
reactive magnesia react with CO2 in the presence of water, Mohammadia et al. 2017; Narendra and Prasad 2017;
results in the production of hydrated magnesium carbonates Mujtaba et al. 2018). This is because of its low pH value when
(HMCs) (Unluer and Al-Tabbaa 2015). The reaction between mixing with soil, causing slow hydration (an alkaline environ-
CO2 and Mg is considered to be expansive. Production of ment is essential for pozzolanic reaction). As a result, it should
HMCs like lansfordite, nesquehonite, dypingite, and be utilised with other materials (Yi et al. 2012; Maneli et al.
hydromagnesite has been proven to be beneficial in improving 2015; Mandal and Singh 2016; Sharma and Sivapullaiah
soil strength by filling the voids (Yi et al. 2013a, b, c, 2016; 2016; Priyanga et al. 2018; Md Nayan et al. 2019; He et al.
Cai et al. 2015; Guang-hua et al. 2015; Cai and Liu 2017; Liu 2019). However, none of the previous findings has conducted
et al. 2017; Song-yu et al. 2017). However, after several carbonation of GGBS to enhance soil strength. This study has
drying-wetting cycling, the strength started to show a slight a contribution to the utilisation of magnesium and calcium
decrease (Cai et al. 2019). It is understood that natural carbon- carbonation to improve soil strength while decreasing the lev-
ation entails a longer period, which is not pertinent for engi- el of CO2 in the atmosphere through the use of sustainable
neering purposes like soil strength improvement. Aspects like material (GGBS).
CO2 pressure, temperature, water content, CO2 concentration,
and quantity of calcium and magnesium in the materials im-
pact the carbonation process. The chemical reaction for mag- Material and methodology
nesium carbonation is depicted below:
Kaolin is known for its high compressibility and low strength.
MgO þ H2O→MgðOHÞ2 ðBruciteÞ It is thus a problematic soil, which requires improvement be-
fore being used as an engineering material. Kaolinite is the
MgðOHÞ2 þ CO2 þ 2H2O→MgCO3:3H2O ðnesquehoniteÞ
most widespread clay material, which means that kaolin is
5MgðOHÞ2 þ 4CO2 þ H2O→ðMgÞ5ðCO3Þ4ðOHÞ2:5H2O ðdypingiteÞ widely available around the world. The studied soil sample
was brown kaolin obtained from Kaolin (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
5MgðOHÞ2 þ 4CO2→ðMgÞ5ðCO3Þ4ðOHÞ2:4H2O ðhydromagnesiteÞ
factory located in Tapah, Perak, Malaysia. Based on the prop-
Limited studies on utilising magnesium carbonation for erties listed in Table 1, it was classified as low to medium
soil improvement have been carried out. Presently, two mate- plastic clay (CL).
rials have been carbonated to enhance soil strength, reactive GGBS was utilised as a stabiliser in the present research. It
magnesia cement (industrial material) ( Yi et al. 2013a, b, c, was a by-product (waste material) generated during iron
2016; Cai et al. 2015; Guang-hua et al. 2015; Cai and Liu manufacturing. Production of GGBS takes place when coke,
2017; Liu et al. 2017; Song-yu et al. 2017), and olivine (nat- iron ore, and limestone are introduced into the blast furnace.
u r a l m a t e r i a l ) ( F as i h n i k o ut al ab et a l . 20 1 6a , b ; Afterward, iron is extracted from the remaining slag. The slag
Fasihnikoutalab et al. 2017). Mohammed et al. (2021b) indi- is then tapped off, rapidly cooled, and then ground to produce
cate that magnesium carbonation improves soil strength better fine particles similar to cement (Yi et al. 2012; Suresh and
than calcium carbonation. Nagaraju 2015). GGBS does not have particles larger than
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) has the ap- 2 mm and is, therefore, a very fine off-white material. The
pearance of an off-white fine powder. It is a non-plastic ma- studied GGBS was obtained from a local factory in Johor
terial and can be used in numerous civil engineering Bahru, Johor, Malaysia. It had a pH value of 10.6 and a spe-
cific gravity of 2.83. Table 1 shows the index properties of

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

57310 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320

Table 1 Properties of kaolin and GGBS experimental work details and the number of samples for ev-
Material Kaolin GGBS ery condition.
The effect of carbonation pressure and carbonation period
Liquid limit (%) 40.5 36.6 on the strength of the carbonated sample was examined by
Plastic limit (%) 22.5 - applying 100 kPa and 200 kPa of gas which contains 99%
Plasticity limit (%) 18 - of CO2 to accelerate the carbonation process and the carbon-
Clay (%) 0.65 1.876 ation periods were 1, 3, 6, and 24 h.
Silt (%) 92.6 98.124 For the process of carbonation, a triaxial cell was coupled
Sand (%) 6.75 0 to a carbon dioxide gas cylinder, as displayed in Fig. 1. The
Specific gravity 2.52 2.83 gas controller was used to retain pressure. A sample of UCS
Optimum moisture content (%) 18 - was weighed and then positioned in the compartment, which
Maximum dry density (kg/m3) 1640 - was then shut tightly to make sure no CO2 leakage takes place
UCS (kPa) 115 - during the process of carbonation. The gas controller was kept
CEC (meq/100g) (Saeeda et al. 2015) 19.2 - at 100 or 200 kPa; the influx was opened to let CO2 in the cell.
pH 4.33 10.6 Further, the drainage was left open for a duration of 5 min to
discard the air inside the chamber to ensure complete satura-
tion of CO2 within the cell; later, the drainage was closed.
kaolin and GGBS. Table 2 summarises the chemical compo- Also, the entrance was kept open till the required period of
sition of GGBS. All the laboratory testing was performed carbonation (1, 3, 6, or 24 h) was over. The sample was tested
based on BS 1277:1990. after the removal of the carbonation cell, and the sample of
The GGBS contents utilised for carbonation were only 20 UCS was weighed again. The secant modulus and UCS have
and 25%. These quantities were selected since they offer sig- then been determined on the basis of the stress-strain analysis.
nificant strength increment during the earlier curing (under The samples of UCS were squashed and sieved using a 2 mm
ambient condition) stage prior to carbonation while satisfying sieve aperture and then they were used for XRD and FESEM
the value needed for minimum stabilisation strength. The ef- analysis (only selected samples were chosen).
fect of the curing period was investigated in order to provide
benefit for the practical application. A higher GGBS content
was also taken into consideration since using a low amount of
GGBS will not increase the strength significantly due to its
Result and discussion
lower content of magnesium. It is actually recommended to
The strength improvement for the carbonated specimens was
add significantly higher GGBS content as a sustainable meth-
examined in terms of curing span (i.e., 0 and 7 days), carbon-
od to fully utilised waste material.
ation span (i.e., 1, 3, 6, and 24 h), and carbonation pressure
The UCS sample of kaolin treated with GGBS was pre-
(i.e., 100 and 200 kPa).
pared in a metallic mold with dimensions of 76 mm in height
and 38 mm in diameter. The UCS tests were conducted based
on BS 1377: Part 7: 1990: 7. The sample was prepared at 1640 Effect of carbonation period on the strength gain
kg/m3 dry density and 18% moisture content based on the
compaction test results on untreated kaolin. Directly after Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the effect of the carbonation
preparation, samples were placed in the carbonated cell, as period on the UCS improvement for the processed kaolin with
shown in Fig. 1. Curing of another set of samples was done 20 and 25% of GGBS at 0 and 7 days of treatment, respec-
in a temperature-controlled chamber (27 ± 2 °C) for 7 days tively. The tendency of UCS increment is similar in all the
prior to carbonation. GGBS was cured for 7 days to induce cases; the UCS significantly increases during the 1st hour of
higher strength and allow for hydration. For every condition, carbonation. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the UCS value after 0-
at least two samples were tested and the average value was day and 7-day treatment for 20% GGBS amounted to be 150
chosen as the UCS value, the difference between the two and 228 kPa, respectively. Those values increase considerably
samples should be less than 10 kPa. Table 3 shows the during the 1st hour of carbonation wherein they reach 221 and

Table 2 Chemical composition

for kaolin and GGBS Chemical composition SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO K2O

GGBS 30.5% 10.4% 0.30% 47.6% 4.88% 0.317%

Kaolin (Saeeda et al. 2015) 49.5% 30.31% 1.02% - - 8.78

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320 57311

Fig. 1 Laboratory setup for

carbonation

334 kPa at an applied carbon dioxide pressure of 100 kPa (that up to 266 and 520 kPa. Further, the strength increases up to
is, 1 bar). For the equivalent condition, UCS rises for 0 day 344 and 637 kPa due to the carbonation for 24 h. The differ-
and 7 days of treatment to reach 233 and 342 kPa at an applied ence in the strength for 0 to 7 days of treatment is because the
carbon dioxide pressure of 200 kPa. Moreover, after the 1st carbonation at 25% GGBS comes to be much more significant
hour, the strength increases gradually and progressively up to in comparison to that at 20% GGBS. Consequently, the great-
24 h wherein the strength after 0 day and 7 days of treatment er amount of GGBS comprises more magnesium and calcium
reaches 278 and 393 kPa, respectively, at a carbon dioxide that were left to be hydrated prior to carbonation (hydration
pressure of 100 kPa. When 200 kPa of carbon dioxide pres- products are calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and magnesium
sure is applied, the strength reaches 300 and 403 kPa, hydroxide (Mg(OH)2)).
respectively. The gain in strength is because of the CO2 liquefied in the
From Fig. 3, it is apparent that the strength increase of water available within the kaolin-GGBS mixture forming car-
carbonated kaolin processed with 25% GGBS is in a similar bonic acid, which has a pH value of 5.6. At the same time, the
pattern to that processed with 20% GGBS. The quick increase GGBS dissolved and turned into calcium and magnesium hy-
occurs during the 1st hour and then progressively afterward. droxide, and they bond with the dissolved CO2 to produce
Kaolin processed for 0 day and 7 days with 25% GGBS pos- MgCO3 (magnesium carbonate) and CaCO3 (calcium carbon-
sesses 162 and 320 kPa strength, respectively. After carbon- ate), respectively. These chemical products fill the available
ation for 1 h under 100 kPa of carbon dioxide pressure, the spaces in the mixture (expansive reaction), therefore increas-
strength increases to 261 and 504 kPa, respectively. The ing soil strength. The main carbonated products that are re-
strength increases progressively up to 24 h whereby the value sponsible for the strength gain are calcite (CaCO3) (Nakarai
of UCS reached 315 and 590 kPa, respectively. Additionally, and Yoshida 2015; Cao et al. 2017; Ho et al. 2017),
applying 200 kPa of carbon dioxide pressure for the same nesquehonite (MgCO3·3H2O), hydromagnesite
situation of 1 h for 0- and 7-day treatment raises the strength ((Mg) 5 (CO 3 ) 4 (OH) 2 ·4H 2 O), and dypingite ((Mg) 5
(CO3)4(OH)2·5H2O) (Yi et al. 2013a, b, c; Fasihnikoutalab
et al. 2016a, b, 2017; Liu et al. 2017). At a certain point during
Table 3 UCS samples experimental work details and number of
samples for each condition
the carbonation period, the whole available magnesium reacts
with CO2. Past this point, the sample reaches complete CO2
Content of GGBS (%) 20 25 capacity, and no reaction happens, which shows that the
strength stays the same. For example, the full capacity for
Curing period (days) 0 7 0 7
reactive magnesia is between 0.8 and 1.1 from its original
CO2 pressure (kPa) 100 200 100 200 100 200 100 200 dry weight (Yi et al. 2016) (1 ton of reactive magnesia capture
Carbonation period (hours) - - - - - - - - around 0.8 to 1.1 ton of CO2 afterward reactive magnesia will
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 not react with CO2 even if the carbonation process continues).
3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 The sudden strength increases after the 1st hour of carbon-
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ation are because of the high permeability of the kaolin-GGBS
24 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 concoction. The large spaces of the kaolin-GGBS mixture
allow the carbon dioxide to easily access and produce the

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

57312 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320

Fig. 2 UCS for 20% GGBS

carbonated at different 700
carbonation periods
600
0 kPa-0d
500

UCS (kPa)
100 kPa-0d
400 200 kPa-0d

300 0 kPa-7d
100 kPa-7d
200
200 kPa-7d
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Carbonation Period (hours)

new carbonated products after the 1st hour. When the new Figures 4 and 5 display the impact of applied carbon diox-
products fill the voids, the permeability is reduced, hence ide pressure on the UCS of kaolin treated with 20 and 25%
preventing carbon dioxide from penetrating into the soil GGBS at 0 and 7 days of curing. The label (A, B) pertains to
smoothly for more carbonation. However, carbonation still the sample comprising (A) content of GGBS and being car-
takes place at a slow rate. Therefore, a gradual increment in bonated for (B) hours. For all cases, UCS value increases with
strength is noted beyond a carbonation period of 1 h. This a rise in carbon dioxide pressure. This indicates that more
strength gain pattern as a result of carbonation agrees with carbon dioxide is sequestered by the carbonated soil under a
previous experimental results of carbonated soil stabilisation higher CO2 pressure, which results in a higher strength gain.
(Yi et al. 2013b, c; Fasihnikoutalab et al. 2016a, b). With regard to Fig. 4, the UCS pertaining to carbonated
kaolin with 20 and 25% GGBS and cured for 0 days at
100 kPa CO2 pressure for 1 h is 221 and 261 kPa, respectively.
Effect of carbon dioxide pressure at different An increase in UCS to 233 kPa and 266 kPa is shown by
carbonation periods on the strength gain similar samples when there was a rise in CO2 pressure to
200 kPa. At an earlier carbonation period (up to 6 h), the
The strength gain is significantly influenced by the pressure of impact of using higher CO2 pressure (200 kPa) was found to
carbon dioxide (CO2). The UCS pertaining to uncarbonated be ineffective when compared with that of using a lower one
20 and 25% GGBS-treated kaolin cured for 0 days was found (100 kPa). However, at 24 h of carbonation, this impact be-
to be 150 and 162 kPa, respectively. However, after 7 days of comes more important. For kaolin treated with 20 and 25%
treatment, these are 228 and 320 kPa, respectively. Two dif- GGBS, UCS value increases from 278 and 315 to 300 and
ferent pressure levels of 100 and 200 kPa were applied in 344 kPa when a pressure of 200 kPa CO2 is applied instead of
order to speed up the carbonation process. 100 kPa. When the sample was carbonated with 200 kPa, a

Fig. 3 UCS for 25% GGBS

carbonated at different 700
carbonation periods
600
0 kPa-0d
500
UCS (kPa)

100 kPa-0d
400 200 kPa-0d

300 0 kPa-7d
100 kPa-7d
200
200 kPa-7d
100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Carbonation Period (hours)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320 57313

Fig. 4 UCS for kaolin samples

treated for 0 days carbonated at 700
different CO2 pressure
600 (20.1)

500 (20.3)

UCS (kPa)
(20.6)
400
(20.24)
300 (25.1)
(25.3)
200
(25.6)
100 (25.24)

0
0 100 200
Carbon Dioxide Pressure (kPa)

significant increment is observed. For instance, kaolin treated amounts of Mg and Ca get dissolved in the water, thus en-
for 7 days with 20 and 25% GGBS and carbonated for 24 h abling more efficient reaction with CO2.
under 100 kPa pressure displays UCS of 393 and 590 kPa, and With regard to these findings, when comparing strength
at 200 kPa CO2 pressure, the UCS value increases to 403 and gained in the pozzolanic reaction versus carbonation process,
637 kPa, respectively. during the carbonation process, a higher value strength was
Rise in CO2 pressure results in increased strength, which is reached at a much lower time versus the pozzolanic reaction,
due to an increase in pore solution acidity as well as a gradual which finds more application in geotechnical engineering.
increase in the amount of Mg+ and Ca+ ions needed for the Injecting CO2 through a perforated pipe installed in the
carbonation process, thereby resulting in a higher strength (De ground enables achieving in situ carbonation
Silva et al. 2009; Mo and Panesar 2012; Fasihnikoutalab et al. (Fasihnikoutalab et al. 2016a, b).
2016a, b). The curing period that occurs before applying the
carbonation is another factor that has a major impact on the Strength gained due to carbonation
carbonation process. For the same GGBS content, a greater
potential for carbonation was displayed by the cured samples Figures 6 and 7 display the percentage of strength gained
for 7 days versus the cured sample for 0 days, and therefore, it because of carbonation for various amounts of GGBS as well
is clearly reflected in the amount of the strength that is gained as curing periods. For all the cases, the results demonstrate
before as well as post-1-h carbonation. This is because GGBS that there is an increase in percentage strength gained in the
is a slow rate hydration material and needs longer time to get first hour of carbonation by 45 to 60% from its value under the
dissolved in water. During the initial curing, only some of the natural condition when various CO2 pressures are employed.
Mg and Ca gets extracted; however, post 7 days, greater It supports the previous statement that early carbonation is

Fig. 5 UCS for kaolin samples

treated for 7 days carbonated at 700
different CO2 pressure
600 (20.1)

500 (20.3)
UCS (kPa)

(20.6)
400 (20.24)

300 (25.1)
(25.3)
200 (25.6)

100 (25.24)

0
0 100 200
Carbon Dioxide Pressure (kPa)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

57314 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320

Fig. 6 Strength gained due to

carbonation for kaolin-20% 70
GGBS mixture
60

Strength Gained (%)

50
0d-100 kPa
40 0d-200 kPa

30 7d-100 kPa

7d-200 kPa
20

10

0
0 to 1 1 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 24
Carbonation Period (hours)

significantly effective in improving soil strength. At a duration various pressures at different carbonation periods. The label
of 1 to 3 h and 3 to 6 h, the percentages of strength gained (A, B) pertains to the sample with (A) content of GGBS as
were found to be very low. Within that carbonation period, well as (B) CO2 pressure applied. Soil density classification
nearly 10% increment could be observed, irrespective of has been listed in Table 4, as per the secant modulus (Ranjan
GGBS content and curing periods. However, an increment and Rao 2000), it was used as another classification to soil
in strength gained was observed with carbonated kaolin treat- density.
ed with 20 and 25% GGBS within 6 to 24 h, since the strength Based on Fig. 8, it is shown that the E50 increases as the
would increase by 10 to 22% versus its value at 6 h of carbonation time prolong. However, the increment was not
carbonation. significant at the earlier carbonation period as the values of
The carbonation period, as well as CO2 pressure applied to E50 for the carbonated samples for 1, 3, and 6 h were approx-
the sample, was found to impact the strength gain because of imately the same, regardless of GGBS content. The E50 for P
carbonation. A more significant impact was cast by the car- (20,100) cured for 0 days carbonated for 1 to 6 h was around 8
bonation period on the strength gained versus the carbon di- MPa, while for P (25,100), it increases to 12 MPa.
oxide pressure. Based on the aforesaid statement, most of the Figure 9 shows similar behaviour to that of Fig. 8. In par-
strength gained was found to occur during the first hour. ticular, E50 for similar conditions, when cured across 7 days
for (20,100), reached 20 MPa. For (25,100), it reached
Effect of carbonation on secant modulus 29 MPa for 6 h carbonation then rose to 42 and 55 MPa after
a 24-h period of carbonation. It was similarly noted that dif-
Figures 8 and 9 showcase the impact of secant modulus (E50) ferences between using 100 or else 200 kPa CO2 of applied
value for kaolin treated with 20 and 25% GGBS with a curing pressure, in earlier-stage carbonation of up to 6 h, do not
period of 0 and 7 days, which has been carbonated exposed to modify the values of secant modulus.

Fig. 7 Strength gained due to

carbonation for kaolin-25% 70
GGBS mixture
60
Strength Gained (%)

50 0d-100 kPa

40 0d-200 kPa

7d-100 kPa
30
7d-200 kPa
20

10

0
0 to 1 1 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 24
Carbonation Period (hours)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320 57315

Table 4 Soil density classification according to secant modulus (Ranjan

60 and Rao 2000)
50
Soil type Consistency or density of soil Secant modulus (Es) MPa
Secant Modulus (MPa)

40 (20,100)
(20,200) Clay Very soft 2–15
30
(25,100) Soft 5–25
20 (25,200)
Medium 15–50
10 Hard 50–100
0
1 3 6 24
Carbonation Period (hours) modulus is some 60.322 times that of UCS value (η = 60.322),
Fig. 9 Secant modulus for treated kaolin with 20 and 25% GGBS for 7 with a correlation coefficient equal to 0.8, which implies that
days curing carbonated under different conditions the equation is reliable. Clearly, the η for carbonation is higher
in comparison with that for natural curing. This indicates that
According to Table 4, soil that has been cured for 0 days samples that fall under a particular UCS value, such as 300
using 20 and 25% GGBS, then subjected to carbonation for kPa, will deform less with carbonation than with natural cur-
several intervals, was categorised based on its secant modulus ing, which renders it much stiffer.
as soft clays (E50 < 25). Additionally, the carbonated kaolin It follows that the association between UCS value and se-
was categorised from medium to hard for samples cured for 7 cant modulus in cases of carbonation is less reliable when
days with carbonation. Secant modulus does not change sig- compared with that in natural sealed curing conditions (i.e.,
nificantly for kaolin treated with 20 to 25% GGBS carbonated only pozzolanic reaction absent carbonation). This result can
for up to 6 h. Nevertheless, 25% GGBS-stabilised kaolin car- probably be attributed to any sample weight gain or loss (for-
bonated for a period of 24 h starts to show an increment in mation of novel magnesium carbonated products and moisture
secant modulus, in comparison with 20% carbonated GGBS- loss), which will be discussed in the following section. Table 5
treated kaolin subject to similar conditions. This may result displays the various comparative relationships between UCS
from the much greater amounts of magnesium and calcium at values and secant modulus after carbonation, in terms of prior
25% GGBS when compared to 20% GGBS. findings as well as the present study.
Figure 10 displays the association between UCS value and
secant modulus for carbonated GGBS-treated kaolin, with a X-ray diffraction
carbonation period of up to 24 h. The following expression
expresses this relationship: XRD analysis is applied to determine the crystalline phase as
E50 ¼ η  qu well as mineralogical changes of untreated kaolin. It also iden-
tifies any new crystalline products that arise from the process
of carbonation along with the addition of stabiliser.
E50 denotes secant modulus, qu represents unconfined Figure 11a displays the diffractogram from the XRD anal-
compressive strength, while η denotes the dimensionless ysis of the untreated kaolin. The analytical result clearly es-
fitting parameter (Cai and Liu 2017). In the current study, a tablishes that quartz presents the dominant mineral type in this
total of 32 samples were tested in order to establish an asso- kaolin formation. Peaks at 2θ = 20.9°, 26.68°, 36.58°, 38.48°,
ciation between E50 and UCS. Results indicate that the secant 50.3°, and 59.98° represent the corresponding intensities of

60

50
Secant Modulus (MPa)

40 (20,100)
(20,200)
30
(25,100)
20 (25,200)

10

0
1 3 6 24
Carbonation Period (hours)

Fig. 8 Secant modulus for treated kaolin with 20 and 25% GGBS for 0 Fig. 10 Relationship between secant modulus and unconfined
days curing carbonated under different conditions compressive strength under carbonation

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

57316 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320

Table 5 Relationship between

unconfined compressive strength Material Relationship Correlation References
and secant modulus from coefficient
previous carbonation soil
stabilisation findings Carbonation of reactive magnesia stabilising E50 = 284 qu 0.77 (Yi et al. 2013a,
sharp sand b, c)
Carbonation of reactive magnesia stabilising low E50 = (30–200) qu - (Cai and Liu
plastic silt (ML) 2017)
Carbonation of reactive magnesia stabilising low E50 = (30–200) qu - (Guang-hua
plastic silt (ML) et al. 2015)
Carbonation of ground granulated blast furnace E50 = 60.322 qu 0.80 Current study
slag stabilising kaolin

quartz (SiO2) in kaolin. The observed peak at 2θ = 12.38° accommodate potassium. Quartz peaks are typically larger
indicates the presence of mineral clay kaolinite, whereas the than zeolite and kaolinite peaks, which is understandable as
peak at 2θ = 8.94° signifies zeolite, which is known to accom- quartz provides for superior X-ray scatter (Katz et al. 2001).
modate such cations, including Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, and This result is in agreement with previous studies conducted by
numerous others. In this study, zeolite was observed to Saeed et al. (2013), Saeed et al. (2014), and Saeeda et al.

Fig. 11 a XRD patterns for

untreated kaolin. b XRD patterns
for untreated kaolin, treated
kaolin with 20 and 25% GGBS
cured for 0 and 7 days carbonated
with 200 kPa CO2 for 24 h

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320 57317

Fig. 12 a FESEM image for

GGBS. b FESEM image for
untreated kaolin. c FESEM image
for treated kaolin with 25%
GGBS cured for 0 days
carbonated with 200 kPa CO2 for
24 h. d FESEM image for treated
kaolin with 25% GGBS cured for
7 days carbonated with 200 kPa
CO2 for 24 h

(2015). The untreated kaolin did not reveal any peaks for Field emission scanning electron microscopy
magnesium or calcium carbonation materials. It, therefore,
can be inferred that such new carbonation products are formed Field emission scanning electron microscopy was performed
during the process of carbonation. on the stabiliser, soil, and chosen carbonated and cured sam-
Figure 11b displays the diffractogram for both untreated ples to identify the changes that take place in the microstruc-
and treated kaolin, with 20 and 25% GGBS cured over a ture. Fig. 12a illustrates the GGBS microstructure image taken
period of 0 and 7 days then carbonated with 200 kPa CO2 at 50,000 magnification. GGBS exhibited variable particle
over 24 h. Peaks for kaolinite, quartz, and zeolite lower after sizes but no voids were seen clearly in the figure. This can
carbonation is applied. The lone kaolinite peak lowers once probably be attributed to the particle size distribution since
carbonation occurs. This result is from the addition of stabi- only fine particles are contained in the GGBS. GGBS has
liser as well as the weathering that ensues with clay minerals. various particle shapes. The differences in the sizes and shapes
Such weathering will show that it has been covered with a of GGBS particles are probably a result of the grounding and
newly formed product (Latifi 2014; Pakir 2017). The drying process taking place for the granulated slag for it to turn
diffractogram displays no significant peaks for such magne- into powder.
sium carbonation products, including hydromagnesite, The microstructure image taken at 30,000 magnification
nesquehonite, and dypingite. This probably results from the for the untreated kaolin is shown in Fig. 12b. One can describe
low mass of magnesium (4.88% derived from GGBS weight), the shape of kaolin particles as platy and flaky formation, with
which is not detectable with XRD analysis. Each carbonated the smooth surface of its particles. The kaolinite mineral’s
sample showed a smaller calcium carbonate (calcite) peak at book-like structure was observed and is believed to be the
2θ = 68.32°. The peak is higher for the sample cured over a brown kaolin’s dominant feature. It is known that kaolin has
period of 7 days prior to carbonation, as compared to the an edge-to-edge and face-to-edge aggregate flocculated struc-
sample cured over a period of 0 days prior to carbonation. A ture (Saeed et al. 2013, 2014; Saeeda et al. 2015). Large voids
calcite peak shows that the process of carbonation has oc- can be found on the structure of untreated kaolin, which con-
curred. The process demonstrates the incremental increase in tributes to its low strength. Fig. 12c presents the micrograph of
kaolin strength as the production of magnesium carbonated the kaolin that has been treated with 25% GGBS cured for 0
and calcium products works to increase strength. days and then carbonated with 200 kPa CO2 for 24 h. It was
observed that there was a complete change from the book-like

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

57318 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320

structure of the untreated kaolin, with the particles becoming 5. FESEM analysis shows a dense structure for the carbon-
coated and well ponded and the voids becoming hardly de- ated samples, the particles became coated and ponded
tectable. The figure also demonstrates the presence of needle- with the generation of the new products. The needle-like
shaped particles that are believed to be calcium carbonated products seen on the surface of kaolin particles are be-
aragonite (CaCO3), which is one of the most common calcium lieved to be aragonite (CaCO3).
carbonated minerals. 6. The GGBS carbonation was effective in stabilising kaolin
The micrograph of the treated kaolin with 25% GGBS as the CO2 is sequestered by magnesium and calcium.
cured for 7 days and carbonated with 200 kPa CO2 for 24 h The process is utilised to create new products that enhance
is shown in Fig. 12d. The carbonated kaolin takes on a very soil strength and fill the voids.
dense structure with no voids. Aragonite and its needle-like
structure can also be seen on the surface of the kaolin particles.
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for the support offered by
the Ministry of higher education Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia with Vote no. R.J130000.7851.5F197. and
Environmental impact Q.J130000.2522.20H06.

The amount of CO2 sequestered within GGBS-kaolin carbon- Author contribution Ahmed Mohammed Awad Mohammed did the lab-
ated mixtures available in this current study was calculated oratory tests, analysed data, and prepared the first draft.
Nor Zurairahetty Mohd Yunus revised the manuscript and approved
using two different methods: the first one was the acid diges-
for submission.
tion method using nitrate acid and the thermogravimetric anal- Muhammad Azril Hezmi revised the manuscript and approved for
ysis. It was found that the amount of CO2 sequestered was submission.
between 4.3 and 5% from the total dry weight of the mixture Ahmad Safuan A. Rashid revised the manuscript and approved for
submission.
(Mohammed et al. 2021a). Suksun Horpibulsuk revised the manuscript and approved for
submission.

Conclusion Funding The authors are grateful for the support offered by the Ministry
of higher education Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia with
Vote no. R.J130000.7851.5F197. and Q.J130000.2522.20H06.
The aim of this study is to determine the ability of GGBS to
stabilise soil and sequester carbon dioxide at the same time.
Availability of data and materials All data generated or analysed during
The following conclusion can be drawn: this study are included in this published article.

1. The majority of the increase in strength takes place during Declarations

the first hour. This is due to the smoother CO2 infiltration
as a result of the higher porosity available in the Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
uncarbonated kaolin. The rate of carbonation then slows
down compared to the first hour of carbonation since the Consent for publication Not applicable.
infiltration of CO2 becomes more difficult when the car-
bonation products fill the voids. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
2. Carbonated 25% GGBS-treated kaolin exhibited a higher
UCS value compared to the carbonated 20% GGBS-
treated kaolin. This can be explained by the fact that
25% of GGBS contains more calcium and magnesium
References
that can react with CO2, therefore creating more Ca/Mg Boot-Handford ME, Abanades JC, Anthony EJ, Blunt MJ, Brandani S,
carbonated products that can fill the available voids. Dowell NM, Fennell PS (2014) Carbon capture and storage update.
3. The application of a higher carbon dioxide pressure (200 Energy Environ Sci 7:130–189. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ee42350f
kPa) leads to a faster increase in soil strength compared to Cai G, Liu S (2017) Compaction and mechanical characteristics and
stabilization mechanism of carbonated reactive MgO-stabilized silt.
when a lower pressure (100 kPa) is used. Higher pressure
KSCE J Civ Eng 21:2641–2654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-
leads to an increase in the acidity of the pore solution and 017-1145-1
sequentially raises the quantity of Mg+ ions that can be Cai GH, Du YJ, Liu SY, Singh DN (2015) Physical properties, electrical
used for the carbonation process. resistivity, and strength characteristics of carbonated silty soil
4. XRD analysis shows no peaks for magnesium carbonated admixed with reactive magnesia. Can Geotech J 52:1699–1713
Cai GH, Liu SY, Zheng X (2019) Influence of drying-wetting cycles on
products. On the other hand, a single peak of calcium engineering properties of carbonated silt admixed with reactive
carbonated products was seen in the carbonated GGBS- MgO. Constr Build Mater 204:84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
kaolin mixture diffractogram. conbuildmat.2019.01.125

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320 57319

Cao Z, Zhang T, Zhang D (2017) Effect of carbonation on the engineer- Maneli A, Kupolati WK, Abiola OS, Ndambuki JM (2015) Influence of
ing properties and microstructure of cement-stabilized lead-contam- fly ash, ground-granulated blast furnace slag and lime on unconfined
inated soils. Geotech Front 76(21):526–533. https://doi.org/10. compressive strength of black cotton soil. Road Mater Pavement
1007/s12665-017-7071-1 Des 17:252–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1066703
Chandra JV, Lavanya PM (2017) Effect of granulated blast furnace slag Manjunath KV, Shekhar H, Kumar M, Kumar P, Kumar R (2012)
in the stabilization of expansive soil for the pavement sub-grades. Int Stabilization of black cotton soil using ground granulated blast fur-
Res J Eng Technol 4(5):1735–1739 nace slag. In Proceedings of International Conference on Advances
De Silva P, Bucea L, Sirivivatnanon V (2009) Chemical, microstructural in Architecture and Civil Engineering, vol. 1, pp 387–390
and strength development of calcium and magnesium carbonate Md Nayan K, Ling F, Talib A, Bt Z, Irwan P, Harahap M, Ho SC (2019)
binders. Cem Concr Res 39(5):460–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Influence of blended lime-GGBS slag on the strength of laterite. IOP
cemconres.2009.02.003 Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 527. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/
Elias RS, Wahab MIM, Fang L (2018) Retrofitting carbon capture and 527/1/012025
storage to natural gas-fired power plants : a real-options approach. J Mo L, Panesar DK (2012) Effects of accelerated carbonation on the
Clean Prod 192:722–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05. microstructure of Portland cement pastes containing reactive MgO.
019 Cem Concr Res 42(6):769–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Fasihnikoutalab MH, Asadi A, Huat BBK, Ball RJ, Pourakbar S, Singh P cemconres.2012.02.017
(2016a) Utilisation of carbonating olivine for sustainable soil Mohammadia M, Mallikarjuna HM, Hussain A (2017) Stabilization of
stabilisation. J Environ Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1680/jenge.15. clay subgrade soils for pavements using ground granulated blast
00018 furnace slag. Int J Eng Dev Res 5(4):764–773
Fasihnikoutalab MH, Asadi A, Huat BK, Westgate P, Ball RJ, Pourakbar Mohammed AMA, Mohd Yunus NZ, Hezmi MA, Ahmad Rashid AS
S (2016b) Laboratory-scale model of carbon dioxide deposition for (2021a) Sequestration of carbon dioxide using ground granulated
soil stabilisation. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 8(2):178–186. https:// blast furnaces slag and kaolin mixtures. Glob NEST J 23(1):97–
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.11.001 103. https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.003487
Fasihnikoutalab MH, Asadi A, Unluer C, Huat BK, Ball RJ, Pourakbar S Mohammed AMA, Mohd Yunus NZ, Hezmi MA, Abang Hasbollah DZ,
(2017) Utilization of alkali-activated olivine in soil stabilization and Rashid ASA (2021b) Ground improvement and its role in carbon
the effect of carbonation on unconfined compressive strength and dioxide reduction: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:8968–8988.
microstructure. J Mater Civ Eng:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12768-2
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001833 Mujtaba H, Aziz T, Farooq K, Sivakugan N, Das BM (2018)
Guang-hua C, Song-yu L, Yan-jun D, Ding-wen Z, Xu Z (2015) Strength Improvement in engineering properties of expansive soils using
and deformation characteristics of carbonated reactive magnesia ground granulated blast furnace slag. J Geol Soc India 92(3):357–
treated silt soil. J Cent South Univ 22:1859–1868. https://doi.org/ 362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-018-1019-2
10.1007/s11771-015-2705-5 Mun M, Cho H (2013) Mineral carbonation for carbon sequestration with
He L, Yu D, Lv W, Wu J, Xu M (2013) A novel method for CO2 industrial waste. Energy Procedia 37:6999–7005. https://doi.org/10.
sequestration via indirect carbonation of coal fly ash. Ind Eng 1016/j.egypro.2013.06.633
Chem Res 52(43):15138–15145. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie4023644 Nakarai K, Yoshida T (2015) Effect of carbonation on strength develop-
He J, Wang X, Su Y, Li Z, Shi X (2019) Shear strength of stabilized clay ment of cement-treated Toyoura silica sand. Soils Found 55(4):857–
treated with soda residue and ground granulated blast furnace slag. J 865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.06.016
Mater Civ Eng 31(3):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT. Narendra K, Prasad AD (2017) Effect of ground granulated blast furnace
1943-5533.0002629 slag on expansive soils under static loading. VFSTR J Sci Technol
Ho LS, Nakarai K, Ogawa Y, Sasaki T, Morioka M (2017) Strength Eng Manag 03
development of cement-treated soils: effects of water content, car- Pakir FB (2017) Physicochemical, microstructural and engineering be-
bonation, and pozzolanic reaction under drying curing condition. haviour of non-traditional stabilizer treated marine clay
Constr Build Mater 134:703–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Pathak AK, Pandey V, Murari K, Singh JP, Prof A (2014) Soil
conbuildmat.2016.12.065 stabilisation using ground granulated blast furnace slag. J Eng Res
Hu J, Liu W, Wang L, Liu Q, Chen F, Yue H, Li C (2017) Indirect Appl 4(5):164–171. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.
mineral carbonation of blast furnace slag with (NH4)2SO4 as a 114.009107
recyclable extractant. J Energy Chem 26(5):927–935. https://doi. Priyanga G, Divya Krishnan K, Ravichandran PT (2018) Characteristics
org/10.1016/j.jechem.2017.06.009 of rubberized soil with ground granulated blast furnace slag as bind-
Jimoh OA, Ariffin KS, Hussin HB, Temitope AE (2018) Synthesis of er material. Mater Today: Proc:8655–8661. https://doi.org/10.1016/
precipitated calcium carbonate: a review. Carbonates Evaporites j.matpr.2017.12.290
33(2):331–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13146-017-0341-x Ranjan G, Rao ASR (2000) Basic and applied soil mechanics
Katz LE, Rauch AF, Liljestrand HM, Harmon JS, Shaw KS, Albers H Saeed KAH, Kassim KA, Nur H, Yunus NZM (2013) Characterization of
(2001) Mechanisms of soil stabilization with liquid ionic stabilizer. hydrated lime-stabilized brown kaolin clay. Int J Eng Res Technol
Transp Res Rec 1757:50–57. https://doi.org/10.3141/1757-06 2(11):3722–3727
Latifi N (2014) Geotechnical and micro-structural behaviour of chemi- Saeed KA, Kassim KA, Nur H (2014) Physicochemical characterization
cally stabilized tropical residual soil. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti of cement treated kaolin clay. Gradjevinar 66(6):513–521. https://
Teknologi Malaysia doi.org/10.14256/JCE.976.2013
Liu S, Cai G, Cao J, Wang F (2017) Influence of soil type on strength and Saeeda KAH, Kassima KA, Yunusa NZM, Nur H (2015) Physico-
microstructure of carbonated reactive magnesia-treated soil. Eur J chemical characterization of lime stabilized tropical kaolin. Jurnal
Environ Civ Eng 8189(September):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Teknologi 72(3):83–90
19648189.2017.1378925 Sharma AK, Sivapullaiah PV (2016) Ground granulated blast furnace
Mandal S, Singh JP (2016) Stabilization of soil using ground granulated slag amended fly ash as an expansive soil stabilizer. Soils Found
blast furnace slag and fly ash. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 56(2):205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.02.004
5(12):21121–21126. https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2016. Song-yu L, Guang-hua C, Yan-jun D, Heng Z, Ping W (2017)
0512038 Engineering properties of carbonated reactive magnesia-stabilized

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

57320 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021) 28:57308–57320

silt under different activity index. Procedia Eng 189(May):158–165. 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.026 Engineering, vol. 5, pp 2641–2644
Suresh D, Nagaraju K (2015) Ground granulated blast slag ( GGBS ) in Yi Y, Liska M, Akinyugha A, Unluer C, Al-Tabbaa A (2013b)
concrete—a review. IOSR J Mech Civil Eng 12(4):76–82. https:// Preliminary laboratory-scale model auger installation and testing
doi.org/10.9790/1684-12467682 of carbonated soil-MgO columns. Geotech Test J 36(March):
Unluer C, Al-Tabbaa A (2015) The role of brucite, ground granulated 20120052. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20120052
blast furnace slag, and magnesium silicates in the carbonation and Yi Y, Liska M, Unluer C, Al-tabbaa A (2013c) Carbonating magnesia for
performance of MgO cements. Constr Build Mater 94:629–643. soil stabilization. Can Geotech J 50(June):899–905
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.105 Yi Y, Lu K, Liu S, Al-tabbaa A (2016) Property changes of reactive
Yi Y, Liska M, Al-Tabbaa A (2012) Initial investigation into the use of magnesia–stabilized soil subjected to forced carbonation. Can
GGBS-MgO in soil stabilisation. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Geotech J 53:314–325
International Conference on Grouting and Deep Mixing, pp 444–
453. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412350.0030
Yi LY, Liska M, Unluer C, Al-Tabbaa A (2013a) Initial investigation into Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
the carbonation of MgO for soil stabilisation. In: Proceedings of the tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

[email protected]