Comparative Assessment of Sugarcane Bagasse and Sawdust Ashes as Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Lime-Based Binders  

Comparative Assessment of Sugarcane Bagasse and Sawdust Ashes as Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Lime-Based Binders | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Comparative Assessment of Sugarcane Bagasse and Sawdust Ashes as Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Lime-Based Binders Odiwuor Vincent Onyango, Enos W. Wambu, Mourice O. Okoth, Pius K. Kipkemboi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8534952/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 15 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The high energy demand, rising cost, and environmental impact of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) production have intensified the search for low-carbon alternatives, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Lime–pozzolana binders incorporating agricultural waste ashes are promising, yet their development is often guided by strength-based evaluation alone, limiting mechanistic understanding. This study presents a systematic comparison of sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA)–lime and sawdust ash (SDA)–lime binders by linking early-age pozzolanic reactivity with material characteristics and mortar performance. SCBA and SDA were produced under controlled calcination (600–700°C) and characterized for chemical composition, mineralogy, particle size, and surface area. Pozzolanic activity was quantified using an electrical conductivity method, and its relationship with bulk density, water absorption, and 28-day compressive strength was evaluated and benchmarked against OPC mortars. SCBA exhibited a high combined SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃ content (86.6%) and predominantly amorphous structure, while SDA showed lower oxide content (23.16%) but higher surface area, resulting in faster early-age reactivity. Despite this, SCBA–lime mortars achieved higher 28-day compressive strengths, although both systems met requirements for low-rise masonry. By directly correlating pozzolanic reactivity with ash composition and mechanical performance, this study advances understanding of structure–property relationships in lime–pozzolana binders and provides performance-informed guidance for selecting locally available agricultural ashes as sustainable alternatives to OPC. Lime binder pozzolanic activity sugarcane bagasse ash sawdust ash supplementary cementitious materials Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 1. Introduction Global cement demand continues to grow due to rapid urbanization and infrastructure expansion, especially in developing regions [ 1 ]. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) dominates construction but is highly energy-intensive and environmentally taxing. Its production involves calcining calcareous and argillaceous materials at temperatures above 1300°C, resulting in high fuel use and significant CO₂ emissions [ 2 ]. The cement industry contributes approximately 5–8% of global anthropogenic CO₂, primarily from limestone decomposition and fossil fuel combustion during clinker production, in addition to air pollution and depletion of nonrenewable resources [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Mitigating the environmental impact of cementitious materials has therefore become a research priority. One effective approach is partially or fully replacing OPC with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) [ 6 ]. Conventional SCMs such as fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag, silica fume, and rice husk ash enhance durability and sustainability while reducing clinker content [ 7 ]. However, their future availability may decline, and increased transboundary trade raises concerns over cost, supply security, and embodied emissions. These challenges have renewed interest in locally sourced natural pozzolans and agricultural waste ashes. Pozzolans are siliceous or aluminosiliceous materials that react with calcium hydroxide to form cementitious compounds. When combined with lime, they produce lime–pozzolana binders with lower embodied energy and carbon emissions than OPC [ 8 , 9 ]. Although these systems develop strength more slowly, they are suitable for masonry, rendering, and low-rise construction where cost and sustainability are key considerations [ 10 ]. Among agricultural waste ashes, sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA) and sawdust ash (SDA) have gained attention [ 11 ]. SCBA, a by-product of sugar production, can be converted through controlled calcination into reactive amorphous silica [ 12 , 13 ]. SDA, derived from sawdust combustion during timber processing, exhibits variable pozzolanic activity depending on biomass type, combustion, and residual carbon content [ 14 , 15 ]. Despite research on individual use of the ashes in lime-based mortars, comparative studies of SCBA and SDA under the same experimental conditions remain scarce. The influence of chemical composition, mineralogy, and physical properties on pozzolanic reactivity and mortar strength in lime-based systems is not fully understood. This study presents a detailed comparison between SCBA–lime and SDA–lime binders, focusing on how their early-age pozzolanic activity—measured through electrical conductivity—relates to the ashes’ chemical composition, mineral phases, and the performance of the hardened mortars. Unlike most prior research, which tends to evaluate agricultural waste pozzolans mainly by compressive strength, this work highlights how variations in silica content, the amount of amorphous material, and residual carbon affect lime consumption and the development of strength in lime–pozzolana systems. By comparing these binders to traditional OPC mortars, the study provides deeper insight into the structure–property relationships of low-carbon lime-based binders and offers practical guidance for selecting locally available agricultural ashes for sustainable masonry, particularly in regions with limited resources. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Materials and Equipment Sugarcane bagasse for this study was obtained from Butali Sugar Company Limited (Kakamega, Kenya). Sawdust was randomly collected from two commercial sawmills on the outskirts of Eldoret City, Kenya. To prevent sand contamination, samples were carefully collected by putting fresh sawdust ash into the bags. Commercial Ordinary Portland Cement 42.5 conforming to KS EAS 18:1-2017 [ 16 ] was supplied by Simba Cement Company Limited (Nakuru, Kenya) for control purposes. Standard river sand was used as fine aggregate for mortar preparation. Deionized water was used throughout the study. Hydrated commercial lime (Ca(OH)₂) conforming to KS EAS 18:1-2017 [ 16 ] was supplied by Laboklin Chimique Company Limited. SCB samples were ground using an HFM 100 grinder (Beijing Grinder Instrument Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Ash was produced by incinerating SCB in a muffle furnace (Advantec KL-420, Tokyo, Japan). Particle size distribution of the pozzolans was determined using a sieve analyzer with different sieve sizes following KS 02 1263 methods. Specific surface area (SSA) was obtained using a Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) nitrogen adsorption analyzer (Gemini 2375 V.). Elemental composition for both the pozzolans and control OPC was determined with an XRF spectrometer (Epsilon 3XLE, Malvern Panalytical, Almelo, Netherlands). The mineralogical and amorphous characteristics of the pozzolans were examined using X-ray diffraction (Bruker AXS GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany). Fresh mortar specimens were compacted using a laboratory vibrating table (SUN-CT-011, LabTek, Delhi, India). The compressive strength of the cured specimens was determined using a universal testing machine for compression (SSC-546, Instron, Norwood, USA) in accordance with standard testing procedures. 2.2 Procedure 2.2.1 Sample preparation The SCB samples were rinsed to remove sand and enhance reactivity. They were oven-dried at 110°C for 24 h. Ash was produced by incinerating at 600°C for two hours, followed by separate repeated heating at 600°C and 700°C for one hour each. The resulting SCBA was cooled, ground to 90 µm, and preserved in airtight conditions for testing. Collected SD was sun-dried for ten days, ashed, and preserved for testing. Meanwhile, sand samples were washed with deionized water, sun-dried for two days, and sieved to obtain a 5 mm-mesh sample for the subsequent tests. 2.2.2 Physical, Chemical, and Mineralogical Analysis The particle size distribution of the pozzolans was determined using a sieve analyzer with different sieve sizes. This process was used to grade the materials and verify compliance with required specifications. The specific surface area (SSA), elemental composition, and mineralogical analyses of the test pozzolans were conducted alongside those of control OPC samples. 2.2.3 Loss on Ignition (LOI) One gram of obtained raw pozzolans was oven-dried at 110°C for 1 h, then heated at 1000°C for 1 h, cooled in a desiccator, and reweighed. Percentage loss on ignition (LoI) was calculated according to the procedure described elsewhere in the literature [ 17 ]. 2.2.4 Evaluation of Pozzolanic Activity Evaluation of the pozzolanic activity test was carried out using a modified procedure of Marangu [ 18 ]. A saturated calcium hydroxide solution was prepared by adding 0.8 g of Ca(OH)₂ to 200 mL of distilled water in a 250 mL beaker, maintained at 38 ± 1°C on a hot magnetic plate with continuous stirring. The solution’s electrical conductivity was measured using a conductivity meter. After the lime-water system stabilized, 5 g of ground pozzolana was added and stirred for two minutes. Conductivity measurements were taken every 30 min for four hours. A pozzolana–water system without lime was also tested, and its contribution was subtracted from the lime–pozzolana readings to obtain corrected conductivity values. The procedure was repeated for different temperatures and calcination times. 2.2.5 Molding and curing the test mortar prisms Mortar prisms were prepared in compliance with the Kenyan standard, KS EAS 2168-1:2020 [ 19 ]. Three mortar prisms measuring 160 mm by 40 mm by 40 mm for each test sample were made simultaneously. This was accomplished by using a trowel to mix 1350 g of graded sand and 450 g of pozzolana lime mixture (3:1) on a non-porous plate for one minute (pozzolans calcined at 600°C for 1 hour were used). The requisite amount of water was added to the mix in a stainless-steel bowl to obtain a workable paste. To create a cement mortar with a uniform consistency, mixing was then carried out for an additional four minutes using a trowel. The slurry was placed into a grease-lubricated three-prong mold of dimensions 40 mm by 40 mm by 160 mm. A suitable clamp was used to secure the assembled mold in place once it had been placed on the vibrating machine. A suitable hopper was used to fill the prepared cement mortar. The mortar was compacted by vibrating it with a jolting device for two minutes. A curing environment with a relative humidity of greater than 90% was used to store the prisms. In the curing room, the prisms were covered with a flat, impermeable layer of polythene paper. After a 24-hour period, the prisms were demolded, labeled for identification, and allowed to cure in the air for 28 days at 23 ± 2°C and 65 ± 5% relative humidity. This is because lime cement does not solidify in water, and it takes a long time to cure; therefore, the 3- and 7-day strengths could not be estimated [ 20 ]. The process above was repeated with 450 g of pozzolana-lime mixes in ratios of 2:1 and 1:1. For reference purposes, OPC mortar prisms were also made; however, this time the OPC was mixed with sand alone, and they were cured in water for 28 days. A total of 36 pozzolana-lime mortars and 9 OPC mortars were prepared. 2. 2. 6 Bulk density The bulk densities of the mortar prisms were determined according to the requirements of BS 1881–1983 [ 21 ]. After 28 days of curing, the samples were dried at 60 ± 2°C until their mass remained constant. The mass (m ₀ , kg) of the specimen was determined after it had cooled down to room temperature (25°C). The dimensions of the mortar prisms were measured, and bulk volume was calculated using the geometry approach (multiplying the length, breadth, and height of the specimens). The final concrete dry density was calculated as a mass-to-volume ratio. 2.2.7 Water Absorption The testing procedure for water absorption capacity followed the guidelines of BS 1881 − 122:2011 [ 22 ]. Before immersion, the 28-day cured mortar samples were placed in a ventilated oven at a temperature of 60 ± 5°C and dried until they reached a constant weight. After drying, they were allowed to cool in a desiccator, and the dry mass of each sample was recorded as m₁ . The samples were then immersed in a sealed container filled with water for 48 h During immersion, the specimens were inclined at an angle of about 45° to help release any trapped air bubbles. Once submerged, they were positioned vertically, marking the start of the test. After the 48-hour immersion period, the samples were removed, gently wiped with a damp cloth, and their saturated mass was measured and recorded as m₂ . The result of this test is the percentage of water absorbed by the samples, which is determined using Eq. 1. \(\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:\:W=\frac{m2-m1\:}{m1}\:\) x 100 (1) 2.2.8 Compressive Strength Determination The analysis of compressive strength of all the mortar prisms was conducted in compliance with the requirements of KS EAS 148-1: 2017 [ 23 ]. The mortar prism was oriented lengthwise in the compressive machine so that its end face overhangs the platens or auxiliary plates by around 10 mm and is centered to the platens of the compressive equipment within ± 0.5 mm. Over the course of the load application, the load was gradually increased at a rate of 2400 ± 200 N/s till fracture. For each test regimen, results were obtained in triplicate. The value of compressive strength was determined and reported in MPa. 2.7 Data Analyses All tests were conducted in triplicate, and the mean and standard deviation values were obtained from triplicate measurements in Microsoft Excel. The t-test function was applied to evaluate significant differences between the mean values of cement pastes incorporating the selected pozzolans. In addition, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine the overall statistical significance of the results. The results were presented pictorially in statistical distribution tables and line and bar graphs as appropriate. 3. Results and discussion 3.1 Physical characterization of the materials The results for specific gravity, mean particle size distribution (PSD), and BET specific surface area (SSA) values for SCBA, SDA, and OPC are presented in Table 1. Table 1 indicates that OPC exhibits the lowest BET specific surface area (SSA), reflecting its dense particle structure and compact clinker phases. In contrast, the agro-industrial ashes show markedly higher SSA due to their porous texture and significant amorphous content, factors known to enhance pozzolanic reactivity [24,25]. This trend aligns with previous studies, which report that higher SSA in agricultural ashes accelerates lime–pozzolana reaction kinetics compared with OPC systems. Among the ashes, SDA possesses a higher SSA than SCBA, attributable to its irregular particle morphology, porous internal structure, and residual unburnt organic matter, all of which increase the reactive surface area [26]. Similar observations by Pavía and Figueiredo [26] indicate that wood-derived ashes generally exhibit greater SSA than sugarcane bagasse ash, owing to their fibrous origin and combustion characteristics. Higher SSA facilitates early pozzolanic reactions by enhancing dissolution rates and improving contact with calcium hydroxide, promoting faster formation of secondary cementitious phases. Accordingly, the lower SSA of SCBA may limit its early-age reaction relative to SDA. However, pozzolanic performance also depends on chemical composition and silica reactivity [27]. Despite its lower SSA, SCBA demonstrates strong long-term pozzolanic potential due to its high amorphous silica content. XRD and chemical analyses confirm that SCBA contains a substantial proportion of amorphous silica, supporting sustained pozzolanic activity and improved long-term strength development. These results are consistent with findings by Yaseen [29] and Pavía and Figueiredo [26]. Variations in SSA reported by Jittin and Bahurudeen [30] further underscore the influence of calcination, grinding, and processing on ash fineness and reactivity. Similar correlations between particle fineness, SSA, and pozzolanic activity have been reported by Habeeb and Fayyadh [31] and Rasoul et al. [32], highlighting SSA as a key parameter controlling react 3.2 Chemical analysis results Table 2 summarizes the average oxide composition and loss on ignition (LOI) of SDA, SCBA, and OPC, expressed as mass percentages. The pozzolanic potential of a material is largely determined by the combined content of SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃, which react with calcium hydroxide to form cementitious hydration products. SCBA exhibited a high combined oxide content of 86.60%, meeting the requirements of KS EAS 18-1:2017 [16] and ASTM C618 [33]. This value is comparable to, or exceeds, those reported for well-processed SCBA in the literature, confirming its effectiveness as a pozzolanic material. In contrast, SDA showed a much lower combined oxide content of 23.16%, below the thresholds specified for conventional pozzolans. Literature reports for SDA’s combined oxide contents are highly variable, ranging from 13.03% to 88.32% [14, 35–40], reflecting differences in biomass source, species, growth conditions, and combustion methods. The SDA used in this study lies toward the lower end of this spectrum. High MgO content can cause volumetric instability and microcracking [41]; however, MgO levels in SCBA, SDA, and OPC were all below 5%, reducing this risk. Total alkalis (Na₂O + K₂O) were below 1.5% for all materials, consistent with acceptable limits and minimizing the potential for alkali-related cracking [3]. OPC’s alkali content of 0.6% is within typical commercial ranges. SCBA’s LOI complied with ASTM C618 [33], indicating minimal residual carbon and satisfactory workability. Similar LOI values have been reported for properly calcined SCBA. SDA, however, had a high LOI of 15.33%, likely due to unburnt carbon and residual organics, consistent with other studies of incompletely combusted biomass [42]. Elevated LOI can negatively affect workability and pozzolanic reactivity. OPC’s LOI was below 5%, in line with KS EAS 18-1:2017 [16] and typical commercial cement values. 3.3 Mineralogical analysis results Although sugarcane bagasse and sawdust are plant-derived, calcination removes their organic matter, yielding predominantly inorganic ashes. The mineralogical composition of these ashes strongly affects their pozzolanic reactivity in lime-based binders; therefore, X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed to identify the crystalline and amorphous phases in SCBA and SDA (Figures 1 and 2). The XRD pattern of SCBA (Fig. 1) indicates a mixture of crystalline and amorphous phases. Minor diffraction peaks correspond to quartz (SiO₂), orthoclase (KAlSi₃O₈), and chibaite (Na₀.₀₁₅Al₀.₀₂₄Si₁.₉₇₈O₄), while a broad hump between approximately 15° and 35° 2θ reflects a substantial proportion of amorphous silica. This amorphous component is recognized as the most reactive form of silica in pozzolanic systems [42]. Similar XRD features have been reported for SCBA calcined under controlled conditions [8, 43], confirming that the mineralogical composition observed here aligns with reactive SCBA reported in the literature. By contrast, the SDA pattern (Fig. 2) exhibits a predominantly crystalline structure, with sharp peaks attributed to calcite (CaCO₃) and additional phases including diaspore, rosenhahnite, ferrosilite, tilleyite, quartz, and potassium calcium carbonate. This crystalline-dominated mineralogy is consistent with SDA produced under uncontrolled or high-temperature combustion [46, 47]. The relatively low amorphous content helps explain SDA’s lower pozzolanic oxide content compared with SCBA. Nevertheless, the presence of silicate and aluminate phases suggests that SDA can still participate in limited pozzolanic reactions, particularly at early ages or when finely ground, as noted in previous studies [48]. 3.4 Pozzolanic activity test results Pozzolanic reactivity was evaluated by monitoring the reduction in electrical conductivity of saturated calcium hydroxide solutions upon the addition of SCBA and SDA calcined under controlled conditions. Conductivity loss over time is presented in Figures 3–5. Both SCBA and SDA induced a measurable decrease in electrical conductivity, confirming pozzolanic reactions that consume Ca²⁺ and OH⁻ ions through the interaction of reactive SiO₂ and Al₂O₃ with Ca(OH)₂ to form cementitious hydration products [25,49] (Equations 2 and 3). 2SiO₂ + 3Ca(OH) ₂ + 5H₂O → 3CaO·2SiO₂·8H₂O (2) Al₂O₃ + 4Ca(OH)₂ + 9H₂O → 4CaO·Al₂O₃·13H₂O (3) During the initial 30 minutes (Phase 1), all pozzolans exhibited a pronounced conductivity drop, with SDA showing a greater early reduction than SCBA. This behavior aligns with previous studies of fine, high-surface-area pozzolans [27, 50] and is attributed to SDA’s higher specific surface area and SCBA’s reactive amorphous phases, which accelerate reaction kinetics. In Phase 2 (120–240 minutes), the rate of conductivity loss slowed as the readily reactive components became depleted. Interestingly, despite SDA’s lower combined pozzolanic oxide content (23.16%) and predominantly crystalline structure, it displayed higher early-age conductivity loss than SCBA. This emphasizes the key role of particle size and surface area in controlling early pozzolanic activity, consistent with observations by Walker and Pavía [27]. The reactivity observed for SDA in this study is consistent with previous reports [51, 52], although lower activity has been noted in cases of high LOI or low silica content [53, 54]. Overall, these results indicate that the SDA studied here exhibits early-age pozzolanic behavior within the range documented in the literature. 3.5 Bulk density Figure 7 and Table 3 present the bulk densities of SCBA–lime, SDA–lime, and OPC mortars after 28 days. OPC exhibited the highest density (1865.4 kg/m³), consistent with typical cement mortar ranges of 1500–1900 kg/m³ [55], reflecting its dense clinker phases and high specific gravity. In contrast, SCBA–lime and SDA–lime mortars were substantially lighter, with densities of 930.6 kg/m³ and 812.4 kg/m³, respectively. The lower densities of the pozzolana–lime mortars align with previous reports for lime-based systems [48, 56]. SDA–lime mortar recorded the lowest density, attributed to the low specific gravity, high porosity, and carbon-rich composition of sawdust ash, which increases entrapped air and overall pore volume. SCBA–lime mortar exhibited slightly higher density, likely due to better particle packing and partial pore refinement from ongoing pozzolanic reactions. Despite these differences, both lime-pozzolana mortars are considerably lighter than OPC mortars, highlighting their potential for lightweight and sustainable masonry applications. 3.6 Water absorption Water absorption reflects the volume and connectivity of open pores in hardened mortar [48]. As shown in Figure 7 and Table 3, OPC mortar exhibited the lowest absorption (7.21%), while SDA–lime mortar had the highest (18.14%), with SCBA–lime mortar displaying an intermediate value (14.14%). These trends are consistent with previous reports for lime–pozzolana systems [57]. The low absorption of OPC mortar is attributed to its dense microstructure formed by C–S–H gel during hydration, which refines the pore network and limits capillary water uptake [55]. In contrast, the higher absorption of SDA–lime mortar reflects its more open pore structure, high ash porosity, residual organic matter, and increased water demand. SCBA–lime mortar exhibits moderate absorption, consistent with gradual pore refinement observed in SCBA-based lime mortars due to ongoing pozzolanic reactions [28]. Although lime–pozzolana mortars have higher water absorption than OPC, their values remain within acceptable limits for rendering, plastering, and low-rise masonry applications according to BS EN 998-1:2016 [58]. Furthermore, the increased absorption can be beneficial by improving moisture regulation and vapor permeability in traditional masonry systems. 3.7 Compressive strength performance According to Assumptor et al. [20], IS 4098-1967 specifies a minimum compressive strength of 2 MPa for lime–pozzolana mortars. In this study, all SCBA- and SDA-based lime mortars exceeded this threshold, confirming their suitability for low-rise masonry and compliance with BS EN 998-1:2016 [58]. As illustrated in Figure 8 and Table 3, compressive strength increased with higher lime content for both SCBA and SDA mixes, with the 1:1 pozzolana–lime ratio yielding the highest values. Similar trends have been observed in RHA- and calcined clay-based lime systems [17], where sufficient lime is required to sustain pozzolanic reactions. Mixtures with higher pozzolana content experienced lower strength due to limited lime availability, leaving unreacted particles that increased porosity [59]. Across all mix ratios, SCBA–lime mortars consistently achieved higher compressive strengths than SDA–lime mortars. This is consistent with findings by Sales and Lima [28], who attributed the superior performance of SCBA systems to higher reactive silica content and greater amorphous phase availability. The lower strength of SDA mortars is linked to higher residual organic matter and reduced silica reactivity [14]. Based on BS EN 998-1:2016 [58], SCBA–lime mortars correspond to strength class CS II, while SDA–lime mortars fall within CS I. The OPC control mortar exhibited significantly higher compressive strength than all pozzolana–lime mortars, reflecting the rapid hydration of clinker phases (C₃S and C₂S) and early formation of C–S–H gel [60]. Such contrasts between OPC and lime-based mortars are widely reported and arise from fundamental differences in hydration mechanisms and reaction kinetics. 4. Conclusions This study demonstrates the potential of SCBA and SDA as supplementary materials in lime-based binders. Drawing from the findings of this research, the key conclusions can be outlined as follows: SCBA is a highly reactive pozzolan, with high amorphous silica content and combined SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃ exceeding 86%, meeting ASTM and KS EAS standards. This supports sustained pozzolanic reactions and higher strength in lime mortars. SDA, though chemically less reactive, exhibits high specific surface area and fine particle size, enabling faster early-age reactions despite lower oxide content. Hardened mortar performance: SCBA–lime mortars achieved higher compressive strength and density than SDA–lime mortars, while both meet minimum strength requirements for low-rise masonry (CS I–II). OPC mortars remain stronger, but SCBA and SDA mortars provide adequate performance for sustainable, low-strength applications. Porosity and water absorption: Both lime–pozzolana mortars are lightweight and more permeable than OPC, which can be advantageous for moisture regulation in masonry systems. Sustainability implications: Incorporating SCBA and SDA valorizes agro-industrial waste, reduces environmental impact, and offers low-cost alternatives to conventional binders. Declarations Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Clinical trial number not applicable. Ethics, consent to participate, and consent to publish not applicable. Funding: This research received no external funding. Author Contribution Odiwuor Vincent Onyango: Performed the experiments; Analyzed andinterpreted the data; Wrote the paper.E. W, M. O, P.K : Conceived anddesigned the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis toolsor data. Acknowledgement The authors sincerely thank the Ministry of Mining and the Ministry of Roads in Kenya for providing access to the laboratory facilities used in this study. Data Availability The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. References Neville AM. Properties of Concrete. Pearson Education Limited, Essex. - References - Scientific Research Publishing; 2011. Nalobile P, Wachira JM, Thiong’o JK, Marangu JM. Pyroprocessing and the optimum mix ratio of rice husks, broken bricks, and spent bleaching earth to make pozzolanic cement. Heliyon. 2019;5(9):e02443. Garcia LI, Palomo A, Fernandez JA. Alkali–aggregate Reaction in Activated Fly Ash Systems. Cem Concr Res, 37, 2, 2007. Elawa O, Abdellatif N, Galal T, Farahat E. Assessment of Ambient Air Quality Level at 21 Sites in the Cement Sector, Egypt. Egypt J Chem. 2022;0:0. Scrivener KL, John VM, Gartner EM. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cem Concr Res. 2018;114:2–26. Salem S, Hamdy Y, Abdelraouf E-S, Shazly M. Towards sustainable concrete: Cement replacement using Egyptian cornstalk ash. Case Stud Constr Mater. 2022;17:e01193. Juenger MCG, Snellings R, Bernal SA. Supplementary cementitious materials: New sources, characterization, and performance insights. Cem Concr Res. 2019;122:257–73. Cordeiro GC, Toledo Filho RD, Tavares LM, Fairbairn EMR. Pozzolanic activity and filler effect of sugar cane bagasse ash in Portland cement and lime mortars. Cem Concr Compos. 2008;30(5):410–8. Cordeiro GC, Toledo RD, Filho, Fairbairn EMR. Effect of calcination temperature on the pozzolanic activity of sugar cane bagasse ash. Constr Build Mater. 2009;23(10):3301–3. Swamy RN. Cement Replacement Materials. Surrey: Surrey University; - References - Scientific Research Publishing, 1986. Bapat JD. Mineral Admixtures in Cement and Concrete, 2013. Jagadesh P, Ramachandramurthy A, Murugesan R, Sarayu K. Micro-analytical studies on sugar cane bagasse ash. Sadhana. 2015;40(5):1629–38. Bahurudeen A, Santhanam M. Sugarcane bagasse ash- An alternative supplementary cementitious material., International Conference on Advances in civil engineering and chemistry of innovative materials , 2014. Raheem AA, Ige AI. Chemical composition and physicomechanical characteristics of sawdust ash blended cement. J Building Eng. 2019;21:404–8. Sigvardsen NM, Kirkelund GM, Jensen PE, Geiker MR, Ottosen LM. Impact of production parameters on physiochemical characteristics of wood ash for possible utilization in cement-based materials. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;145:230–40. KS EAS 18 – 1. Kenya Standard Test Method for Oxides Specification of Hydraulic Cement. Kenya: KEBS, Nairobi; 2017. John LK. Pozzolana Cement Obtained by Calcining Raw Clays/Rice Husks Mixtures. Ku ac ke, 2013. Marangu JM, Muthengia JWJW, Thiong OJK. Performance of Potential Pozzolanic Cement in Chloride Media. IOSR J Appl Chem. 2014;7(2):36–44. KS EAS 2168-1. Kenya Standard Test Method, Composition, Specification, and Conformity Criteria of Masonry Cement. Nairobi, Kenya: KEBS; 2020. Assumptor O, Masika E, Thiong' K. Probing Optimal Blends of Pozzolans to Develop Supplementary Cementing Material Within Busia County, Kenya. J Appl Phys (IOSR-JAP) e. 2020;12(2):59–69. BS 1881 – 114. Methods for determination of density of hardened concrete. British Standards Institution; 1983. BS, 1881 – 122. Method for determination of water absorption. Br Standard Institution, 2011. KS EAS 148-1, Cement-Test Methods. Part 1: Determination of Strength. Kenya Bureau of Standards. Nairobi, Kenya; 2017. Cordeiro GC, Toledo Filho RD, Tavares LM, de Fairbairn E, Hempel S. Influence of particle size and specific surface area on the pozzolanic activity of residual rice husk ash. Cem Concr Compos. 2011;33(5):529–34. Taylor HFW. Cement Chemistry. 2nd Edition, Thomas Telford Publishing, London, 361. - References - Scientific Research Publishing, 1997. Pavía S, Figueiredo RL. A study of the parameters that determine the reactivity of sugarcane bagasse ashes (SCBA) for use as a binder in construction. SN Appl Sci, 2, 9, 2020. Walker R, Pavía S. Physical properties and reactivity of pozzolans, and their influence on the properties of lime–pozzolan pastes. Mater Struct. 2010;44(6):1139–50. Sales A, Lima SA. Use of Brazilian sugarcane bagasse ash in concrete as sand replacement. Waste Manag. 2010;30(6):1114–22. Yaseen N. Exploring the potential of sugarcane bagasse ash as a sustainable supplementary cementitious material: Experimental investigation and statistical analysis. Results Chem. 2024;10:101723. Jittin V, Bahurudeen A. Evaluation of rheological and durability characteristics of sugarcane bagasse ash and rice husk ash-based binary and ternary cementitious system. Constr Build Mater. 2022;317:125965. Habeeb GA, Fayyadh M. Rice Husk Ash Concrete: The Effect of RHA Average Particle Size on Mechanical Properties and Drying Shrinkage. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2009;3(3):1616–22. Rasoul BI, Günzel FK, Rafiq MI. Effect of Rice Husk Ash Properties. on the Early Age and Long-Term Strength of Mortar; 2018. ASTM C618. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, pp 3, 1999. Kamiya K, Oka A, Hashimoto T. Comparative Study of Structure of Silica Gels from Different Sources. J Solgel Sci Technol. 2000;19(1):495–9. Ogork EN, Ayuba S. Influence of Sawdust Ash (SDA) as Admixture in Cement Paste and Concrete. IJISET—International J Innovative Sci Eng Technol, 1, 2014. Olaiya BC, Lawan MM, Olonade KA. Utilization of sawdust composites in construction—a review. SN Appl Sci, 5, 5, 2023. Asif I, Hussain MU, Khan AA, Ashar M, Shahid Z. Utilization of Sawdust Ash as an Additive of Cement in Concrete and Study of Its Mechanical Properties. Memoria Investigaciones en Ingenieria. no. 2024;26:54–69. Niyomukiza JB, Yasir Y. Effects of Using Sawdust Ash as a Stabilizer for Expansive Soils, E3S Web of Conferences , vol. 448, p. 03075, 2023. Ryssen V, Ndlovu H. Wood ash in livestock nutrition: 1. Factors affecting the mineral composition of wood ash. Appl Anim Husb Rural Dev. 2018;11(1):53–61. Jurić KK, Carević I, Serdar M, Štirmer N. Feasibility of using pozzolanicity tests to assess reactivity of wood biomass fly ashes. J Croatian Association Civil Eng. 2021;72(12):1145–53. Neville AM, Brooks JJ. Concrete technology. Harlow, England; New York: Prentice Hall; 2010. Chusilp N, Jaturapitakkul C, Kiattikomol K. Effects of LOI of ground bagasse ash on the compressive strength and sulfate resistance of mortars. Constr Build Mater. 2009;23(12):3523–31. Francioso V, Lemos-Micolta ED, Elgaali HH, Moro C, Rojas-Manzano MA, Velay-Lizancos M. Valorization of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash as an Alternative SCM: Effect of Particle Size, Temperature-Crossover Effect Mitigation & Cost Analysis. Sustainability. 2024;16(21):9370. Huang P, Huang B, Li J, Wu N, Xu Q. Application of sugarcane bagasse ash as filler in ultra-high-performance concrete. J Building Eng. 2023;71:106447. Gupta CK, Sachan AK, Kumar R. Examination of Microstructure of Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash and Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash Blended Cement Mortar. Sugar Tech. 2021;23:651. Olutoge FA, Adesina MA, Olofinnade OM. Saw Dust Ash as Partial Replacement for Cement in Concrete. Int J Eng Sci Invention. 2012;1(3):28–31. Jamaluddin K, Munirwan RP. Improvement of geotechnical properties of clayey soil with sawdust ash stabilization, E3S Web of Conferences , vol. 340, p. 01009, 2022. Meko B, Ighalo JO. Utilization of Cordia Africana wood sawdust ash as partial cement replacement in C 25 concrete. Clean Mater. 2021;1:100012. Luxán MP, Madruga F, Saavedra J. Rapid evaluation of pozzolanic activity of natural products by conductivity measurement. Cem Concr Res. 1989;19(1):63–8. Musyimi NF, Karanja J, Wachira M, Mulwa M. Pozzolanicity and Compressive Strength Performance of Kibwezi Bricks Based Cement. IOSR J Appl Chem (IOSR-JAC. 2016;9(2):28–32. Elinwa AU, Mamuda AM. Sawdust Ash as Powder Material for Self-Compacting Concrete Containing Naphthalene Sulfonate, Advances in Civil Engineering , vol. 2014, pp. 1–8, 2014. Rajamma R, Ball RJ, Tarelho LAC, Allen GC, Labrincha JA, Ferreira VM. Characterisation and use of biomass fly ash in cement-based materials. J Hazard Mater. 2009;172:2–3. Berra M, Mangialardi T, Paolini AE. Reuse of woody biomass fly ash in cement-based materials. Constr Build Mater. 2015;76:286–96. Demis S, Tapali JG, Papadakis VG. An investigation of the effectiveness of the utilization of biomass ashes as pozzolanic materials. Constr Build Mater. 2014;68:291–300. Neville AM, Brooks JJ. Concrete technology. Harlow, England; New York: Prentice Hall; 2010. Scrivener KL, John VM, Gartner EM. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cem Concr Res. 2018;114:2–26. Zúniga A, Eires R, Malheiro R. New Lime-Based Hybrid Composite of Sugarcane Bagasse and Hemp as Aggregates. Resources. 2023;12(5):55. BS EN 998-1. Specification for mortar for masonry: Rendering and plastering mortar. British Standards Institution; 2016. Massazza F. Pozzolana and Pozzolanic Cements. In Hewlett, P.C., Ed., Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 4th Edition, Elsevier, London, 471–635. – References—Scientific Research Publishing, 2019. Munyao OM. Microbial Effects on Physico-Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of Commercial Portland Cements. Ku ac ke, 2022. Tables Table 1: Specific gravity, mean particle size and BET specific surface area of the test pozzolans and OPC Material Property This study Typical literature range Key references Interpretation OPC Specific gravity 2.9 2.8 – 3.2 [55, 60] Within normal range for commercial OPC SSA (m²/g) 0.9 0.5 – 1.5 [55] Confirms dense, low-reactivity surface Mean particle size (µm) 365 300 – 500 [55] Typical fineness for OPC mortar SCBA Specific gravity 2.0 1.9 – 2.4 [26, 29] Comparable to well-calcined SCBA SSA (m²/g) 33.29 20 – 40 [26, 29, 31] Falls within reported reactive SCBA range Mean particle size (µm) 252 200 – 300 [28, 32] Suitable fineness for pozzolanic activity SDA Specific gravity 1.8 1.6 – 2.2 [35, 36] Consistent with wood-derived ashes SSA (m²/g) 83.14 40 – 90 [26, 52] High SSA explains strong early reactivity Mean particle size (µm) 207 180 – 300 [52, 54] Fine particles enhance surface-controlled reactions As presented in Table 2, the physical properties of SCBA and SDA in this study are consistent with ranges reported for agro-industrial ashes. SCBA exhibited a specific surface area (SSA) of 33.29 m²/g, comparable to well-processed sugarcane bagasse ash, indicating adequate calcination and particle fineness. SDA showed a much higher SSA (83.14 m²/g), near the upper end of reported values, which explains its higher early-age pozzolanic reactivity despite lower combined oxide content. By contrast, OPC displayed low SSA and larger particle size, reflecting its dense clinker structure and distinct hydration mechanism. Table 2: Average elemental composition and LOI of the sampled SDA, SCBA, and control OPC. Material Parameter This study (%) Typical literature range (%) Key reference Interpretation SCBA SiO₂ 85.35 60 – 90 [26, 29, 34] High reactive silica, typical of well-calcined SCBA Al₂O₃ 0.47 0.2 – 5 [26, 29] Within reported low alumina range Fe₂O₃ 0.79 0.3 – 6 [26, 43] Comparable to literature values SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃ 86.60 ≥ 70 (ASTM C618) [33] Fully meets pozzolanic requirement CaO 3.56 2 – 10 [28, 34] Low CaO, typical for SCBA Alkalis (Na₂O + K₂O) 2.32 1 – 4 [3, 26] Within acceptable limits LOI 7.33 < 10 [33] Complies with ASTM C618 SDA SiO₂ 13.22 5 – 55 [35, 36, 40] Falls within lower reported range Al₂O₃ 6.25 2 – 20 [14, 37] Comparable to reported SDA values Fe₂O₃ 3.68 1 – 15 [35, 40] Typical of wood-derived ashes SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃ 23.16 13 – 88 [40] Below ASTM pozzolan limit CaO 41.40 20 – 50 [36, 52] High CaO typical of SDA Alkalis (Na₂O + K₂O) 2.17 1 – 5 [3, 52] Within acceptable range LOI 15.33 10 – 25 [42, 54] Indicates residual carbon OPC SiO₂ 21.69 19 – 23 [55, 60] Typical Portland cement Al₂O₃ 5.10 4 – 6 [55] Within standard range Fe₂O₃ 3.54 2 – 4 [55] Typical clinker composition CaO 62.51 60 – 67 [55] Confirms high-calcium nature Alkalis (Na₂O + K₂O) 0.78 < 1.5 [3] Low-alkali cement LOI 2.33 < 5 [16, 55] Meets cement standards Table 2 shows that the oxide compositions of SCBA and SDA in this study are within the broad ranges reported for agro-industrial ashes. SCBA has a high combined content of SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃ (86.60%), exceeding ASTM C618 minimum requirements and confirming its strong pozzolanic potential. These values align with those of well-calcined SCBA and account for its superior contribution to strength development compared with SDA. In contrast, SDA exhibits a much lower combined pozzolanic oxide content (23.16%) and a high CaO fraction, consistent with wood-derived ashes reported in the literature. While SDA does not meet conventional pozzolan chemical criteria, its composition combined with a high specific surface area explains its notable early-age reactivity in lime-based systems. OPC’s oxide composition is typical of commercial Portland cement and provides a useful reference for comparison. Table 3: Mechanical Analysis Test Results Mortar system Property This study Typical literature range Key references Interpretation OPC Bulk density (kg/m³) 1865.4 1500 – 1900 [55, 60] Within expected range for cement mortars Water absorption (%) 7.21 5 – 10 [55] Confirms dense microstructure Compressive strength (MPa) 48.06 40 – 55 [60] Typical early-age OPC strength SCBA–Lime Bulk density (kg/m³) 930.6 850 – 1200 [28, 48] Comparable to reported lime–SCBA mortars Water absorption (%) 14.14 12 – 18 [28, 57] Within range for lime–pozzolana systems Compressive strength (MPa) 2.98 – 3.56 2 – 5 [17, 27] Meets lime–pozzolana strength criteria SDA–Lime Bulk density (kg/m³) 812.4 750 – 1100 [52, 56] Typical of wood-ash lime mortars Water absorption (%) 18.14 15 – 22 [48, 52] Higher absorption due to porous ash Compressive strength (MPa) 1.51 – 2.52 1 – 3 [14, 20] Consistent with low-reactivity SDA Table 3 shows that the hardened properties of the pozzolana–lime mortars in this study are consistent with values reported in the literature. SCBA–lime and SDA–lime mortars exhibit bulk densities typical of lime-based systems and considerably lower than OPC, highlighting their lightweight nature. Water absorption is higher than OPC but comparable to previously reported lime–pozzolana mortars, reflecting their more open pore structure. Compressive strengths of SCBA–lime (2.98–3.56 MPa) and SDA–lime (1.51–2.52 MPa) mortars meet the minimum requirements for lime–pozzolana binders and fall within reported ranges for similar systems. These findings indicate that, despite lower strength than OPC, both SCBA and SDA can produce functionally adequate, lightweight, and sustainable binders suitable for low-rise masonry applications. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 24 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 13 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 12 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 07 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 06 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 05 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jan, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 27 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 09 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 09 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 06 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8534952","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":581802017,"identity":"66e477fb-3d26-40f1-add9-ca529f18e6d1","order_by":0,"name":"Odiwuor Vincent Onyango","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Eldoret","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Odiwuor","middleName":"Vincent","lastName":"Onyango","suffix":""},{"id":581802018,"identity":"feb67d34-aa7f-451d-bc80-17e7ed8279ae","order_by":1,"name":"Enos W. Wambu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Eldoret","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Enos","middleName":"W.","lastName":"Wambu","suffix":""},{"id":581802019,"identity":"5b411a24-853a-4e91-a65c-c52a31f0fd22","order_by":2,"name":"Mourice O. Okoth","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Eldoret","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mourice","middleName":"O.","lastName":"Okoth","suffix":""},{"id":581802020,"identity":"4a48b800-10fa-466b-a6e9-4871d12b2e03","order_by":3,"name":"Pius K. Kipkemboi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Eldoret","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pius","middleName":"K.","lastName":"Kipkemboi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-06 21:08:28","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8534952/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8534952/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101400865,"identity":"b85c3ac5-bcb4-44a2-a183-29fe3614487d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 10:00:12","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60156,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eXRD diffractogram for SCBA calcined at 600 °C\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe figure 1 above shows the XRD results for SCBA calcined at 600 °C\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/67d8d98f59e929c1729c77b8.jpg"},{"id":101400503,"identity":"954f2970-cc21-4515-9362-42c955b14ad9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 09:59:01","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80048,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eXRD diffractogram for SDA calcined at 600 °C\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe figure 2 above shows the XRD results for SDA calcined at 600 °C\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/30152d3a0ff0e583005afe88.jpg"},{"id":101401051,"identity":"6afe4f29-f5e6-442a-a6b9-325e0fd0f9ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 10:00:46","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58241,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePozzolanic Activity of SDA \u0026amp; SCBA Samples Calcined for 1 h at 600 °C\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3 above shows the electrical conductivity loss of both SCBA and SDA calcined at\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eat 600 °C for 1 h\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/302e29379bc1c71238abeda6.jpg"},{"id":101401046,"identity":"30a99a95-62de-4a9a-96a3-4aa4d61a3274","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 10:00:44","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55639,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePozzolanic Activity of SDA \u0026amp; SCBA Samples Calcined for 2 h at 600 °C\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 4 above shows the electrical conductivity loss of both SCBA and SDA calcined at\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eat 600 °C for 2 h\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/b42ad4a03ec4af4099d834ec.jpg"},{"id":101401045,"identity":"95f5a747-bacc-494d-a6aa-9479d03ac52e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 10:00:44","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64312,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePozzolanic Activity of SDA \u0026amp; SCBA Samples Calcined for 1 hour at 700 °C\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 5 above shows the electrical conductivity loss of both SCBA and SDA calcined at\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eat 700 °C for 1 h\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/9b7f722a0c7e56be381fb975.jpg"},{"id":101400431,"identity":"5a37d568-c21a-4104-9435-9f03d7b81a63","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 09:58:45","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43381,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBulk Densities for various pozzolana-lime mortars and control OPC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 6 shows graphical results of bulk densities of cured SCBA-lime mortar, SDA-lime mortar and control OPC.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/3fbf0d487bc2a5eae8305256.jpg"},{"id":101400415,"identity":"78b760ad-f7f4-42ae-b8db-2e8b8179d0a3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 09:58:42","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43692,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWater absorption rate for different pozzolana-lime mortar formulations and control OPC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 7 shows graphical results of water absorption rate of cured SCBA-lime mortar, SDA-lime mortar and control OPC.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/a4be6354b288ad37e3c756c4.jpg"},{"id":101400323,"identity":"4f19f2e5-6276-4f94-b4a4-2cc2a49749b0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 09:58:31","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61590,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCompressive Strength of Pozzolana–Lime Mortars\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 8 displays the results for compressive strength of cured pozzolana-lime mortars\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/965a899be6ea649009bd9b39.jpg"},{"id":101401781,"identity":"b000ab32-fdb1-4a0e-a632-65fd26d5c59f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 10:03:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1430224,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8534952/v1/7a15d5cf-833c-4331-858e-24944cca9e7b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Comparative Assessment of Sugarcane Bagasse and Sawdust Ashes as Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Lime-Based Binders ","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eGlobal cement demand continues to grow due to rapid urbanization and infrastructure expansion, especially in developing regions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) dominates construction but is highly energy-intensive and environmentally taxing. Its production involves calcining calcareous and argillaceous materials at temperatures above 1300\u0026deg;C, resulting in high fuel use and significant CO₂ emissions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. The cement industry contributes approximately 5\u0026ndash;8% of global anthropogenic CO₂, primarily from limestone decomposition and fossil fuel combustion during clinker production, in addition to air pollution and depletion of nonrenewable resources [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMitigating the environmental impact of cementitious materials has therefore become a research priority. One effective approach is partially or fully replacing OPC with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Conventional SCMs such as fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag, silica fume, and rice husk ash enhance durability and sustainability while reducing clinker content [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. However, their future availability may decline, and increased transboundary trade raises concerns over cost, supply security, and embodied emissions. These challenges have renewed interest in locally sourced natural pozzolans and agricultural waste ashes. Pozzolans are siliceous or aluminosiliceous materials that react with calcium hydroxide to form cementitious compounds. When combined with lime, they produce lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana binders with lower embodied energy and carbon emissions than OPC [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Although these systems develop strength more slowly, they are suitable for masonry, rendering, and low-rise construction where cost and sustainability are key considerations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong agricultural waste ashes, sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA) and sawdust ash (SDA) have gained attention [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. SCBA, a by-product of sugar production, can be converted through controlled calcination into reactive amorphous silica [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. SDA, derived from sawdust combustion during timber processing, exhibits variable pozzolanic activity depending on biomass type, combustion, and residual carbon content [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite research on individual use of the ashes in lime-based mortars, comparative studies of SCBA and SDA under the same experimental conditions remain scarce. The influence of chemical composition, mineralogy, and physical properties on pozzolanic reactivity and mortar strength in lime-based systems is not fully understood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study presents a detailed comparison between SCBA\u0026ndash;lime and SDA\u0026ndash;lime binders, focusing on how their early-age pozzolanic activity\u0026mdash;measured through electrical conductivity\u0026mdash;relates to the ashes\u0026rsquo; chemical composition, mineral phases, and the performance of the hardened mortars. Unlike most prior research, which tends to evaluate agricultural waste pozzolans mainly by compressive strength, this work highlights how variations in silica content, the amount of amorphous material, and residual carbon affect lime consumption and the development of strength in lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana systems. By comparing these binders to traditional OPC mortars, the study provides deeper insight into the structure\u0026ndash;property relationships of low-carbon lime-based binders and offers practical guidance for selecting locally available agricultural ashes for sustainable masonry, particularly in regions with limited resources.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Materials and Equipment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSugarcane bagasse for this study was obtained from Butali Sugar Company Limited (Kakamega, Kenya). Sawdust was randomly collected from two commercial sawmills on the outskirts of Eldoret City, Kenya. To prevent sand contamination, samples were carefully collected by putting fresh sawdust ash into the bags. Commercial Ordinary Portland Cement 42.5 conforming to KS EAS 18:1-2017 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] was supplied by Simba Cement Company Limited (Nakuru, Kenya) for control purposes. Standard river sand was used as fine aggregate for mortar preparation. Deionized water was used throughout the study. Hydrated commercial lime (Ca(OH)₂) conforming to KS EAS 18:1-2017 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] was supplied by Laboklin Chimique Company Limited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSCB samples were ground using an HFM 100 grinder (Beijing Grinder Instrument Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Ash was produced by incinerating SCB in a muffle furnace (Advantec KL-420, Tokyo, Japan). Particle size distribution of the pozzolans was determined using a sieve analyzer with different sieve sizes following KS 02 1263 methods. Specific surface area (SSA) was obtained using a Brunauer\u0026ndash;Emmett\u0026ndash;Teller (BET) nitrogen adsorption analyzer (Gemini 2375 V.). Elemental composition for both the pozzolans and control OPC was determined with an XRF spectrometer (Epsilon 3XLE, Malvern Panalytical, Almelo, Netherlands). The mineralogical and amorphous characteristics of the pozzolans were examined using X-ray diffraction (Bruker AXS GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany). Fresh mortar specimens were compacted using a laboratory vibrating table (SUN-CT-011, LabTek, Delhi, India). The compressive strength of the cured specimens was determined using a universal testing machine for compression (SSC-546, Instron, Norwood, USA) in accordance with standard testing procedures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 Sample preparation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SCB samples were rinsed to remove sand and enhance reactivity. They were oven-dried at 110\u0026deg;C for 24 h. Ash was produced by incinerating at 600\u0026deg;C for two hours, followed by separate repeated heating at 600\u0026deg;C and 700\u0026deg;C for one hour each. The resulting SCBA was cooled, ground to 90 \u0026micro;m, and preserved in airtight conditions for testing. Collected SD was sun-dried for ten days, ashed, and preserved for testing. Meanwhile, sand samples were washed with deionized water, sun-dried for two days, and sieved to obtain a 5 mm-mesh sample for the subsequent tests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Physical, Chemical, and Mineralogical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe particle size distribution of the pozzolans was determined using a sieve analyzer with different sieve sizes. This process was used to grade the materials and verify compliance with required specifications. The specific surface area (SSA), elemental composition, and mineralogical analyses of the test pozzolans were conducted alongside those of control OPC samples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3 Loss on Ignition (LOI)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne gram of obtained raw pozzolans was oven-dried at 110\u0026deg;C for 1 h, then heated at 1000\u0026deg;C for 1 h, cooled in a desiccator, and reweighed. Percentage loss on ignition (LoI) was calculated according to the procedure described elsewhere in the literature [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.4 Evaluation of Pozzolanic Activity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvaluation of the pozzolanic activity test was carried out using a modified procedure of Marangu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. A saturated calcium hydroxide solution was prepared by adding 0.8 g of Ca(OH)₂ to 200 mL of distilled water in a 250 mL beaker, maintained at 38\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026deg;C on a hot magnetic plate with continuous stirring. The solution\u0026rsquo;s electrical conductivity was measured using a conductivity meter. After the lime-water system stabilized, 5 g of ground pozzolana was added and stirred for two minutes. Conductivity measurements were taken every 30 min for four hours. A pozzolana\u0026ndash;water system without lime was also tested, and its contribution was subtracted from the lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana readings to obtain corrected conductivity values. The procedure was repeated for different temperatures and calcination times.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.5 Molding and curing the test mortar prisms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMortar prisms were prepared in compliance with the Kenyan standard, KS EAS 2168-1:2020 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Three mortar prisms measuring 160 mm by 40 mm by 40 mm for each test sample were made simultaneously. This was accomplished by using a trowel to mix 1350 g of graded sand and 450 g of pozzolana lime mixture (3:1) on a non-porous plate for one minute (pozzolans calcined at 600\u0026deg;C for 1 hour were used). The requisite amount of water was added to the mix in a stainless-steel bowl to obtain a workable paste. To create a cement mortar with a uniform consistency, mixing was then carried out for an additional four minutes using a trowel. The slurry was placed into a grease-lubricated three-prong mold of dimensions 40 mm by 40 mm by 160 mm. A suitable clamp was used to secure the assembled mold in place once it had been placed on the vibrating machine. A suitable hopper was used to fill the prepared cement mortar. The mortar was compacted by vibrating it with a jolting device for two minutes. A curing environment with a relative humidity of greater than 90% was used to store the prisms. In the curing room, the prisms were covered with a flat, impermeable layer of polythene paper. After a 24-hour period, the prisms were demolded, labeled for identification, and allowed to cure in the air for 28 days at 23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2\u0026deg;C and 65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5% relative humidity. This is because lime cement does not solidify in water, and it takes a long time to cure; therefore, the 3- and 7-day strengths could not be estimated [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. The process above was repeated with 450 g of pozzolana-lime mixes in ratios of 2:1 and 1:1. For reference purposes, OPC mortar prisms were also made; however, this time the OPC was mixed with sand alone, and they were cured in water for 28 days. A total of 36 pozzolana-lime mortars and 9 OPC mortars were prepared.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2. 2. 6 Bulk density\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bulk densities of the mortar prisms were determined according to the requirements of BS 1881\u0026ndash;1983 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. After 28 days of curing, the samples were dried at 60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2\u0026deg;C until their mass remained constant. The mass (m\u003csub\u003e₀\u003c/sub\u003e, kg) of the specimen was determined after it had cooled down to room temperature (25\u0026deg;C). The dimensions of the mortar prisms were measured, and bulk volume was calculated using the geometry approach (multiplying the length, breadth, and height of the specimens). The final concrete dry density was calculated as a mass-to-volume ratio.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e2.2.7 Water Absorption\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe testing procedure for water absorption capacity followed the guidelines of BS 1881\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;122:2011 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Before immersion, the 28-day cured mortar samples were placed in a ventilated oven at a temperature of 60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5\u0026deg;C and dried until they reached a constant weight. After drying, they were allowed to cool in a desiccator, and the dry mass of each sample was recorded as \u003cem\u003em₁\u003c/em\u003e. The samples were then immersed in a sealed container filled with water for 48 h During immersion, the specimens were inclined at an angle of about 45\u0026deg; to help release any trapped air bubbles. Once submerged, they were positioned vertically, marking the start of the test. After the 48-hour immersion period, the samples were removed, gently wiped with a damp cloth, and their saturated mass was measured and recorded as \u003cem\u003em₂\u003c/em\u003e. The result of this test is the percentage of water absorbed by the samples, which is determined using Eq.\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e \u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:\\:W=\\frac{m2-m1\\:}{m1}\\:\\)\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/span\u003ex 100 (1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Heading\"\u003e2.2.8 Compressive Strength Determination\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of compressive strength of all the mortar prisms was conducted in compliance with the requirements of KS EAS 148-1: 2017 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. The mortar prism was oriented lengthwise in the compressive machine so that its end face overhangs the platens or auxiliary plates by around 10 mm and is centered to the platens of the compressive equipment within \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5 mm. Over the course of the load application, the load was gradually increased at a rate of 2400\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;200 N/s till fracture. For each test regimen, results were obtained in triplicate. The value of compressive strength was determined and reported in MPa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7 Data Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll tests were conducted in triplicate, and the mean and standard deviation values were obtained from triplicate measurements in Microsoft Excel. The t-test function was applied to evaluate\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003esignificant differences between the mean values of cement pastes incorporating the selected pozzolans. In addition, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine the overall statistical significance of the results. The results were presented pictorially in statistical distribution tables and line and bar graphs as appropriate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e3.1 Physical characterization of the materials\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results for specific gravity, mean particle size distribution (PSD), and BET specific surface area (SSA) values for SCBA, SDA, and OPC are presented in Table 1. Table 1 indicates that OPC exhibits the lowest BET specific surface area (SSA), reflecting its dense particle structure and compact clinker phases. In contrast, the agro-industrial ashes show markedly higher SSA due to their porous texture and significant amorphous content, factors known to enhance pozzolanic reactivity [24,25]. This trend aligns with previous studies, which report that higher SSA in agricultural ashes accelerates lime–pozzolana reaction kinetics compared with OPC systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the ashes, SDA possesses a higher SSA than SCBA, attributable to its irregular particle morphology, porous internal structure, and residual unburnt organic matter, all of which increase the reactive surface area [26]. Similar observations by Pavía and Figueiredo [26] indicate that wood-derived ashes generally exhibit greater SSA than sugarcane bagasse ash, owing to their fibrous origin and combustion characteristics. Higher SSA facilitates early pozzolanic reactions by enhancing dissolution rates and improving contact with calcium hydroxide, promoting faster formation of secondary cementitious phases. Accordingly, the lower SSA of SCBA may limit its early-age reaction relative to SDA. However, pozzolanic performance also depends on chemical composition and silica reactivity [27]. Despite its lower SSA, SCBA demonstrates strong long-term pozzolanic potential due to its high amorphous silica content.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eXRD and chemical analyses confirm that SCBA contains a substantial proportion of amorphous silica, supporting sustained pozzolanic activity and improved long-term strength development. These results are consistent with findings by Yaseen [29] and Pavía and Figueiredo [26]. Variations in SSA reported by Jittin and Bahurudeen [30] further underscore the influence of calcination, grinding, and processing on ash fineness and reactivity. Similar correlations between particle fineness, SSA, and pozzolanic activity have been reported by Habeeb and Fayyadh [31] and Rasoul et al. [32], highlighting SSA as a key parameter controlling react\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\u003cp\u003e3.2 Chemical analysis results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 summarizes the average oxide composition and loss on ignition (LOI) of SDA, SCBA, and OPC, expressed as mass percentages. The pozzolanic potential of a material is largely determined by the combined content of SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃, which react with calcium hydroxide to form cementitious hydration products. SCBA exhibited a high combined oxide content of 86.60%, meeting the requirements of KS EAS 18-1:2017 [16] and ASTM C618 [33]. This value is comparable to, or exceeds, those reported for well-processed SCBA in the literature, confirming its effectiveness as a pozzolanic material.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, SDA showed a much lower combined oxide content of 23.16%, below the thresholds specified for conventional pozzolans. Literature reports for SDA’s combined oxide contents are highly variable, ranging from 13.03% to 88.32% [14, 35–40], reflecting differences in biomass source, species, growth conditions, and combustion methods. The SDA used in this study lies toward the lower end of this spectrum. High MgO content can cause volumetric instability and microcracking [41]; however, MgO levels in SCBA, SDA, and OPC were all below 5%, reducing this risk. Total alkalis (Na₂O + K₂O) were below 1.5% for all materials, consistent with acceptable limits and minimizing the potential for alkali-related cracking [3]. OPC’s alkali content of 0.6% is within typical commercial ranges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eSCBA’s LOI complied with ASTM C618 [33], indicating minimal residual carbon and satisfactory workability. Similar LOI values have been reported for properly calcined SCBA. SDA, however, had a high LOI of 15.33%, likely due to unburnt carbon and residual organics, consistent with other studies of incompletely combusted biomass [42]. Elevated LOI can negatively affect workability and pozzolanic reactivity. OPC’s LOI was below 5%, in line with KS EAS 18-1:2017 [16] and typical commercial cement values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.3 Mineralogical analysis results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough sugarcane bagasse and sawdust are plant-derived, calcination removes their organic matter, yielding predominantly inorganic ashes. The mineralogical composition of these ashes strongly affects their pozzolanic reactivity in lime-based binders; therefore, X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis was performed to identify the crystalline and amorphous phases in SCBA and SDA (Figures 1 and 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eThe XRD pattern of SCBA (Fig. 1) indicates a mixture of crystalline and amorphous phases. Minor diffraction peaks correspond to quartz (SiO₂), orthoclase (KAlSi₃O₈), and chibaite (Na₀.₀₁₅Al₀.₀₂₄Si₁.₉₇₈O₄), while a broad hump between approximately 15° and 35° 2θ reflects a substantial proportion of amorphous silica. This amorphous component is recognized as the most reactive form of silica in pozzolanic systems [42]. Similar XRD features have been reported for SCBA calcined under controlled conditions [8, 43], confirming that the mineralogical composition observed here aligns with reactive SCBA reported in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eBy contrast, the SDA pattern (Fig. 2) exhibits a predominantly crystalline structure, with sharp peaks attributed to calcite (CaCO₃) and additional phases including diaspore, rosenhahnite, ferrosilite, tilleyite, quartz, and potassium calcium carbonate. This crystalline-dominated mineralogy is consistent with SDA produced under uncontrolled or high-temperature combustion [46, 47]. The relatively low amorphous content helps explain SDA’s lower pozzolanic oxide content compared with SCBA. Nevertheless, the presence of silicate and aluminate phases suggests that SDA can still participate in limited pozzolanic reactions, particularly at early ages or when finely ground, as noted in previous studies [48].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.4 Pozzolanic activity test results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePozzolanic reactivity was evaluated by monitoring the reduction in electrical conductivity of saturated calcium hydroxide solutions upon the addition of SCBA and SDA calcined under controlled conditions. Conductivity loss over time is presented in Figures 3–5. Both SCBA and SDA induced a measurable decrease in electrical conductivity, confirming pozzolanic reactions that consume Ca²⁺ and OH⁻ ions through the interaction of reactive SiO₂ and Al₂O₃ with Ca(OH)₂ to form cementitious hydration products [25,49] (Equations 2 and 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2SiO₂ + 3Ca(OH) ₂ + 5H₂O → 3CaO·2SiO₂·8H₂O (2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAl₂O₃ + 4Ca(OH)₂ + 9H₂O → 4CaO·Al₂O₃·13H₂O (3)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the initial 30 minutes (Phase 1), all pozzolans exhibited a pronounced conductivity drop, with SDA showing a greater early reduction than SCBA. This behavior aligns with previous studies of fine, high-surface-area pozzolans [27, 50] and is attributed to SDA’s higher specific surface area and SCBA’s reactive amorphous phases, which accelerate reaction kinetics. In Phase 2 (120–240 minutes), the rate of conductivity loss slowed as the readily reactive components became depleted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, despite SDA’s lower combined pozzolanic oxide content (23.16%) and predominantly crystalline structure, it displayed higher early-age conductivity loss than SCBA. This emphasizes the key role of particle size and surface area in controlling early pozzolanic activity, consistent with observations by Walker and Pavía [27]. The reactivity observed for SDA in this study is consistent with previous reports [51, 52], although lower activity has been noted in cases of high LOI or low silica content [53, 54]. Overall, these results indicate that the SDA studied here exhibits early-age pozzolanic behavior within the range documented in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.5 Bulk density\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 7 and Table 3 present the bulk densities of SCBA–lime, SDA–lime, and OPC mortars after 28 days. OPC exhibited the highest density (1865.4 kg/m³), consistent with typical cement mortar ranges of 1500–1900 kg/m³ [55], reflecting its dense clinker phases and high specific gravity. In contrast, SCBA–lime and SDA–lime mortars were substantially lighter, with densities of 930.6 kg/m³ and 812.4 kg/m³, respectively. The lower densities of the pozzolana–lime mortars align with previous reports for lime-based systems [48, 56]. SDA–lime mortar recorded the lowest density, attributed to the low specific gravity, high porosity, and carbon-rich composition of sawdust ash, which increases entrapped air and overall pore volume. SCBA–lime mortar exhibited slightly higher density, likely due to better particle packing and partial pore refinement from ongoing pozzolanic reactions. Despite these differences, both lime-pozzolana mortars are considerably lighter than OPC mortars, highlighting their potential for lightweight and sustainable masonry applications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e3.6 Water absorption\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWater absorption reflects the volume and connectivity of open pores in hardened mortar [48]. As shown in Figure 7 and Table 3, OPC mortar exhibited the lowest absorption (7.21%), while SDA–lime mortar had the highest (18.14%), with SCBA–lime mortar displaying an intermediate value (14.14%). These trends are consistent with previous reports for lime–pozzolana systems [57]. The low absorption of OPC mortar is attributed to its dense microstructure formed by C–S–H gel during hydration, which refines the pore network and limits capillary water uptake [55]. In contrast, the higher absorption of SDA–lime mortar reflects its more open pore structure, high ash porosity, residual organic matter, and increased water demand. SCBA–lime mortar exhibits moderate absorption, consistent with gradual pore refinement observed in SCBA-based lime mortars due to ongoing pozzolanic reactions [28]. Although lime–pozzolana mortars have higher water absorption than OPC, their values remain within acceptable limits for rendering, plastering, and low-rise masonry applications according to BS EN 998-1:2016 [58]. Furthermore, the increased absorption can be beneficial by improving moisture regulation and vapor permeability in traditional masonry systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.7 Compressive strength performance\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Assumptor \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e [20], IS 4098-1967 specifies a minimum compressive strength of 2 MPa for lime–pozzolana mortars. In this study, all SCBA- and SDA-based lime mortars exceeded this threshold, confirming their suitability for low-rise masonry and compliance with BS EN 998-1:2016 [58]. As illustrated in Figure 8 and Table 3, compressive strength increased with higher lime content for both SCBA and SDA mixes, with the 1:1 pozzolana–lime ratio yielding the highest values. Similar trends have been observed in RHA- and calcined clay-based lime systems [17], where sufficient lime is required to sustain pozzolanic reactions. Mixtures with higher pozzolana content experienced lower strength due to limited lime availability, leaving unreacted particles that increased porosity [59].\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eAcross all mix ratios, SCBA–lime mortars consistently achieved higher compressive strengths than SDA–lime mortars. This is consistent with findings by Sales and Lima [28], who attributed the superior performance of SCBA systems to higher reactive silica content and greater amorphous phase availability. The lower strength of SDA mortars is linked to higher residual organic matter and reduced silica reactivity [14]. Based on BS EN 998-1:2016 [58], SCBA–lime mortars correspond to strength class CS II, while SDA–lime mortars fall within CS I.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe OPC control mortar exhibited significantly higher compressive strength than all pozzolana–lime mortars, reflecting the rapid hydration of clinker phases (C₃S and C₂S) and early formation of C–S–H gel [60]. Such contrasts between OPC and lime-based mortars are widely reported and arise from fundamental differences in hydration mechanisms and reaction kinetics.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates the potential of SCBA and SDA as supplementary materials in lime-based binders. Drawing from the findings of this research, the key conclusions can be outlined as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSCBA is a highly reactive pozzolan, with high amorphous silica content and combined SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃ exceeding 86%, meeting ASTM and KS EAS standards. This supports sustained pozzolanic reactions and higher strength in lime mortars.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSDA, though chemically less reactive, exhibits high specific surface area and fine particle size, enabling faster early-age reactions despite lower oxide content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHardened mortar performance: SCBA\u0026ndash;lime mortars achieved higher compressive strength and density than SDA\u0026ndash;lime mortars, while both meet minimum strength requirements for low-rise masonry (CS I\u0026ndash;II). OPC mortars remain stronger, but SCBA and SDA mortars provide adequate performance for sustainable, low-strength applications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePorosity and water absorption: Both lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana mortars are lightweight and more permeable than OPC, which can be advantageous for moisture regulation in masonry systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability implications: Incorporating SCBA and SDA valorizes agro-industrial waste, reduces environmental impact, and offers low-cost alternatives to conventional binders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConflict of interest:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics, consent to participate, and consent to publish\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003enot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOdiwuor Vincent Onyango: Performed the experiments; Analyzed andinterpreted the data; Wrote the paper.E. W, M. O, P.K : Conceived anddesigned the experiments; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis toolsor data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors sincerely thank the Ministry of Mining and the Ministry of Roads in Kenya for providing access to the laboratory facilities used in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeville AM. Properties of Concrete. Pearson Education Limited, Essex. - References - Scientific Research Publishing; 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNalobile P, Wachira JM, Thiong\u0026rsquo;o JK, Marangu JM. Pyroprocessing and the optimum mix ratio of rice husks, broken bricks, and spent bleaching earth to make pozzolanic cement. Heliyon. 2019;5(9):e02443.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarcia LI, Palomo A, Fernandez JA. Alkali\u0026ndash;aggregate Reaction in Activated Fly Ash Systems. Cem Concr Res, 37, 2, 2007.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElawa O, Abdellatif N, Galal T, Farahat E. Assessment of Ambient Air Quality Level at 21 Sites in the Cement Sector, Egypt. Egypt J Chem. 2022;0:0.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScrivener KL, John VM, Gartner EM. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cem Concr Res. 2018;114:2\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalem S, Hamdy Y, Abdelraouf E-S, Shazly M. Towards sustainable concrete: Cement replacement using Egyptian cornstalk ash. Case Stud Constr Mater. 2022;17:e01193.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJuenger MCG, Snellings R, Bernal SA. Supplementary cementitious materials: New sources, characterization, and performance insights. Cem Concr Res. 2019;122:257\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCordeiro GC, Toledo Filho RD, Tavares LM, Fairbairn EMR. Pozzolanic activity and filler effect of sugar cane bagasse ash in Portland cement and lime mortars. Cem Concr Compos. 2008;30(5):410\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCordeiro GC, Toledo RD, Filho, Fairbairn EMR. Effect of calcination temperature on the pozzolanic activity of sugar cane bagasse ash. Constr Build Mater. 2009;23(10):3301\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSwamy RN. Cement Replacement Materials. Surrey: Surrey University; - References - Scientific Research Publishing, 1986.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBapat JD. Mineral Admixtures in Cement and Concrete, 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJagadesh P, Ramachandramurthy A, Murugesan R, Sarayu K. Micro-analytical studies on sugar cane bagasse ash. Sadhana. 2015;40(5):1629\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBahurudeen A, Santhanam M. Sugarcane bagasse ash- An alternative supplementary cementitious material., \u003cem\u003eInternational Conference on Advances in civil engineering and chemistry of innovative materials\u003c/em\u003e, 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaheem AA, Ige AI. Chemical composition and physicomechanical characteristics of sawdust ash blended cement. J Building Eng. 2019;21:404\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSigvardsen NM, Kirkelund GM, Jensen PE, Geiker MR, Ottosen LM. Impact of production parameters on physiochemical characteristics of wood ash for possible utilization in cement-based materials. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;145:230\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKS EAS 18\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;1. Kenya Standard Test Method for Oxides Specification of Hydraulic Cement. Kenya: KEBS, Nairobi; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohn LK. Pozzolana Cement Obtained by Calcining Raw Clays/Rice Husks Mixtures. Ku ac ke, 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarangu JM, Muthengia JWJW, Thiong OJK. Performance of Potential Pozzolanic Cement in Chloride Media. IOSR J Appl Chem. 2014;7(2):36\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKS EAS 2168-1. Kenya Standard Test Method, Composition, Specification, and Conformity Criteria of Masonry Cement. Nairobi, Kenya: KEBS; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAssumptor O, Masika E, Thiong' K. Probing Optimal Blends of Pozzolans to Develop Supplementary Cementing Material Within Busia County, Kenya. J Appl Phys (IOSR-JAP) e. 2020;12(2):59\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBS 1881\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;114. Methods for determination of density of hardened concrete. British Standards Institution; 1983.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBS, 1881\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;122. Method for determination of water absorption. Br Standard Institution, 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKS EAS 148-1, Cement-Test Methods. Part 1: Determination of Strength. Kenya Bureau of Standards. Nairobi, Kenya; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCordeiro GC, Toledo Filho RD, Tavares LM, de Fairbairn E, Hempel S. Influence of particle size and specific surface area on the pozzolanic activity of residual rice husk ash. Cem Concr Compos. 2011;33(5):529\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor HFW. Cement Chemistry. 2nd Edition, Thomas Telford Publishing, London, 361. - References - Scientific Research Publishing, 1997.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePav\u0026iacute;a S, Figueiredo RL. A study of the parameters that determine the reactivity of sugarcane bagasse ashes (SCBA) for use as a binder in construction. SN Appl Sci, 2, 9, 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalker R, Pav\u0026iacute;a S. Physical properties and reactivity of pozzolans, and their influence on the properties of lime\u0026ndash;pozzolan pastes. Mater Struct. 2010;44(6):1139\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSales A, Lima SA. Use of Brazilian sugarcane bagasse ash in concrete as sand replacement. Waste Manag. 2010;30(6):1114\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYaseen N. Exploring the potential of sugarcane bagasse ash as a sustainable supplementary cementitious material: Experimental investigation and statistical analysis. Results Chem. 2024;10:101723.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJittin V, Bahurudeen A. Evaluation of rheological and durability characteristics of sugarcane bagasse ash and rice husk ash-based binary and ternary cementitious system. Constr Build Mater. 2022;317:125965.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHabeeb GA, Fayyadh M. Rice Husk Ash Concrete: The Effect of RHA Average Particle Size on Mechanical Properties and Drying Shrinkage. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2009;3(3):1616\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRasoul BI, G\u0026uuml;nzel FK, Rafiq MI. Effect of Rice Husk Ash Properties. on the Early Age and Long-Term Strength of Mortar; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eASTM C618. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, pp 3, 1999.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKamiya K, Oka A, Hashimoto T. Comparative Study of Structure of Silica Gels from Different Sources. J Solgel Sci Technol. 2000;19(1):495\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgork EN, Ayuba S. Influence of Sawdust Ash (SDA) as Admixture in Cement Paste and Concrete. IJISET\u0026mdash;International J Innovative Sci Eng Technol, 1, 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlaiya BC, Lawan MM, Olonade KA. Utilization of sawdust composites in construction\u0026mdash;a review. SN Appl Sci, 5, 5, 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsif I, Hussain MU, Khan AA, Ashar M, Shahid Z. Utilization of Sawdust Ash as an Additive of Cement in Concrete and Study of Its Mechanical Properties. Memoria Investigaciones en Ingenieria. no. 2024;26:54\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNiyomukiza JB, Yasir Y. Effects of Using Sawdust Ash as a Stabilizer for Expansive Soils, \u003cem\u003eE3S Web of Conferences\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 448, p. 03075, 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyssen V, Ndlovu H. Wood ash in livestock nutrition: 1. Factors affecting the mineral composition of wood ash. Appl Anim Husb Rural Dev. 2018;11(1):53\u0026ndash;61.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJurić KK, Carević I, Serdar M, Štirmer N. Feasibility of using pozzolanicity tests to assess reactivity of wood biomass fly ashes. J Croatian Association Civil Eng. 2021;72(12):1145\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeville AM, Brooks JJ. Concrete technology. Harlow, England; New York: Prentice Hall; 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChusilp N, Jaturapitakkul C, Kiattikomol K. Effects of LOI of ground bagasse ash on the compressive strength and sulfate resistance of mortars. Constr Build Mater. 2009;23(12):3523\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrancioso V, Lemos-Micolta ED, Elgaali HH, Moro C, Rojas-Manzano MA, Velay-Lizancos M. Valorization of Sugarcane Bagasse Ash as an Alternative SCM: Effect of Particle Size, Temperature-Crossover Effect Mitigation \u0026amp; Cost Analysis. Sustainability. 2024;16(21):9370.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang P, Huang B, Li J, Wu N, Xu Q. Application of sugarcane bagasse ash as filler in ultra-high-performance concrete. J Building Eng. 2023;71:106447.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGupta CK, Sachan AK, Kumar R. Examination of Microstructure of Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash and Sugar Cane Bagasse Ash Blended Cement Mortar. Sugar Tech. 2021;23:651.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlutoge FA, Adesina MA, Olofinnade OM. Saw Dust Ash as Partial Replacement for Cement in Concrete. Int J Eng Sci Invention. 2012;1(3):28\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJamaluddin K, Munirwan RP. Improvement of geotechnical properties of clayey soil with sawdust ash stabilization, \u003cem\u003eE3S Web of Conferences\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 340, p. 01009, 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeko B, Ighalo JO. Utilization of Cordia Africana wood sawdust ash as partial cement replacement in C 25 concrete. Clean Mater. 2021;1:100012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLux\u0026aacute;n MP, Madruga F, Saavedra J. Rapid evaluation of pozzolanic activity of natural products by conductivity measurement. Cem Concr Res. 1989;19(1):63\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMusyimi NF, Karanja J, Wachira M, Mulwa M. Pozzolanicity and Compressive Strength Performance of Kibwezi Bricks Based Cement. IOSR J Appl Chem (IOSR-JAC. 2016;9(2):28\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElinwa AU, Mamuda AM. Sawdust Ash as Powder Material for Self-Compacting Concrete Containing Naphthalene Sulfonate, \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Civil Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 2014, pp. 1\u0026ndash;8, 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRajamma R, Ball RJ, Tarelho LAC, Allen GC, Labrincha JA, Ferreira VM. Characterisation and use of biomass fly ash in cement-based materials. J Hazard Mater. 2009;172:2\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerra M, Mangialardi T, Paolini AE. Reuse of woody biomass fly ash in cement-based materials. Constr Build Mater. 2015;76:286\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemis S, Tapali JG, Papadakis VG. An investigation of the effectiveness of the utilization of biomass ashes as pozzolanic materials. Constr Build Mater. 2014;68:291\u0026ndash;300.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeville AM, Brooks JJ. Concrete technology. Harlow, England; New York: Prentice Hall; 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScrivener KL, John VM, Gartner EM. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO₂ cement-based materials industry. Cem Concr Res. 2018;114:2\u0026ndash;26.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZ\u0026uacute;niga A, Eires R, Malheiro R. New Lime-Based Hybrid Composite of Sugarcane Bagasse and Hemp as Aggregates. Resources. 2023;12(5):55.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBS EN 998-1. Specification for mortar for masonry: Rendering and plastering mortar. British Standards Institution; 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMassazza F. Pozzolana and Pozzolanic Cements. In Hewlett, P.C., Ed., Lea\u0026rsquo;s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 4th Edition, Elsevier, London, 471\u0026ndash;635. \u0026ndash; References\u0026mdash;Scientific Research Publishing, 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMunyao OM. Microbial Effects on Physico-Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of Commercial Portland Cements. Ku ac ke, 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1:\u003c/strong\u003e Specific gravity, mean particle size and BET specific surface area of the test pozzolans and OPC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"869\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaterial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Property\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThis study\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypical literature range\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey references\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterpretation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOPC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecific gravity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8 \u0026ndash; 3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55, 60]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin normal range for commercial OPC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSA (m\u0026sup2;/g)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5 \u0026ndash; 1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConfirms dense, low-reactivity surface\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean particle size (\u0026micro;m)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e365\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e300 \u0026ndash; 500\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypical fineness for OPC mortar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSCBA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecific gravity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.9 \u0026ndash; 2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[26, 29]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparable to well-calcined SCBA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSA (m\u0026sup2;/g)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20 \u0026ndash; 40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[26, 29, 31]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFalls within reported reactive SCBA range\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean particle size (\u0026micro;m)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e252\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200 \u0026ndash; 300\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[28, 32]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSuitable fineness for pozzolanic activity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSDA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecific gravity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.6 \u0026ndash; 2.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[35, 36]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsistent with wood-derived ashes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSSA (m\u0026sup2;/g)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40 \u0026ndash; 90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[26, 52]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh SSA explains strong early reactivity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean particle size (\u0026micro;m)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e207\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e180 \u0026ndash; 300\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[52, 54]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFine particles enhance surface-controlled reactions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs presented in Table 2, the physical properties of SCBA and SDA in this study are consistent with ranges reported for agro-industrial ashes. SCBA exhibited a specific surface area (SSA) of 33.29 m\u0026sup2;/g, comparable to well-processed sugarcane bagasse ash, indicating adequate calcination and particle fineness. SDA showed a much higher SSA (83.14 m\u0026sup2;/g), near the upper end of reported values, which explains its higher early-age pozzolanic reactivity despite lower combined oxide content. By contrast, OPC displayed low SSA and larger particle size, reflecting its dense clinker structure and distinct hydration mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAverage elemental composition and LOI of the sampled SDA, SCBA, and control OPC.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaterial\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParameter\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThis study (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypical literature range (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey reference\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Interpretation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSCBA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSiO₂\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60 \u0026ndash; 90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[26, 29, 34]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh reactive silica, typical of well-calcined SCBA\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAl₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2 \u0026ndash; 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[26, 29]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin reported low alumina range\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFe₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3 \u0026ndash; 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[26, 43]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparable to literature values\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 70 (ASTM C618)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[33]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFully meets pozzolanic requirement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 \u0026ndash; 10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[28, 34]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow CaO, typical for SCBA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlkalis (Na₂O + K₂O)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 \u0026ndash; 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[3, 26]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin acceptable limits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLOI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[33]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComplies with ASTM C618\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSDA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSiO₂\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 \u0026ndash; 55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[35, 36, 40]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFalls within lower reported range\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAl₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 \u0026ndash; 20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[14, 37]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparable to reported SDA values\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFe₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 \u0026ndash; 15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[35, 40]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypical of wood-derived ashes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13 \u0026ndash; 88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[40]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBelow ASTM pozzolan limit\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20 \u0026ndash; 50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[36, 52]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh CaO typical of SDA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlkalis (Na₂O + K₂O)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 \u0026ndash; 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[3, 52]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin acceptable range\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLOI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 \u0026ndash; 25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[42, 54]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndicates residual carbon\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOPC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSiO₂\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19 \u0026ndash; 23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55, 60]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypical Portland cement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAl₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 \u0026ndash; 6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin standard range\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFe₂O₃\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 \u0026ndash; 4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypical clinker composition\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60 \u0026ndash; 67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConfirms high-calcium nature\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlkalis (Na₂O + K₂O)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[3]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow-alkali cement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLOI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[16, 55]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeets cement standards\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 shows that the oxide compositions of SCBA and SDA in this study are within the broad ranges reported for agro-industrial ashes. SCBA has a high combined content of SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃ (86.60%), exceeding ASTM C618 minimum requirements and confirming its strong pozzolanic potential. These values align with those of well-calcined SCBA and account for its superior contribution to strength development compared with SDA. In contrast, SDA exhibits a much lower combined pozzolanic oxide content (23.16%) and a high CaO fraction, consistent with wood-derived ashes reported in the literature. While SDA does not meet conventional pozzolan chemical criteria, its composition combined with a high specific surface area explains its notable early-age reactivity in lime-based systems. OPC\u0026rsquo;s oxide composition is typical of commercial Portland cement and provides a useful reference for comparison.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMechanical Analysis Test Results\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMortar system\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProperty\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThis study\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTypical literature range\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey references\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterpretation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOPC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBulk density (kg/m\u0026sup3;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1865.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1500 \u0026ndash; 1900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55, 60]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin expected range for cement mortars\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater absorption (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 \u0026ndash; 10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[55]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConfirms dense microstructure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompressive strength (MPa)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40 \u0026ndash; 55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[60]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypical early-age OPC strength\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSCBA\u0026ndash;Lime\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBulk density (kg/m\u0026sup3;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e930.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e850 \u0026ndash; 1200\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[28, 48]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparable to reported lime\u0026ndash;SCBA mortars\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater absorption (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 \u0026ndash; 18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[28, 57]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin range for lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana systems\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompressive strength (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.98 \u0026ndash; 3.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 \u0026ndash; 5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[17, 27]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeets lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana strength criteria\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSDA\u0026ndash;Lime\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBulk density (kg/m\u0026sup3;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e812.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e750 \u0026ndash; 1100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[52, 56]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTypical of wood-ash lime mortars\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWater absorption (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15 \u0026ndash; 22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[48, 52]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigher absorption due to porous ash\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompressive strength (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.51 \u0026ndash; 2.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 \u0026ndash; 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[14, 20]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsistent with low-reactivity SDA\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 shows that the hardened properties of the pozzolana\u0026ndash;lime mortars in this study are consistent with values reported in the literature. SCBA\u0026ndash;lime and SDA\u0026ndash;lime mortars exhibit bulk densities typical of lime-based systems and considerably lower than OPC, highlighting their lightweight nature. Water absorption is higher than OPC but comparable to previously reported lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana mortars, reflecting their more open pore structure. Compressive strengths of SCBA\u0026ndash;lime (2.98\u0026ndash;3.56 MPa) and SDA\u0026ndash;lime (1.51\u0026ndash;2.52 MPa) mortars meet the minimum requirements for lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana binders and fall within reported ranges for similar systems. These findings indicate that, despite lower strength than OPC, both SCBA and SDA can produce functionally adequate, lightweight, and sustainable binders suitable for low-rise masonry applications.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"discover-concrete-and-cement","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Concrete and Cement","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"Unsupported Journal","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Lime binder, pozzolanic activity, sugarcane bagasse ash, sawdust ash, supplementary cementitious materials","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8534952/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8534952/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe high energy demand, rising cost, and environmental impact of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) production have intensified the search for low-carbon alternatives, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana binders incorporating agricultural waste ashes are promising, yet their development is often guided by strength-based evaluation alone, limiting mechanistic understanding. This study presents a systematic comparison of sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA)\u0026ndash;lime and sawdust ash (SDA)\u0026ndash;lime binders by linking early-age pozzolanic reactivity with material characteristics and mortar performance. SCBA and SDA were produced under controlled calcination (600\u0026ndash;700\u0026deg;C) and characterized for chemical composition, mineralogy, particle size, and surface area. Pozzolanic activity was quantified using an electrical conductivity method, and its relationship with bulk density, water absorption, and 28-day compressive strength was evaluated and benchmarked against OPC mortars. SCBA exhibited a high combined SiO₂ + Al₂O₃ + Fe₂O₃ content (86.6%) and predominantly amorphous structure, while SDA showed lower oxide content (23.16%) but higher surface area, resulting in faster early-age reactivity. Despite this, SCBA\u0026ndash;lime mortars achieved higher 28-day compressive strengths, although both systems met requirements for low-rise masonry. By directly correlating pozzolanic reactivity with ash composition and mechanical performance, this study advances understanding of structure\u0026ndash;property relationships in lime\u0026ndash;pozzolana binders and provides performance-informed guidance for selecting locally available agricultural ashes as sustainable alternatives to OPC.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Comparative Assessment of Sugarcane Bagasse and Sawdust Ashes as Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Lime-Based Binders ","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-29 09:46:21","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8534952/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-24T05:54:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-13T09:06:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-12T05:05:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-07T17:54:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-06T12:22:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-05T09:13:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"283884579555038727339450271682182288985","date":"2026-01-30T03:27:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"266284218932954038090706109734515405810","date":"2026-01-28T12:24:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"317736833651069038768251964606954116514","date":"2026-01-28T08:54:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"264474564212421146470125704555845665263","date":"2026-01-27T18:17:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"49088185470136263402371971182653069794","date":"2026-01-27T10:05:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-27T07:10:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-09T06:00:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-09T05:59:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Concrete and Cement","date":"2026-01-06T21:04:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"discover-concrete-and-cement","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Concrete and Cement","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"Unsupported Journal","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4ce44d2b-e73f-4552-81f0-d891eddbde50","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 29th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-28T14:53:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-29 09:46:21","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8534952","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8534952","identity":"rs-8534952","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}