BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY ›› 2026, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (9): 3202-3221.DOI: 10.16552/j.cnki.issn1001-1625.2026.0209
• Solid Waste and Eco-Materials • Previous Articles Next Articles
PENG Zhu(
), LI Ziling, DING You, CHENG Jinke(), ZHANG Yu
Received:2026-03-09
Revised:2026-04-23
Online:2026-09-15
Published:2026-10-09
Contact:
CHENG Jinke
CLC Number:
PENG Zhu, LI Ziling, DING You, CHENG Jinke, ZHANG Yu. Preparation and Mechanism of Mold-Resistant Phosphogypsum Using Composite Antifungal Agents and Alkali-Activated Materials[J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(9): 3202-3221.
| Modified system | Modified substance | Relationship between sample number and dosage of modified substances | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | W2 | W3 | W4 | W5 | W6 | W7 | W8 | W9 | W10 | W11 | W12 | |||
| Blank CPG（W0） | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Modified system of organic antifungal agents | CPG-TTAC | TTAC | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| CPG-PHMB | PHMB | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| CPG-TTAC-PHMB | TTAC | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| PHMB | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | ||
Modified system of alkali-activated cementitiou materials | CPG-CaO-GGBS-CA | CaO | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| GGBS | 15 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| CA | 6 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
Composite synergistic modification system | CPG-TTAC-PHMB-CaO-GGBS-CA | TTAC | 0.25 | 0. 5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | — | — | — | — |
| PHMB | 0.5 | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | ||
| CaO | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | ||
| GGBS | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | — | — | — | — | ||
| CA | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | — | — | — | — | ||
Table 1 Material ratios of different modification systems and sample numbers
| Modified system | Modified substance | Relationship between sample number and dosage of modified substances | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | W2 | W3 | W4 | W5 | W6 | W7 | W8 | W9 | W10 | W11 | W12 | |||
| Blank CPG（W0） | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Modified system of organic antifungal agents | CPG-TTAC | TTAC | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| CPG-PHMB | PHMB | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| CPG-TTAC-PHMB | TTAC | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| PHMB | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | ||
Modified system of alkali-activated cementitiou materials | CPG-CaO-GGBS-CA | CaO | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| GGBS | 15 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
| CA | 6 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||
Composite synergistic modification system | CPG-TTAC-PHMB-CaO-GGBS-CA | TTAC | 0.25 | 0. 5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | — | — | — | — |
| PHMB | 0.5 | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | ||
| CaO | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | ||
| GGBS | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | — | — | — | — | ||
| CA | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | — | — | — | — | ||
Fig.1 Sample preparation flowchart
Fig.2 Schematic diagram of comparison before and after antibacterial circle test
Fig.3 Antibacterial circle diameter of organic antifungal agent modified system
| Mold | MIC/（μg·mL-1） | FICI | Synergistic interaction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTAC | PHMB | TTAC+PHMB（TTAC） | TTAC+PHMB（PHMB） | |||
| Aspergills niger | 100 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 0.78 | 0.156 2 | Synergism |
| Trichodema virid | 3.13 | 25 | 0.39 | 6.25 | 0.376 4 | Synergism |
| Penicillim citrinum | 12.5 | 25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 0.750 0 | Additivity |
Table 2 MIC and FICI of different organic antifungal agents
| Mold | MIC/（μg·mL-1） | FICI | Synergistic interaction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTAC | PHMB | TTAC+PHMB（TTAC） | TTAC+PHMB（PHMB） | |||
| Aspergills niger | 100 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 0.78 | 0.156 2 | Synergism |
| Trichodema virid | 3.13 | 25 | 0.39 | 6.25 | 0.376 4 | Synergism |
| Penicillim citrinum | 12.5 | 25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 0.750 0 | Additivity |
Fig.4 MIC test results chart
| CPG | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
CPG-0.25%TTAC- PHMB | 4∶1 | 35.10 | 2 | 60.07 | 3 | 66.82 | 4 | 67.25 | 4 | |
| 2∶1 | 30.14 | 2 | 59.63 | 3 | 62.41 | 4 | 63.77 | 4 | ||
| 1∶1 | 27.61 | 2 | 57.15 | 3 | 65.20 | 4 | 65.83 | 4 | ||
| 1∶2 | 39.43 | 3 | 44.32 | 3 | 52.71 | 3 | 56.53 | 3 | ||
| 1∶4 | 9.31 | 1 | 20.97 | 2 | 25.34 | 2 | 26.02 | 2 | ||
CPG-0.5%TTAC- PHMB | 4∶1 | 42.03 | 3 | 45.61 | 3 | 34.51 | 3 | 58.34 | 3 | |
| 2∶1 | 26.91 | 2 | 41.43 | 3 | 41.62 | 3 | 45.82 | 3 | ||
| 1∶1 | 17.35 | 2 | 33.25 | 3 | 36.09 | 3 | 37.41 | 3 | ||
| 1∶2 | 11.52 | 2 | 13.24 | 2 | 15.21 | 2 | 17.33 | 2 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-1%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0 | 0 | 2.41 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.74 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.77 | 1 | 0.82 | 1 | 0.91 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.28 | 1 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.42 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.26 | 1 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-2%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0 | 0 | 1.52 | 1 | 1.76 | 1 | 2.43 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.72 | 1 | 0.76 | 1 | 0.84 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.46 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-4%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0.65 | 1 | 0.70 | 1 | 0.75 | 1 | 0.77 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.36 | 1 | 0.48 | 1 | 0.57 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.40 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Table 3 Changes in mold resistance of organic antifungal agent compound systems with cultivation time
| CPG | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
CPG-0.25%TTAC- PHMB | 4∶1 | 35.10 | 2 | 60.07 | 3 | 66.82 | 4 | 67.25 | 4 | |
| 2∶1 | 30.14 | 2 | 59.63 | 3 | 62.41 | 4 | 63.77 | 4 | ||
| 1∶1 | 27.61 | 2 | 57.15 | 3 | 65.20 | 4 | 65.83 | 4 | ||
| 1∶2 | 39.43 | 3 | 44.32 | 3 | 52.71 | 3 | 56.53 | 3 | ||
| 1∶4 | 9.31 | 1 | 20.97 | 2 | 25.34 | 2 | 26.02 | 2 | ||
CPG-0.5%TTAC- PHMB | 4∶1 | 42.03 | 3 | 45.61 | 3 | 34.51 | 3 | 58.34 | 3 | |
| 2∶1 | 26.91 | 2 | 41.43 | 3 | 41.62 | 3 | 45.82 | 3 | ||
| 1∶1 | 17.35 | 2 | 33.25 | 3 | 36.09 | 3 | 37.41 | 3 | ||
| 1∶2 | 11.52 | 2 | 13.24 | 2 | 15.21 | 2 | 17.33 | 2 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-1%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0 | 0 | 2.41 | 1 | 2.63 | 1 | 2.74 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.77 | 1 | 0.82 | 1 | 0.91 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.28 | 1 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.42 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.26 | 1 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-2%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0 | 0 | 1.52 | 1 | 1.76 | 1 | 2.43 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.72 | 1 | 0.76 | 1 | 0.84 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.46 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-4%TTAC-PHMB | 4∶1 | 0.65 | 1 | 0.70 | 1 | 0.75 | 1 | 0.77 | 1 | |
| 2∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.36 | 1 | 0.48 | 1 | 0.57 | 1 | ||
| 1∶1 | 0 | 0 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.32 | 1 | 0.40 | 1 | ||
| 1∶2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1∶4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Modified system | Modified substance | Modified substance dosage/% | pH value | 7 d | 14 d | 21 d | 28 d | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | ||||
| CPG-0 | — | — | 4.71 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| CPG-CaO | CaO | 1 | 11.52 | 95.36 | 4 | 98.37 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 3 | 11.87 | 90.00 | 4 | 93.11 | 4 | 97.43 | 4 | 99.23 | 4 | ||
| 6 | 11.96 | 21.89 | 2 | 37.49 | 3 | 58.39 | 4 | 76.99 | 4 | ||
| 9 | 12.00 | 15.23 | 2 | 25.67 | 2 | 47.38 | 3 | 68.72 | 4 | ||
| CPG-CA | CA | 3 | 11.60 | 99.16 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 6 | 11.88 | 98.75 | 4 | 99.55 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 9 | 11.90 | 97.36 | 4 | 98.67 | 4 | 99.37 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 12 | 11.91 | 92.83 | 4 | 94.72 | 4 | 96.96 | 4 | 97.43 | 4 | ||
| CPG-GGBS | GGBS | 5 | 11.56 | 93.21 | 4 | 95.86 | 4 | 97.23 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 10 | 11.77 | 92.47 | 4 | 93.89 | 4 | 96.47 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 15 | 11.84 | 91.51 | 4 | 92.30 | 4 | 94.78 | 4 | 98.61 | 4 | ||
| 20 | 11.86 | 87.53 | 4 | 89.49 | 4 | 90.52 | 4 | 93.32 | 4 | ||
| CPG-3%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 11.91 | 10.39 | 2 | 68.31 | 4 | 69.87 | 4 | 74.58 | 4 |
| 6 | 11.93 | 7.62 | 1 | 9.37 | 1 | 27.82 | 2 | 55.49 | 3 | ||
| 9 | 11.95 | 5.47 | 1 | 8.37 | 1 | 22.30 | 2 | 50.37 | 3 | ||
| CPG-6%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 12.16 | 1.41 | 1 | 12.90 | 2 | 3.04 | 3 | 4.92 | 3 |
| 6 | 12.23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.85 | 1 | ||
| 9 | 12.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-9%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 12.28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 12.34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 9 | 12.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-CA | CA | 6 | 11.92 | 2.06 | 1 | 5.48 | 1 | 18.33 | 2 | 22.64 | 2 |
| 9 | 11.97 | 2.07 | 1 | 5.35 | 1 | 18.21 | 2 | 21.37 | 2 | ||
CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-6%CA （TTAC-PHMB） | （TTAC-PHMB） | 0.25-0.5 | 11.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.5-0.25 | 11.56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.5-2 | 11.62 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1-2 | 11.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA （TTAC-PHMB） | （TTAC-PHMB） | 0.25-0.5 | 11.60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.5-0.25 | 11.54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.5-2 | 11.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1-2 | 11.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Table 4 Changes in mold resistance of alkali-activated cementitious systems with cultivation time
Modified system | Modified substance | Modified substance dosage/% | pH value | 7 d | 14 d | 21 d | 28 d | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | Ir/ | Level | ||||
| CPG-0 | — | — | 4.71 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| CPG-CaO | CaO | 1 | 11.52 | 95.36 | 4 | 98.37 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 3 | 11.87 | 90.00 | 4 | 93.11 | 4 | 97.43 | 4 | 99.23 | 4 | ||
| 6 | 11.96 | 21.89 | 2 | 37.49 | 3 | 58.39 | 4 | 76.99 | 4 | ||
| 9 | 12.00 | 15.23 | 2 | 25.67 | 2 | 47.38 | 3 | 68.72 | 4 | ||
| CPG-CA | CA | 3 | 11.60 | 99.16 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 6 | 11.88 | 98.75 | 4 | 99.55 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 9 | 11.90 | 97.36 | 4 | 98.67 | 4 | 99.37 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 12 | 11.91 | 92.83 | 4 | 94.72 | 4 | 96.96 | 4 | 97.43 | 4 | ||
| CPG-GGBS | GGBS | 5 | 11.56 | 93.21 | 4 | 95.86 | 4 | 97.23 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 |
| 10 | 11.77 | 92.47 | 4 | 93.89 | 4 | 96.47 | 4 | 100.00 | 4 | ||
| 15 | 11.84 | 91.51 | 4 | 92.30 | 4 | 94.78 | 4 | 98.61 | 4 | ||
| 20 | 11.86 | 87.53 | 4 | 89.49 | 4 | 90.52 | 4 | 93.32 | 4 | ||
| CPG-3%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 11.91 | 10.39 | 2 | 68.31 | 4 | 69.87 | 4 | 74.58 | 4 |
| 6 | 11.93 | 7.62 | 1 | 9.37 | 1 | 27.82 | 2 | 55.49 | 3 | ||
| 9 | 11.95 | 5.47 | 1 | 8.37 | 1 | 22.30 | 2 | 50.37 | 3 | ||
| CPG-6%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 12.16 | 1.41 | 1 | 12.90 | 2 | 3.04 | 3 | 4.92 | 3 |
| 6 | 12.23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.85 | 1 | ||
| 9 | 12.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-9%CaO -CA | CA | 3 | 12.28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 12.34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 9 | 12.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-CA | CA | 6 | 11.92 | 2.06 | 1 | 5.48 | 1 | 18.33 | 2 | 22.64 | 2 |
| 9 | 11.97 | 2.07 | 1 | 5.35 | 1 | 18.21 | 2 | 21.37 | 2 | ||
CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-6%CA （TTAC-PHMB） | （TTAC-PHMB） | 0.25-0.5 | 11.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.5-0.25 | 11.56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.5-2 | 11.62 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1-2 | 11.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA （TTAC-PHMB） | （TTAC-PHMB） | 0.25-0.5 | 11.60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.5-0.25 | 11.54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 0.5-2 | 11.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 1-2 | 11.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Fig.5 Physical and mechanical properties of different modified systems at various curing ages
Fig.6 Cell viability staining images
Fig.7 XRD patterns of different modified samples after 7 d of curing
Fig.8 Fourier transform infrared spectra of different modified samples after 7 d of curing
Fig.9 Hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity of different modified systems
| Sample | Total porosity/ | Average pore diameter/μm | Pore volume fraction/% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micropores | Mesopores | Macropores | |||
| <0.1 μm | 0.1~10 μm | >10 μm | |||
| CPG hydration product | 47.93 | 0.581 | 1.61 | 75.16 | 23.23 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB | 50.70 | 0.878 | 1.16 | 76.59 | 22.25 |
| CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA | 48.47 | 0.108 | 4.01 | 70.11 | 25.88 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA | 50.43 | 0.104 | 3.95 | 69.05 | 27.00 |
Table 5 Pore distribution of samples with different modified systems
| Sample | Total porosity/ | Average pore diameter/μm | Pore volume fraction/% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micropores | Mesopores | Macropores | |||
| <0.1 μm | 0.1~10 μm | >10 μm | |||
| CPG hydration product | 47.93 | 0.581 | 1.61 | 75.16 | 23.23 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB | 50.70 | 0.878 | 1.16 | 76.59 | 22.25 |
| CPG-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA | 48.47 | 0.108 | 4.01 | 70.11 | 25.88 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA | 50.43 | 0.104 | 3.95 | 69.05 | 27.00 |
Fig.10 Pore structure of samples with different modified systems
Fig.11 Micromorphology and corresponding EDS images of different modified samples after 7 d of curing
Fig.12 XPS spectra of samples with different modified systems（①： CPG blank sample，②： CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB，③：CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB-3%CaO-15%GGBS-9%CA）
Fig.13 SEM images of moldy areas and macroscopic moldy photographs of different modified samples after 28 d of cultivation
| Modified system | Diameter of antibacterial circle/mm | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 d | 3 d | 5 d | 7 d | 9 d | 11 d | 14 d | |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC | 11.0 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 7.4 | 6.2 | 5.0 |
| CPG-0.25%PHMB | 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.8 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB | 20.0 | 19.8 | 19.7 | 19.5 | 19.3 | 18.8 | 18.6 |
Table 6 Variation of antibacterial circle diameter with time for organic antifungal agent modified systems
| Modified system | Diameter of antibacterial circle/mm | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 d | 3 d | 5 d | 7 d | 9 d | 11 d | 14 d | |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC | 11.0 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 7.4 | 6.2 | 5.0 |
| CPG-0.25%PHMB | 9.0 | 8.5 | 7.8 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| CPG-0.5%TTAC-0.25%PHMB | 20.0 | 19.8 | 19.7 | 19.5 | 19.3 | 18.8 | 18.6 |
Fig.14 Kinetic fitting curves for decay of antibacterial circle in organic antifungal agent modification systems
Fig.15 Synergistic anti-mould mechanism model of composite system
| [1] |
QU F L， ZHANG Y Y， LI M D， et al. Resource recycling of industrial waste phosphogypsum in cementitious materials： pretreatment， properties， and applications［J］. Journal of Environmental Management， 2025， 376： 124291.
DOI URL |
| [2] | LIU W S， LI L J， ZHOU X T. Molecular simulation study of the adhesion characteristics of β-phosphogypsum product surface to mold biomolecules［J］. Materials Research Express， 2023， 10（3）： 035504. |
| [3] |
DHALIWAL S S， DUBEY S K， KUMAR D， et al. Enhanced organic carbon triggers transformations of macronutrients， micronutrients， and secondary plant nutrients and their dynamics in the soil under different cropping systems： a review［J］. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition， 2024， 24（3）： 5272-5292.
DOI |
| [4] |
WANG Q， ZHENG H Y， WANG Y， et al. Influence of phosphorus impurities on the structure and performance of cellulose-ether-modified gypsum［J］. Construction and Building Materials， 2022， 345： 128230.
DOI URL |
| [5] |
LI X， LV X F， XIANG L. Review of the state of impurity occurrences and impurity removal technology in phosphogypsum［J］. Materials， 2023， 16（16）： 5630.
DOI URL |
| [6] |
WANG S T， QIU B W， SHI J G， et al. Quaternary ammonium antimicrobial agents and their application in antifouling coatings： a review［J］. Journal of Coatings Technology and Research， 2024， 21（1）： 87-103.
DOI |
| [7] | CUI J C， BAO Y Y， SUN Y H， et al. Critical factors on corrosion protective waterborne coatings containing functionalized graphene oxide： a review［J］. Composites Part A： Applied Science and Manufacturing， 2023， 174： 107729. |
| [8] |
VENKATESAN U， MUNIYAN R. Review on the extension of shelf life for fruits and vegetables using natural preservatives［J］. Food Science and Biotechnology， 2024， 33（11）： 2477-2496.
DOI PMID |
| [9] |
NAVYA P N， DAIMA H K. Rational engineering of physicochemical properties of nanomaterials for biomedical applications with nanotoxicological perspectives［J］. Nano Convergence， 2016， 3（1）： 1.
DOI PMID |
| [10] |
DENER M， KARATAS M， SHI J Y， et al. Mechanical properties and microstructure of hybrid alkali-activated cement component［J］. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering， 2024， 25（1）： 45.
DOI |
| [11] |
LIU W S， LI L J， KONG T T. Mechanisms of mold colonization on β-phosphogypsum hydration products： effects of environmental and material factors［J］. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering， 2025， 13（5）： 119159.
DOI URL |
| [12] |
REN P， LUO M， LIN S， et al. Multilaboratory testing of antifungal drug combinations against Candida species and Aspergillus fumigatus： utility of 100 percent inhibition as the endpoint［J］. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy， 2015， 59（3）： 1759-1766.
DOI URL |
| [13] |
KHALED J M， ALHARBI N S， KADAIKUNNAN S， et al. Distribution of Candida infections in patients and evaluation of the synergic interactions of some drugs against emerging fluconazole- and caspofungin-resistant C. auris［J］. Journal of King Saud University Science， 2023， 35（4）： 102617.
DOI URL |
| [14] |
GOLDONI M， JOHANSSON C. A mathematical approach to study combined effects of toxicants in vitro： evaluation of the Bliss independence criterion and the Loewe additivity model［J］. Toxicology in Vitro， 2007， 21（5）： 759-769.
DOI URL |
| [15] |
CHOI H， KIM K J， LEE D G. Antifungal activity of the cationic antimicrobial polymer-polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride and its mode of action［J］. Fungal Biology， 2017， 121（1）： 53-60.
DOI PMID |
| [16] |
LIETARD J， DAMHA M J， SOMOZA M M. Large-scale photolithographic synthesis of chimeric DNA/RNA hairpin microarrays to explore sequence specificity landscapes of RNase HII cleavage［J］. Biochemistry， 2019， 58（44）： 4389-4397.
DOI PMID |
| [17] |
SHA D， YANG X， WANG B L， et al. Surface grafting of a quaternary ammonium salt on macroporous polyvinyl alcohol-formaldehyde sponges and their highly efficient antibacterial performance［J］. ACS Applied Polymer Materials， 2020， 2（11）： 4936-4942.
DOI URL |
| [18] | ZHOU Y， JIANG Y Z， ZHANG Y， et al. Improvement of antibacterial and antifouling properties of a cellulose acetate membrane by surface grafting quaternary ammonium salt［J］. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces， 2022， 14（33）： 38358-38369. |
| [19] |
GAO S T， SUN Y J， LU Z， et al. Synergistic antibacterial and biofilm eradication activity of quaternary-ammonium compound with copper ion［J］. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry， 2023， 243： 112190.
DOI URL |
| [20] |
WANG D L， NA Q， LIU Y K， et al. Hydration process and fluoride solidification mechanism of multi-source solid waste-based phosphogypsum cemented paste backfill under CaO modification［J］. Cement and Concrete Composites， 2024， 154： 105804.
DOI URL |
| [21] |
JIANG W T， PAN F B， CHEN R， et al. Earthworm fermentation products enhance the apple replant soil environment and increase the yield and quality of apple fruit［J］. Horticultural Plant Journal， 2025， 11（2）： 564-577.
DOI URL |
| [22] |
NIKITINA E V， ZELDI M I， PUGACHEV M V， et al. Antibacterial effects of quaternary bis-phosphonium and ammonium salts of pyridoxine on Staphylococcus aureus cells： a single base hitting two distinct targets ［J］. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology， 2015， 32（1）： 5.
DOI URL |
| [23] |
JIANG H， XIANG G Y， KHOSO S A， et al. Comparative studies of quaternary ammonium salts on the aggregation and dispersion behavior of kaolinite and quartz［J］. Minerals， 2019， 9（8）： 473.
DOI URL |
| [24] |
WANG Y Q， CAO H， WANG X Y， et al. Experimental and theoretical investigation on the mechanism of cationic surfactants-assisted phosphogypsum crystal transformation［J］. Surfaces and Interfaces， 2024， 47： 104211.
DOI URL |
| [25] |
BARNETT S J， SOUTSOS M N， MILLARD S G， et al. Strength development of mortars containing ground granulated blast-furnace slag： effect of curing temperature and determination of apparent activation energies［J］. Cement and Concrete Research， 2006， 36（3）： 434-440.
DOI URL |
| [26] |
MAO Z T， CAMPBELL C T. Apparent activation energies in complex reaction mechanisms： a simple relationship via degrees of rate control［J］. ACS Catalysis， 2019， 9（10）： 9465-9473.
DOI URL |
| [27] |
SNELLINGS R， MACHNER A， BOLTE G， et al. Hydration kinetics of ternary slag-limestone cements： impact of water to binder ratio and curing temperature［J］. Cement and Concrete Research， 2022， 151： 106647.
DOI URL |
| [28] |
SCHUMMER U， SCHIEFER H G. Transmembrane proton-motive potential of Spiroplasma foricola［J］. FEBS Letters， 1987， 224（1）： 79-82.
DOI URL |
| [29] |
HESSE S J A， RUIJTER G J G， DIJKEMA C， et al. Intracellular pH homeostasis in the filamentous fungus Aspergillus niger ［J］. European Journal of Biochemistry， 2002， 269（14）： 3485-3494.
DOI URL |
| [30] |
FEDOROVA I V， SAFONOVA L P. Influence of the dielectric constant on ion pair formation in sulfonic acid-ammonia and alkylamine systems： a CPCM-based quantum chemical study［J］. Journal of Molecular Liquids， 2025， 437： 128288.
DOI URL |
| [31] |
DARWISH K A， MRESTANI Y， NEUBERT R H H. Optimization of ion-pair formation between glycopyrronium bromide and different ion-pair agents using ACE［J］. Electrophoresis， 2015， 36（21/22）： 2805-2810.
DOI URL |
| [32] |
CHEN X L， TANG H L， PUTZEYS T， et al. Guanidinium nonaflate as a solid-state proton conductor［J］. Journal of Materials Chemistry A， 2016， 4（31）： 12241-12252.
DOI URL |
| [33] |
VASHCHENKO A V， AFONIN A V. Comparative estimation of the energies of intramolecular C-H…O， N-H…O， and O-H…O hydrogen bonds according to the QTAIM analysis and NMR spectroscopy data［J］. Journal of Structural Chemistry， 2014， 55（4）： 636-643.
DOI URL |
| [34] | 段铜川， 闫韶健， 赵 妍， 等. 水的氢键网络动力学与其太赫兹频谱的关系［J］. 物理学报， 2021， 70（24）： 248702. |
|
DUAN T C， YAN S J， ZHAO Y， et al. Relationship between hydrogen bond network dynamics of water and its terahertz spectrum［J］. Acta Physica Sinica， 2021， 70（24）： 248702 （in Chinese）.
DOI URL |
| [1] | CHEN Yiheng, FANG Keneng, CHEN Qianlin. Synthesis of High-Performance Cement Materials Using CaSO4 Prepared from Phosphogypsum [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(9): 3187-3201. |
| [2] | CHEN Mingsheng, YANG Ning, LIU Tianle, ZHENG Shaojun, LIU Peng. Effect and Mechanism of Carbonation Curing on Mechanical Properties and Water Resistance of Phosphogypsum-Based Composite Cementitious Materials [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(9): 3222-3232. |
| [3] | ZONG Wei, LIU Cheng, ZHENG Wuxi, ZHANG Qixin, DONG Xianzheng. Road Performance of Base with Phosphogypsum Replacing Coarse/Fine Aggregates [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(8): 2956-2966. |
| [4] | TANG Pei, ZHU Meiyi, RONG Pengjie, CHEN Wei. Performance Enhancement of Excess-Sulfate Phosphogypsum-Slag Cement Through Electrochemically Activated Red Mud [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(8): 2806-2816. |
| [5] | CHENG Xiao, WU Fade, WANG Hongxia, SONG Xiaoguang, GAO Chunyong, GUO Junhua, LI Fan. Influence Mechanism of Additives on Mildew of Phosphogypsum [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(8): 2839-2849. |
| [6] | TANG Pei, LIU Jiaxin, QU Bo, RONG Pengjie, CHEN Wei. Thermally Activated Coal Gangue and Its Application in Phosphogypsum Slag Cement [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(8): 2829-2838. |
| [7] | LIU Xin, LI Mingyang, ZHANG Xihe, LAN Shaoding, GAO Xu. Durability and Microstructure of Phosphogypsum-Slag-Based All-Solid-Waste Cementitious Material Regulated by Red Mud and Recycled Cement Powder [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(7): 2478-2490. |
| [8] | JIN Zihao, ZOU Ziyong, HE Xingyang, SU Ying, CHEN Shuqin. Effect of Wet Grinding Carbonized Steel Slag on Properties and Microstructure of Beta-Hemihydrate Phosphogypsum [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(7): 2347-2356. |
| [9] | ZHANG Xuemei, JIN Qingqing, CHANG Shuo, WANG Lu, LI Zhaoqi, ZHANG Xingzhao, LIU Shuhua. Chemical Shrinkage Characteristics of Supersulfated Cement [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(7): 2215-2225. |
| [10] | LI Binghan, LI Shiji, ZHAO Yimeng, LIU Yunpeng, XU Da, ZHAO Shuli. Hydration Properties of Polyvinyl Alcohol-Modified Slag-Fly Ash-Based Alkali-Activated Cementitious Materials [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(5): 1638-1649. |
| [11] | REN Jun, YAN Yunxiao, LI Miaoyuan, TIAN Zhenhe, ZHAO Lixing, WANG Dafu. Effect of Microbial-Modified Phosphogypsum on Properties of Supersulfated Cement [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(5): 1671-1681. |
| [12] | YAO Yong, LIANG Tian, HU Yanan, ZHANG Lingling, LIU Lei. Strength Properties and Microscopic Mechanism of Alkali-Activated Cementitious Materials Solidified Silty Clay under Dry-Wet Cycles [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(5): 1801-1811. |
| [13] | CHEN Zihan, GUO Yudong, LYU Qinfei, LIANG Yongning, JI Tao. Effect of Alkali Equivalent on Properties of Phosphogypsum- Alkali-Activated Slag Foam Concrete [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(4): 1315-1323. |
| [14] | HE Zhaoyi, ZOU Meng, YAO Qiwen, CAO Dongwei, QIN Meng. Performance and Strength Formation Mechanism of High Dosage Phosphogypsum-Cement-Curing Agent Stabilized Crushed Stone Base Layer Material [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2026, 45(1): 346-358. |
| [15] | KONG Weipeng, PANG Laixue, GUO Wei, TIAN Xiaofeng. Piezoresistive Performance of Alkali-Activated Superfine Powder-Fly Ash Cementitious Materials [J]. BULLETIN OF THE CHINESE CERAMIC SOCIETY, 2025, 44(9): 3288-3294. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
