## 1 Introduction  
Portland cement (PC) is increasingly considered unsustainable due to its significant negative environmental impact, accounting for approximately 8% of global CO\({}_{2}\) emissions [1]. To mitigate this issue, waste materials such as ceramic waste powder (CWP) have gained recognition as promising alternatives to reduce the environmental hazards associated with PC [2]. According to a study by [PERSON] et al. [3], incorporating 30% CWP as a partial replacement of cement in concrete can lead to a 30% reduction in CO\({}_{2}\) emissions. The use of ceramic waste in concrete is generally considered environmentally beneficial, although concerns such as boron leaching require careful examination [4, 5, 6]. Ceramic waste, especially from tile production, often contains small amounts of boron compounds, such as boron oxide (B\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)), which help reduce sintering temperatures during ceramic manufacturing [7]. Although boron is beneficial in ceramic production, its presence in large amounts can be toxic to ecosystems if it leaches into the environment [8]. However, research indicates that the boron content in ceramic wastes, often used in concrete, is generally low, typically ranging from 0-1.3% B\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\), posing minimal environmental risk at these concentrations [9]. Studies have also shown that ceramic waste derived from tiles, sanitary ware, and other domestic sources exhibits negligible leaching properties, making it a safe material for construction applications [10; 11]. Therefore, the use of ceramic waste benefits the environment without posing any major risk of toxicity [11]. CWP has several distinct advantages over traditional supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in terms of cost and sustainability. Unlike fly ash, whose availability is declining due to the global reduction in coal-fired power generation, CWP is expected to remain abundant as industrial and ceramic manufacturing activities continue to grow [12; 13]. This ensures a more stable and predictable supply. Researchers have also established that CWP can lower concrete production costs. For instance, [PERSON] et al. [14] found that replacing 30% of PC with CWP reduced cement costs by 12.67% in Iran [14]. Additionally, some SCMs, like metakaolin, require energy-intensive processing, including the controlled calcination of kaolin clay, which increases both production costs and carbon emissions [15]. In contrast, CWP is a post-industrial waste material that does not require further thermal treatment, making it more environmentally friendly and energy-efficient. These advantages position CWP as a promising and practical alternative for sustainable concrete production in the long term. Generally, ceramic waste materials have gained significant attention due to their practical applications in sustainable construction practices [15]. A diverse range of studies has highlighted the potential of ceramic waste as a substitute for aggregates or SCMs [16; 17; 18; 2]. [PERSON] et al. [16] explored the use of ceramic tile waste as a filler to enhance the thermal insulation of concrete. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [19; 20; 21; 22; 23] replaced aggregates with crushed ceramic tile waste in structural concrete, harnessing its mechanical viability. These studies emphasise improved durability and sustainability. Previous studies have broadly reviewed ceramic waste, often as a combined replacement for aggregates and cement in concrete. In contrast, this study specifically examines CWP as a cement replacement material. It provides a comprehensive review of the key properties of CWP concrete, examining various characteristics, such as workability, compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength, durability, and concrete microstructure. Furthermore, this study considered multiple factors that could influence the outcomes, offering a detailed and nuanced understanding of the behaviour and potential of CWP in concrete applications.