Advertisement

Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 615–626 | Cite as

Soil bio-cementation using a new one-phase low-pH injection method

  • Liang Cheng
  • Mohamed A. Shahin
  • Jian ChuEmail author
Research Paper

Abstract

Soil bio-cementation via microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP) has been extensively studied as a promising alternative technique to traditional chemical cementing agents for ground improvement. The multiple-phase injection methods are currently well adopted for MICP treatment, but it is rather complex and requires excessive number of injections. This paper presents a novel one-phase injection method using low-pH all-in-one biocement solution (i.e. a mixture of bacterial culture, urea, and CaCl2). The key feature of this method is that the lag period of the bio-cementation process can be controlled by adjusting the biomass concentration, urease activity, and pH. This process prevents the clogging of bio-flocs formation and thus allows the biocement solution to be well distributed inside the soil matrix before bio-cementation takes effect, allowing a relatively uniform MICP treatment to be achieved. Furthermore, the ammonia gas release would be reduced by more than 90%, which represents a significant improvement in the environmental friendliness of the technology. The new one-phase method is also effective in terms of the mechanical property of MICP-treated soil; an unconfined compressive strength of 2.5 MPa was achieved for sand after six treatments.

Keywords

Bio-cementation Ground improvement Microbially induced carbonate precipitation Microscopy One phase 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge that part of this study is supported by Grant No. SUL2013-1 by the Ministry of National Development and Grant No. MOE2015-T2-2-142 provided by the Ministry of Education, Singapore. The authors would also like to thank Donovan Mujah (Ph.D. candidate) for his assistance in conducting some SEM and UCS tests.

References

  1. 1.
    Al Qabany A, Soga K (2013) Effect of chemical treatment used in MICP on engineering properties of cemented soils. Géotechnique 6(4):331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Thawadi SM, Cord-Ruwisch R (2012) Calcium carbonate crystals formation by ureolytic bacteria isolated from Australian soil and sludge. J Adv Sci Eng Sci Res 2(1):12–26Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (2013) D2166: Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benini S, Rypniewski WR, Wilson KS, Miletti S, Ciurli S, Mangani S (1999) A new proposal for urease mechanism based on the crystal structures of the native and inhibited enzyme from Bacillus pasteurii: why urea hydrolysis costs two nickels. Structure 7(2):205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burbank M, Weaver T, Lewis R, Crawford R, Williams B (2013) Geotechnical tests of sands following bioinduced calcite precipitation catalyzed by indigenous bacteria. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:928–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng L, Cord-Ruwisch R (2012) In situ soil cementation with ureolytic bacteria by surface percolation. Ecol Eng 42:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng L, Cord-Ruwisch R (2014) Upscaling effects of soil improvement by microbially induced calcite precipitation by surface percolation. Geomicrobiol J 31(5):396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng L, Shahin MA (2016) Urease active bio-slurry: a novel soil improvement approach based on microbially induced carbonate precipitation. Can Geotech J 53(9):1376–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng L, Shahin MA (2017) Stabilisation of oil-contaminated soils using microbially induced calcite crystals by bacterial flocs. Géotech Lett 7:146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng L, Shahin MA, Cord-Ruwisch R (2017) Surface percolation for soil improvement by biocementation utilising in situ enriched indigenous aerobic and anaerobic ureolytic soil microorganisms. Geomicrobiol J 34:546–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chu J, Stabnikov V, Ivanov V (2012) Microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation on surface or in the bulk of soil. Geomicrobiol J 29(6):544–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dadda A, Geindreau C, Emeriault F, du Roscoat SR, Garandet A, Sapin L, Filet AE (2017) Characterization of microstructural and physical properties changes in biocemented sand using 3D X-ray microtomography. Acta Geotech 12(5):955–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fidaleo M, Lavecchia R (2003) Kinetic study of enzymatic urea hydrolysis in the pH range 4–9. Chem Biochem Eng Q 17(4):311–318Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ginn TR, Wood BD, Nelson KE, Scheibe TD, Murphy EM, Clement TP (2002) Processes in microbial transport in the natural subsurface. Adv Water Resour 25:1017–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gomez MG, Graddy CMR, DeJong JT, Nelson DC, Tsesarsky M (2018) Stimulation of native microorganisms for bio-cementation in samples recovered from field-scale treatment depths. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001804 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hammes F, Verstraete W (2002) Key roles of pH and calcium metabolism in microbial carbonate precipitation. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 1:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harkes MP, van Paassen LA, Booster JL, Whiffin VS, van Loosdrecht MCM (2010) Fixation and distribution of bacterial activity in sand to induce carbonate precipitation for ground reinforcement. Ecol Eng 36:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ivanov V, Chu J (2008) Applications of microorganisms to geotechnical engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of soil in situ. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 7(2):139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jimenez-Lopez C, Rodriguez-Navarro A, Dominguez-Vera JM, Garcia-Ruiz JM (2003) Influence of lysozyme on the precipitation of calcium carbonate: a kinetic and morphologic study. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 67(9):1667–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miner JR (1974) Odors from confined livestock production. Environmental protection technology. Ser. EPA-600/1-74.023 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mobley HLT, Hausinger RP (1989) Microbial ureases: significance, regulation and molecular characterisation. Microbiol Rev 53:85–108Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nurdogan Y, Oswald WJ (1995) Enhanced nutrient removal in high-rate ponds. Water Sci Technol 31:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shahrokhi-Shahraki R, Zomorodian SMA, Niazi A, O’Kelly BC (2015) Improving sand with microbial-induced carbonate precipitation. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improv 168:217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shelef G, Sukenik A, Green M (1984) Microalgae harvesting and processing: a literature review, SERI/STR-231-2396. Solar Energy Research Institute, GoldenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen FH, Feng QL, Wang CM (2001) The modulation of collagen on crystal morphology of calcium carbonate. J Cryst Growth 242:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sobeck DC, Higgins MJ (2002) Examination of three theories for mechanisms of cation-induced bioflocculation. Water Res 36(3):527–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stocks-Fischer S, Galinat JK, Bang SS (1999) Microbiological precipitation of CaCO3. Soil Biol Biochem 31:1563–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stumm W, Morgan JJ (1981) Aquatic chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tisdale SL, Nelson WL, Beaton JD (1985) Soil fertility and fertilizers. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tobler DJ, Cuthbert MO, Greswell RB, Riley MS, Renshaw JC, Handley-Sidhu S, Phoenix VR (2011) Comparison of rates of ureolysis between Sporosarcina pasteurii and an indigenous groundwater community under conditions required to precipitate large volumes of calcite. Geochim Cosmochim Acte 75(11):3290–3301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Urbain B, Gustin P, Charlier G, Coignoul F, Lambotte JL, Grignon G, Foliguet B, Vidic B, Beerens D, Prouvost JF, Ansay M (1996) A morphometric and functional study of the toxicity of atmospheric ammonia in the extrathoracic airways in pigs. Vet Res Commun 20(4):381–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Paassen LA (2009) Biogrout, ground improvement by microbial induced carbonate precipitation. Dissertation, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Paassen LA, Ghose R, van der Linden TJM, van der Star WRL, van Loosdrecht MCM (2010) Quantifying biomediated ground improvement by ureolysis: large-scale biogrout experiment. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(12):1721–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang L, Ma F, Qu Y, Sun D, Li A, Guo J, Yu B (2011) Characterization of a compound bioflocculant produced by mixed culture of Rhizobium radiobacter F2 and Bacillus sphaeicus F6. World J Microb Biotechnol 27(11):2559–2565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whiffin VS, van Paassen LA, Harkes MP (2007) Microbial carbonate precipitation as a soil improvement technique. Geomicrobiol J 24(5):417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wierzbicki A, Sikes CS, Madura JD, Drake B (1994) Atomic force microscopy and molecular modeling of protein and peptide binding to calcite. Calcif Tissue Int 54(2):133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and Safety EngineeringJiangsu UniversityZhenjiangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringCurtin UniversityBentley, PerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations