Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 685–696 | Cite as

Biogeochemical simulation of microbially induced calcite precipitation with Pararhodobacter sp. strain SO1

  • Masaru AkiyamaEmail author
  • Satoru Kawasaki
Research Paper


Biogrouting is a ground improvement technique, which utilizes microorganisms. The numerical simulation of biogrouting is important to ensure efficient operation and to assess the applicability to the target ground. In this study, we compared syringe-scale biogrouting with biogeochemical simulation. Parameters suitable for practical applications were included. The rate constant and half-saturation constant of the reaction rate law in ureolytic bacteria Pararhodobacter sp. strain SO1, obtained from the simulation based on the urease activity test, were 1 × 10−8 mol/mg/s and 0.635 M, respectively. To achieve the same mineral precipitation in measurement and simulation, a setting in which only the calcite precipitated was used. In the sequential simulation of the solidification test, a variation in discharged Ca2+ concentration was reproduced by introducing an “adjustment index”, which considers the microbial biomass contributing to the reaction. Moreover, for the re-injection test, in which microbes were injected again to further improve the biogrout strength, the settings were validated by the sequential simulation followed by predictive simulation on different injection dates. The results indicate that by conducting a biogeochemical simulation of calcite precipitation for biogrouting using ureolytic bacteria, the strength of biogrout can be predicted and managed.


Biocementation Biogeochemical simulation Microbially induced calcite precipitation Numerical analysis Ureolytic bacteria 



  1. 1.
    Achal V, Kawasaki S (2016) Biogrout: a novel binding material for soil improvement and concrete repair. Front Microbiol 7:314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akiyama M, Kawasaki S (2012) Microbially mediated sand solidification using calcium phosphate compounds. Eng Geol 137–138:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barkouki T, Martinez BC, Mortensen BM, Weathers TS, DeJong JT, Ginn TR, Spycher NF, Smith RW, Fujita Y (2011) Forward and inverse bio-geochemical modeling of microbially induced calcite precipitation in half-meter column experiments. Transp Porous Med 90:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bethke CM (2008) Geochemical and biogeochemical reaction modeling. Cambridge University Press, New York. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bethke CM, Sanford RA, Kirk MF, Jin Q, Flynn TM (2011) The thermodynamic ladder in geomicrobiology. Amer J Sci 311:183–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Danjo T, Kawasaki S (2016) Microbially induced sand cementation method using Pararhodobacter sp. strain SO1, inspired by beachrock formation mechanism. Mater Trans 57:428–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Muynck W, De Belie N, Verstraete W (2010) Microbial carbonate precipitation in construction materials: a review. Ecol Eng 36:118–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeJong JT, Fritzges MB, Nusslein K (2006) Microbial induced cementation to control sand response to undrained shear. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:1381–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeJong JT, Soga K, Kazazanjian E, Burns S, Van Paassen LA, Al Qabany A, Aydilek A, Bang SS, Burbank M, Caslake LF, Chen CY, Cheng X, Chu J, Ciurli S, Esnault-Filet A, Fauriel S, Hamdan N, Hata T, Inagaki Y, Jefferies S, Kuo M, Loloui L, Larrahondo J, Manning DAC, Martinez B, Montoya BM, Nelson DC, Palomino A, Renforth P, Santamarina JC, Seagren EA, Tanyu B, Tsesarsky M, Weaver T (2013) Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications: progress opportunities and challenges. Géotechnique 63:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fauriel S, Laloui L (2012) A bio-chemo-hydro-mechanical model for microbially induced calcite precipitation in soils. Comput Geotech 46:104–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fidaleo M, Lavecchia R (2003) Kinetic study of enzymatic urea hydrolysis in the pH range 4–9. Chem Biochem Eng Q 17:311–318Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fujita M, Nakashima K, Achal V, Kawasaki S (2017) Whole’cell evaluation of urease activity of Pararhodobacter sp. isolated from peripheral beachrock. Biochem Eng J 124:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Humphreys PN, West JM, Metcalfe R (2010) Microbial effects on repository performance. Quintessa QRS-1378Q-1, version 3.0Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Inagaki Y, Tsukamoto M, Mori H, Sasaki T, Soga K, Qabany AAl, Hata T (2011) The influence of injection conditions and soil types on soil improvement by microbial functions. Geo-Frontiers 2011:4021–4030Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ivanov V, Chu J (2008) Applications of microorganisms to geotechnical engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of soil in situ. Rev Environ Sci Biotech 7:139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jonkers HM, Van Loosdrecht KCM (2010) Biogeocivil engineering. Ecol Eng 36:97–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kawasaki S, Murao A, Hiroyoshi N, Tsunekawa M, Kaneko K (2006) Fundamental study on novel grout cementing due to microbial metabolism. J Jpn Soc Eng Geol 47:2–12 (in Japanese with English abstract) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khodadadi TH, Kavazanjian E, Van Paassen L, Dejong J (2017) Bio-grout materials: a review. Geotech Spec Publ 288 GSP:1–12. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim G, Youn H (2016) Microbially induced calcite precipitation employing environmental isolates. Mater (Basel) 9:468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lauchnor EG, Topp DM, Parker AE, Gerlach R (2015) Whole cell kinetics of ureolysis by Sporosarcina pasteurii. J Appl Microbiol 118:1321–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maclachlan E, El Mountassir G, Lunn RJ (2013) Use of bacterial ureolysis for improved gelation of silica sol in rock grouting. Géotech Lett 3:180–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahanty B, Kim S, Kim CG (2014) Bacillus pasteurii mediated ureolysis—a numerical approach for kinetic analysis. Int J Environ Eng 1:41–47Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Monod J (1949) The growth of bacterial cultures. Ann Rev Microbiol 3:371–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neidhardt FC, Ingraham JL, Schaechter M (1990) Physiology of the bacterial cell: a molecular approach. Sinauer Associates Inc., SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parkhurst DL (1995) User's guide to PHREEQC—a computer program for speciation, reaction-path, advective-transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. Water-Resour Invest Rep 95(4227):1–143Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shestopaloff YK (2016) Metabolic allometric scaling model: combining cellular transportation and heat dissipation constraints. J Exp Biol 219:2481–2489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shimazaki S (2015) Experimental study on coral sand solidification test using Pararhodobacter sp. M.D. thesis, Hokkaido University (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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 Acta 75:3290–3301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tobler DJ, Cuthbert MO, Phoenix VR (2014) Transport of Sporosarcina pasteurii in sandstone and its significance for subsurface engineering technologies. Appl Geochem 42:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Paassen LA, Harkes MP, Van Zwieten GA, Van der Zon WH, Van der Star WRL, Van Loosdrecht MCM (2009) Scale up of BioGrout: a biological ground reinforcement method. In: Proceedings of 17th international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, pp 2328–2333Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Wijingaarden WK, Vermolen FJ, Van Meurs GAM, Vuik C (2011) Modelling biogrout: a new ground improvement method based on microbial-induced carbonate precipitation. Transp Porous Med 87:397–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whiffin VS, Van Paassen LA, Harkes MP (2007) Microbial carbonate precipitation as a soil improvement technique. Geomicrobiol J 24:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilkins MJ, Daly RA, Mouser PJ, Trexler R, Sharma S, Cole DR, Wrighton KC, Biddle JF, Denis EH, Fredrickson JK, Kieft TL, Onstott TC, Peterson L, Pfiffner SM, Phelps TJ, Schrenk MO (2014) Trends and future challenges in sampling the deep terrestrial biosphere. Front Microbiol 5:481Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xu T, Sonnenthal E, Spycher N, Pruess K (2004) TOUGHREACT User’s guide: a simulation program for non-isothermal multiphase reactive geochemical transport in variably saturated geologic media. Earth Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, LBNL-55460Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geoscience Research Laboratory Co., Ltd.YamatoJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations