Modelling the Effects of Thermal Gradient on Microbe Facilitated Mineral Precipitation Kinetics in Subsurface Flow Conditions

  • Shakil A. MasumEmail author
  • Hywel R. Thomas
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Deep geological sequestration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a plausible way to reduce global greenhouse gas impacts. Long-term containment of sequestered CO2 can be achieved by preventing leakage and by ensuring further entrapments such as solubility-trapping and mineral-trapping. These processes can be enhanced by involving subsurface microbial community that restrict flows by forming biofilms and/favours biomineralization. For example, ureolytic bacteria, Sporosarcina pasteurii, catalyzes urea hydrolysis and accelerate calcite precipitations in presence of dissolved calcium ions. However, subsurface flows and reactions are complex and often involve multiple phases, chemicals and minerals as well as pressure and thermal gradients. These complex coupled behaviours are challenging and limitedly attempted.

Within the scope of an ongoing study, a coupled numerical model has been developed under a THCM framework including subsurface microbial processes and associated bio-geochemical reactions. The model deals with liquid flow, multicomponent gas flows, dissolved chemicals and suspended microbes flows in liquid phase, heat flow, biofilms and minerals growths, mechanical deformations and geochemical/bio-geochemical reactions. In this paper, the coupled microbial model has been used to investigate the effects of thermal gradient on microbial growth and mineral precipitation as well as their overall impacts on the flow properties of the medium.


Coupled Modelling Biofilm Thermal Biomineralization 



Funding to support this research was provided by Welsh Government and HEFCW through Ser Cymru National Research Network for Low Carbon, Energy and the Environment (NRN-LCEE) via Geo-Carb-Cymru Cluster.


  1. Appelo CAJ, Postma D (2005) Geochemistry, groundwater and pollution, 2nd edn. A.A. Balkema Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Bethke CM (2008) Geochemical and biogeochemical reaction modelling, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyenal H, Chen SN, Lewandowski Z (2003) The double substrate growth kinetics of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Enzyme Microb Technol 32:92–98Google Scholar
  4. Birch F, Clark H (1940) The thermal conductivity of rocks and its dependence upon temperature and composition. Am J Sci 238(8):529–558Google Scholar
  5. De Muynck W, De Belie N, Verstraete W (2010) Microbial carbonate precipitation in construction materials: a review. Ecol Eng 36(2):118–136Google Scholar
  6. Eppelbaum L, Kutasov I, Pilchin A (2014) Thermal properties of rocks and density of fluids. In: Applied geothermics. Lecture notes in earth system sciences. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 99–149Google Scholar
  7. Jacobs GK, Kerrick DM, Krupka KM (1981) The high-temperature heat capacity of natural calcite (CaCO3). Phys Chem Miner 7(2):55–59Google Scholar
  8. Kovářová K, Zehnder AJB, Egli T (1996) Temperature-dependent growth kinetics of escherichia coli ML 30 in glucose-limited continuous culture. J Bacteriol 178(15):4530–4539Google Scholar
  9. Lopez O, Zuddas P, Faivre D (2009) The influence of temperature and seawater composition on calcite crystal growth mechanisms and kinetics: implications for Mg incorporation in calcite lattice. Geochimia et Cosmochimia Acta 73:337–347Google Scholar
  10. Masum SA, Thomas HR (2018) Modelling coupled microbial processes in the subsurface: model development, verification, evaluation and application. Adv Water Resour 116:1–17Google Scholar
  11. Mitchell AC, Ferris FG (2005) The coprecipitation of Sr into calcite precipitates induced by bacterial ureolysis in artificial groundwater: temperature and kinetic dependence. Geochimia et Cosmochimia Acta 69(17):4199–4210Google Scholar
  12. Mitchell AC, Dideriksen K, Spangler LH, Cunningham AB, Gerlach R (2010) Microbially enhanced carbon capture and storage by mineral-trapping and solubility-trapping. Environ Sci Technol 44:5270–5276Google Scholar
  13. Parkhurst DL, Appelo CAJ (1999) User’s guide to PHREEQC (version 2). United States Geological Survey, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Peyton BM (1995) Effects of shear stress and substrate loading rate on Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm thickness and density. Water Res 30(1):29–36Google Scholar
  15. Ratkowsky DA, Lowry RK, McMeekin TA, Stokes AN, Chandler RE (1983) Model for bacterial culture growth rate throughout the entire biokinetic temperature range. J Bacteriol 154(3):1222–1226Google Scholar
  16. Stumm W, Morgan JJ (1996) Aquatic chemistry, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Taylor SW, Jaffé PR (1990) Substrate and biomass transport in a porous medium. Water Resour Res 26(9):2181–2194Google Scholar
  18. Thomas HR, Vardon PJ, Cleall PJ (2013) Three-dimensional behaviour of a prototype radioactive waste repository in fractured granitic rock. Can Geotech J 51(3):246–259Google Scholar
  19. Zhang T, Klapper I (2010) Mathematical model of biofilm induced calcite precipitation. Water Sci Technol 61(11):2957–2964Google Scholar
  20. Zwietering MH, De Koos JT, Hasenack BE, De Wit JC, van’t Riet K (1991) Modelling of bacterial growth as a function of temperature. Appl Environ Microbiol 57(4):1094–1101Google Scholar
  21. PHREEQC Homepage. Accessed 10 Apr 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geoenvironmental Research CentreCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations