Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
To cite this article: Yufeng Gao, Xinyi Tang, Jian Chu & Jia He (2019): Microbially Induced
Calcite Precipitation for Seepage Control in Sandy Soil, Geomicrobiology Journal, DOI:
10.1080/01490451.2018.1556750
CONTACT Jia He hejia@hhu.edu.cn Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing
210098, China
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. GAO ET AL.
Water/Treatment liquid
The hard crust
Sand
Metal filter
Gravel
Container
Figure 3. Particle size distribution of soil.
Balance
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of soil treatment and the seepage rate
test apparatus.
Microbial treatment
The treatment liquid was obtained by mixing bacterial liquid time interval between two consecutive treatments was
and urea-calcium chloride solutions together at 1:1 volume 2 d.
ratio. The treatment liquid contained 0.5 mol/L equimolar
(2) Surface spray with the addition of fibers
urea and calcium chloride. The treatment liquid was applied
Before the application of treatment liquids, polypropylene
to soil samples by four different schemes as
fibers were evenly placed on the surface of soil samples at
explained below.
37.3 g/m2. The size of the fibers was around 10 mm in
(1) Surface spray length and 0.1 mm in diameter. The amount of treatment
Treatment liquids were applied onto the surface of soil liquid applied to soil and the application method were
samples by spraying using a spray pot. The volume of the same as those in scheme (1).
treatment liquids applied each time was 134 mL (5 L/
(3) Surface spray and bulk stabilization
m2). Total 19 times spray treatments were applied. The
4 Y. GAO ET AL.
Prior to the spray treatments, soil samples were immersed Pore size distribution
in the treatment liquid for the bulk stabilization of soil
The pore size distributions of the samples were detected
for three times. The treatment liquid retained at the soil
using Quantachrome Poremaster GT-60 mercury porosime-
surface for 48 h. After the bulk stabilizations, the soil
ter. The results were presented in the form of incremental
sample received spray treatments for 12 times using the
intrusion of mercury (pore volume) against pore size.
same method as that in schemes (1) and (2).
(4) Immersion stabilization
Results
The soil sample was immersed in treatment liquid with
the water level 1 cm higher than soil surface. Such a Seepage rate
treatment was carried out for five times with 2-d time
Figure 5 shows the seepage rates of soil samples subject to
interval between two consecutive treatments.
different levels of treatments in different treatment schemes.
Some treatment parameters are given in Table 1. It
In the untreated soil, the seepage rate was 0.237 L m2 s1.
should be explained here that, although treatment methods
After the treatments, the seepage rates were reduced by
differed, the amounts of treatment liquid applied to the sur-
8–379 times depending on the different treatment schemes.
face of the soil samples were similar in different schemes.
In the schemes of surface spray and surface spray with
fibers, the seepage rate reductions were eight times. The
Seepage rate addition of fibers onto the soil surface did not have an evi-
The seepage rate was measured by allowing water to flow dent effect on the seepage rate. In the methods of surface
through the sample at a constant water head and taking spray and bulk stabilization, and immersion stabilization,
readings of the amount of water flowing out of the sample, the seepage rate reductions were 379 and 70 times,
as shown in Figure 4. The water head during the test was respectively.
maintained at 60 cm. The seepage rate was calculated as The seepage rates against the calcium source additions in
the surface soil (2-cm range depth from the surface) are pre-
Q sented in Figure 6. Below 2-cm depth of the samples, cal-
v¼ [3]
At cium content was relatively low and the effect of seepage
control was weak. It can be clearly seen that the treatment
in which Q is the amount of water flowing through the soil
scheme (3), surface spray and bulk stabilization, was the
sample, A is the cross-section area of the sample, and t is
most effective method to reduce the seepage rate. After
time duration of the test.
three-time bulk stabilizations and one-time spray treatment,
the seepage rate was reduced to a level 25 times lower than
Strength of the surface layer its original state. At this time, the amount of calcium source
used was only 0.96 mol. Further treatments also led to a sig-
The strength of the bio-treated soil sample was measured nificant reduction in the seepage rate. As for the scheme of
using a flat-bottom cylindrical penetrometer. The diameter immersion stabilization, a considerable decrease in the seep-
of the penetrometer head was 6 mm. During the measure- age rate started from the fourth treatment when the applica-
ment, the penetrometer head was pushed into the sample at tion of the calcium source was 1.19 mol. In comparison, the
a rate of 3 mm/min. At the same time, the forces and dis- methods of surface spray and surface spray with fibers were
placements of the penetrometer head were recorded. relatively less effective.
To explain such results, the amount and distribution of
calcite in soil and the characteristics of soil pores were
Calcite content
studied. The results are presented in the following
The calcite content of the soil sample was measured using two sections.
the EDTA titrimetric method (ISO 1984). Small pieces of
soil taken from the samples were placed in a certain volume
Calcite content and distribution
of hydrochloric acid. After the calcite was dissolved, the
concentration of calcium in the hydrochloric acid was meas- The amount of calcite produced and its distribution in the
ured. The amount of calcite in the small piece of soil can soil are the major reasons that account for the level of
then be calculated. the seepage rate reduction. After the bio-treatments and the
GEOMICROBIOLOGY JOURNAL 5
0.2
0.01
0.1
0.001
0.0001
0.0
0 4 9 14 19 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Number of treatments,n(times) Calcium molar quantity n(M)
Figure 6. Relationship between calcium addition in surface soil and seepage
(b) 0.3 rate for four different treatment schemes.
Surface spray and
bulk stabilization
Seepage rate,v(L·m -2·s -1)
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 4 7 12
Number of treatments,n(times)
(c) 0.3
Immersion stabilization
Figure 7. The formed hard crust of soil treated by surface spray and bulk stabil-
ization: (a) the calcite layer above the original surface; (b) the cemented soil
layer below the original surface.
Seepage rate,v(L·m -2·s -1)
0.2
treatment before the application of spray treatments could The results of the porosimetry tests are briefly presented
reduce the loss of the treatment liquid and increase the in Table 2. It can be seen that, both the porosities and the
treatment efficiency. pore sizes of treated samples were greatly reduced as com-
pared to the original soil. The porosity of original soil was
0.428. After the treatment, the porosities reduced to a level
Pore size distribution
0.28–0.33 in the surface soil where hard crusts were formed
The pore size distributions of the soils were investigated and 0.37–0.39 below the hard crusts. The porosities of the
using mercury intrusion porosimetry. In the test, mercury calcite layer above the soil surface were around 0.48–0.58.
was pushed into a small piece of dry sample subject to step- Data of most frequent pore size and pore size at 50% mer-
wise increased pressures. Under a given pressure, whether cury intrusion volume are also given in Table 2. For all the
mercury could enter a pore space was related to the size of test samples at different locations, the pore sizes were
the pore, owing to the capillary effect. The relationship reduced to a level lower than original soils, except the calcite
between the pressure and the minimum size of the pores layer in the sample with fiber addition on the soil surface.
that mercury could enter was calculated as, This could be because of the interference of the fibers.
4r Pore size distributions obtained from the mercury intru-
d¼ cos h [4] sion tests are often presented in the form of incremental
p
intrusion curves as shown in Figure 9. The vertical axis is
in which, d is pore diameter, r is the surface tension of the volume of mercury intrusion at the specific pressure
mercury, p is the pressure applied to the mercury, and h is increment, as,
the contact angle of mercury on the sample. During the test,
Vn Vn1
the volume of mercury entering the sample subject to a Incremental intrusion ¼ [5]
log dn log dn1
given pressure was recorded. In this way, the pore volume
of a specific size was obtained. in which, Vn and dn are the volume intrusion and the pore
GEOMICROBIOLOGY JOURNAL 7
(a) (b)
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Pore size diameter,d(µm) Pore size diameter,d(µm)
(c) (d)
1.2 1.2
Incremental intrusion,-dv/dlogd(mL·g -1)
Untreated sand
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Pore size diameter,d(µm) Pore size diameter,d(µm)
Figure 9. Pore size distributions curves (a) surface spray; (b) surface spray with fibers; (c) surface spray and bulk stabilization, and (d) immersion stabilization.
70 1.20E-04
Untreated sand
Surface spray Li, 2015
60 Surface spray with fibers 1.00E-04
Al Qabany & Soga, 2013
Surface spray and bulky stabilization
Permeability, k (m/s)
50 8.00E-05
Penetration force,F(N)
10 0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 Calcite content, w/w (%)
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 11. Relationship between the permeability and the calcite content of
Penetration depth,S(mm) uniform MICP-treated soil in previous studies (The urea concentrations in the
treatment solutions range from 0.5 to 1.5 mol/L; The mean sizes, D50, of the soil
Figure 10. Penetration force versus penetration depth curves for untreated soil
range from 0.165 to 0.420 mm).
and samples treated by four different treatment schemes.
-4
In the preliminary experiments (the data not shown in 10
the paper), we found that cracks could be easily developed
in the soil treated by the surface spray method. The cracks Calculated permeability, k (m/s)
led to the ineffectiveness of seepage control. Therefore, we
added a small amount of fibers to the soil surface before the -5
spray treatment as the so-called Treatment scheme (2) to 10
investigate whether cracks could be prevented or whether
the penetration resistance could be improved with the add-
ition of fibers. It is shown in Figure 5(a) that the samples
-6
treated by schemes (1) (without fiber) and (2) (with fiber) 10
had no significant differences in terms of the permeability
variations. Small cracks can be seen in around first 10
treatments and the cracks gradually disappear thereafter in
both samples, which is also consistent with the permeabil- -7
ity reducing trends shown in Figure 5(a). However, it 10 -7 -6 -5 -4
10 10 10 10
seems that the addition of fibers may increase the ductil-
Measured permeability, k (m/s)
ity of the soil sample. As can be seen in Figure 10, the
Figure 12. Comparison of measured and calculated permeability.
sample treated by scheme (2) (with fibers) has higher
post-peak penetration resistance that treated by scheme
(1) (without fibers). was two order-of-magnitude reduction as compared with
untreated soil. For the treated soil with non-uniform cal-
cite distribution, the permeability was calculated using the
Discussions following equation:
Figure 13. Schematic diagram of irrigation channels and water reservoirs construction in sandy soil ground by MICP methods.
Recommendation for future applications for the samples treated by the four treatment schemes,
respectively. The conversion percentages of calcium of the
For the construction of irrigation channels, a method is pro-
samples treated by the four different schemes were 34.3,
posed here as can be seen in Figure 13. The first step is to
49.8, 89.7 and 58.0%, respectively.
apply the treatment liquid in the deep soil. The cross-well
(b) After the bio-treatment, the formed low-permeable
injection method has been proved to be a feasible way for
hard crusts layers were 10–20 mm in thickness and the cal-
the stabilization of deep soil (DeJong et al. 2013). This
cite content reduced from the top down. The sample treated
method can also be used here. The microbial stabilization of
by scheme (3) had the thickest hard crust and highest calcite
the soil can enhance the stability and durability of the chan- content, which agreed with its best performance in seep-
nel during construction and services. The second step is to age control.
excavate soil to form the designed shape of the channel. The (c) The results from the mercury intrusion tests revealed
induced cementation effect in the first step can facilitate the that, in the MICP-treated soil, both pore volumes and pore
excavation because sandy soil is stabilized. The third step is sizes decreased as compared with the original soil.
to apply treatment liquid onto the surface soil by spraying (d) In the bio-treated soil, the penetration strength and
or immersion. the stiffness were much higher than those in the original
It can be seen in the experimental results that the MICP soil. The relationships between penetration forces and
treatment of soil can effectively reduce the permeability for depths show peak values at around 2–3 mm depths followed
the seepage control. At the same time, the penetration resist- by a gradual decrease in the penetration forces, which is
ance or the surface strength of soil can be improved, which consistent with the calcite distributions in soils.
enhances the durability of the treatment effects. However,
the limitations of the method should also be addressed. The
MICP treatment usually requires at least several rounds of Disclosure statement
treatments in order to obtain favorable permeabilities and No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
strengths, as can be seen in Figures 5 and 10. Currently, the
cost of materials, bacterial cultivation, as well as field appli-
cation methods are relatively high. In the MICP treatment, Funding
ammonia is produced through the ureolytic process, which This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science
is hazardous to the environment (DeJong et al. 2013). Foundation of China (No. 51608169, No. 41630638, No. 51609093, No.
51578214), the National Key Research and Development Program of
China (No. 2016YFC0800205), the Jiangsu Provincial Natural Science
Conclusions Foundation of China (No. BK20150814), the 111 Project (Ministry of
Education of China, No. B13024), the Error! Hyperlink reference not
In this study, we investigated the performance and mecha- valid. (No. MOE2015-T2-2-142), and Centre for Usable Space,
nisms of the MICP method for the control of water seepage Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
in sandy soil. The treatment was carried out by four differ-
ent application schemes, that is, (1) surface spray, (2) surface
References
spray with the addition of fibers, (3) surface spray and bulk
stabilization, and (4) immersion stabilization. After the Al Qabany A, Soga K. 2013. Effect of chemical treatment used in
microbial treatments, tests were carried out on the bio- MICP on engineering properties of cemented soils. Geotechnique
63(4):331–339.
treated samples to evaluate the changes in properties. These Al Qabany A, Soga K, Santamarina JC. 2012. Factors affecting effi-
included seepage rate tests, calcite contents and distributions ciency of microbially induced calcite precipitation. J Geotech
measurement, pore size distribution detection, and surface Geoenviron Eng 138(8):992–1001.
strength tests. Through this study, the following conclusions Blauw M, Lambert JWM, Latil MN. 2009. Biosealing: a method for in
can be drawn, situ sealing of leakages. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Ground Improvement Technologies
(a) Low-permeable hard crusts can be formed at the soil
and Case Histories, Singapore, p125–130.
surface through MICP treatments. By applying around 2.6 L Cheng L, Cord-Ruwisch R. 2013. Selective enrichment and production
treatment liquid onto the 2-cm deep surface soil, the seepage of highly urease active bacteria by non-sterile (open) chemostat cul-
rates of bio-treated samples reduced 8, 8, 379 and 70 times ture. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 40(10):1095–1104.
10 Y. GAO ET AL.
Choi S, Wu S, Chu J. 2016. Biocementation for sand using an eggshell Li M, Cheng X, Guo H. 2013. Heavy metal removal by biomineraliza-
as calcium source. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(10):1–1. tion of urease producing bacteria isolated from soil. Int Biodeter
Chu J, Ivanov V, He J, Naeimi M. 2014. Use of biogeotechnologies for Biodegrad 76:81–85.
disaster mitigation. In: Lai S, editor. Geotechnics for Catastrophic Li MD, Wen KJ, Li Y, Zhu LP. 2017. Impact of oxygen availability on
Flooding Events. CRC Press, p49–56. microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) treatment.
Chu J, Ivanov V, Stabnikov V, Li B. 2013. Microbial method for con- Geomicrobiol J. In press. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/
struction of aquaculture pond in sand. Geotechnique 63(10): doi/full/10.1080/01490451.2017.1303553
871–875. Liu L, Shen Y, Liu HL, Chu J. 2016. Application of bio-cement in ero-
Chu J, Stabnikov V, Ivanov V. 2012. Microbially induced calcium car- sion control of levees. Rock Soil Mech 37(12):3411–3416.
bonate precipitation on surface or in the bulk of soil. Marshall TJ. 1958. A relation between permeability and size distribu-
Geomicrobiol J 29(6):544–549. tion of pores. J Soil Sci 9(1):1–8.
Chen R, Lee I, Zhang LY. 2015. Biopolymer stabilization of mine tail- Mobley HLT, Hausinger RP. 1989. Microbial ureases: significance,
ings for dust control. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(2):1–1. regulation, and molecular characterization. Microbiol Rev 53:
Cuthbert MO, Mcmillan LA, Handley-Sidhu S, Riley MS, Tobler DJ,
85–108.
Phoenix VR. 2013. A field and modeling study of fractured rock
Proto CJ, DeJong JT, Nelson DC. 2016. Bio-mediated permeability
permeability reduction using microbially induced calcite precipita-
reduction in saturated sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(12):
tion. Environ Sci Technol 47(23):13637–13643.
04016073.
DeJong JT, Mortensen BM, Martinez BC, Nelson DC. 2010. Bio-
mediated soil improvement. Ecol Eng Res 36(2):197–210. Ragusa SR, De Zoysa DS, Rengasamy P. 1994. The effect of microor-
Dejong JT, Soga K, Kavazanjian E, Burns S, VAN Paassen LA, Al ganisms, salinity and turbidity on hydraulic conductivity of irriga-
Qabany A, Aydilek A, Bang SS, Burbank M, Caslake LF, et al. 2013. tion channel soil. Irrig Sci 15(4):159–166.
Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical applications: progress, Song HW, Kwon SJ. 2007. Permeability characteristics of carbonated
opportunities and challenges. Geotechnique 63(4):287–301. concrete considering capillary pore structure. Cement Concrete Res
Dong SJ, Sun Y, Sun PF. 2015. The review of existing groundwater 37(6):909–915.
seepage material. Guangdong Chem Indus 42(12):113–130. Stabnikov V, Chu J, Ivanov V, Li Y. 2013. Halotolerant, alkaliphilic
(in Chinese). urease-producing bacteria from different climate zones and their
Fujita Y, Taylor JL, Wendt LM, Reed DW, Smith RW. 2010. application for biocementation of sand. World J Microbiol
Evaluating the potential of native ureolytic microbes to remediate a Biotechnol 29(8):1453–1460.
90Sr contaminated environment. Environ Sci Technol 44(19): Stabnikov V, Naeimi M, Ivanov V, Chu J. 2011. Formation of water-
7652–7658. impermeable crust on sand surface using biocement. Cement
Garcia-Bengochea I, Lovell CW, Altschaeffl AG. 1979. Pore distribution Concrete Res 41(11):1143–1149.
and permeability of silty clay. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div 105: Tang Q, Gu F, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Mo J. 2018a. Impact of biological
839–856. clogging on the barrier performance of landfill liners. J Environ
Gollapudi UK, Knutson CL, Bang SS, Islam MR. 1995. A new method Manage 222:44–53.
for controlling leaching through permeable channels. Chemosphere Tang Q, Gu F, Gao Y, Toru I, Takeshi K. 2018b. Desorption character-
30(4):695–705. istics of Cr(iii), Mn(ii), and Ni(ii) in contaminated soil using citric
International Organization 1984 for Standardization (ISO). Water qual- acid and citric acid-containing wastewater. Soils Found 58(1):50–64.
ity – determination of calcium content – EDTA titrimetric method. Van Paassen LA. 2011. Bio-mediated ground improvement: from
ISO 6058:1984. laboratory experiment to pilot applications. Paper presented at:
Ivanov V, Chu J. 2008. Applications of microorganisms to geotechnical Proceedings of GeoFrontiers 2011: Advances in Geotechnical
engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of soil in situ. Rev Engineering, Dallas, TX, ASCE GSP 211, p4099–4108.
Environ Sci Biotechnol 7(2):139–153. Van Paassen LA, Daza CM, Staal M, Sorokin DY, van der Zon W, van
Jiang NJ, Soga K. 2017. The applicability of microbially induced calcite
Loosdrecht MCM. 2010. Potential soil reinforcement by biological
precipitation (MICP) for internal erosion control in gravel–sand
denitrification. Ecol Eng 36(2):168–175.
mixture. Geotechnique 67(1):42–55.
Van Paassen LA, Harkrs MP, Van Zwieten GA, Van der Zon WH,
Jiang NJ, Soga K, Kuo M. 2017. Microbially induced carbonate precipi-
tation (MICP) for seepage-induced internal erosion control in sand- Van der Star WRL, Van Loosdrecht MCM. 2009. Scale up of bio-
clay mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(3):04016100. grout: a biological ground reinforcement method. Paper presented
Lapierre C, Leroueil S, Locat J. 1990. Mercury intrusion and permeabil- at: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil
ity of Louiseville clay. Can Geotech J 27(6):761–773. Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: The Academia and
Lentz RD. 2007. Inhibiting water infiltration into soils with cross- Practice of Geotechnical Engineering, Egypt, p2328–2333.
linked polyacrylamide: seepage reduction for irrigated agriculture. Whiffin VS, Van Paassen LA, Harkes MP. 2007. Microbial carbonate
Soil Sci Soc Am J 71(4):1352–1362. precipitation as a soil improvement technique. Geomicrobiol J 24(5):
Li AG. 2000. A review of canal seepage control engineering technology. 417–423.
Tech Seepage Contr 1(6):1–16. (in Chinese). Zhan Q, Qian C, Yi H. 2016. Microbial-induced mineralization and
Li B. 2014. Geotechnical properties of biocement treated soils. Doctoral cementation of fugitive dust and engineering application. Constr
thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Build Mater 121:437–444.