Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/343298531
CITATIONS READS
0 102
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) method in Geotechnical Engineering View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ming-Juan Cui on 18 August 2020.
RESEARCH PAPER
Abstract
Enzyme induced carbonate precipitation (EICP) is an emerging soil improvement method using free urease enzyme for
urea hydrolysis. This method has advantages over the commonly used microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP)
process as it does not involve issues related to bio-safety. However, in terms of efficiency of calcium carbonate production,
EICP is considered lower than that of MICP. In this paper, a high efficiency EICP method is proposed. The key of this new
method is to adopt a one-phase injection of low pH solution strategy. In this so-called one-phase-low-pH method, EICP
solution consisting of a mixture of urease solution of pH = 6.5, urea and calcium chloride is injected into soil. The test
results have shown that the one-phase-low-pH method can improve significantly the calcium conversion efficiency and the
uniformity of calcium carbonate distribution in the sand samples as compared with the conventional two-phase EICP
method. Furthermore, the unconfined compressive strength of sand treated using the one-phase-low-pH method is much
higher than that using the two-phase method and the one-phase-low-pH method is also simpler and more efficient as it
involves less number of injections.
123
Acta Geotechnica
EICP based soil improvement methods can be much one-phase-low-pH MICP or EICP method is as follows: (1)
improved if the efficiency of the calcium carbonate pro- preparing MICP (or EICP) solution by mixing the bacterial
duction in EICP can be increased. solution (pH = 6.5) [or urease solution (pH = 6.5)] with CS
In this paper, a one-phase-low-pH method was adopted (2.0 M) and distilled water using a volume ratio of bacterial
to improve the efficiency of calcium carbonate production (or urease) solution: CS: distilled water = 0.3: 0.5: 0.2 to
in the EICP process. To verify the effectiveness of the one- achieve a CS final concentration of 1.0 M; (2) injecting
phase-low-pH method hereafter, a comparative study MICP (or EICP) solution into a sand column immediately
between sand columns treated using one-phase-low-pH and and incubating the sand at room temperature (25 ± 1 °C) for
two-phase methods was conducted. The data obtained from 24 h; and (3) repeating the above steps until achieving the
this study were also compared with published data using required number of treatments. For comparison, the two-
EICP-based method. The scanning electron microscopy phase method was also used to treat sand columns using
(SEM) images were examined to reveal the microscopic either EICP or MICP by injecting one pore volume of bac-
difference between the EICP- and MICP-treated sand. terial (or urease) solution, followed by injecting the same
volume of CS of 1.0 M after 6 h of fixation time for bacteria
(or urease).
2 Materials and methods
2.3 Properties tests
2.1 Materials
Titration method was adopted to measure the calcium
In this study, Sporosarcina pasteurii (OD600 = 3.6 ± 0.3, concentration of the effluent after each treatment using a
urease activity UA = 20 ± 1 U/mL) was used for MICP standard solution of EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic
treatment and urease (UA = 40 ± 1 U/mL) extracted from acid) [9]. After completing the EICP or MICP treatment,
bacteria via ultrasonication was used for EICP treatment. all samples were flushed by distilled water at least 5 cycles
750 Watt ultrasonic processor (VCX 750) with 20 kHz in to remove the residual substances. The samples were then
frequency was used in this study to extract urease from saturated and used for unconfined compression (UC) tests
bacteria through the ‘‘run-cool’’ cycle. During the extrac- to measure the unconfined compressive strength under a
tion, the temperature of bacterial solution was kept lower loading rate of 1.0 mm/min [5]. After the UC test, all
than 35 °C. The soil used was clean Ottawa 20–30 sand fractions of the tested sample were collected and dried in
(Gs = 2.65, D50 = 0.72 mm, Cu = 1.2, emax = 0.742 and an oven with a temperature of 105 °C. The acid dissolving
emin = 0.502). Equal mole of CaCl2 and urea were used as method [12, 44] was adopted to determine the Calcium
cementation solution which will be termed as CS hereafter. Carbonate Content (CCC) of each sample. Scanning elec-
tron microscopy (SEM) tests were also conducted.
2.2 Sand specimen treatment
The test program is summarised in Table 1. Poly vinyl 3 Results and discussion
chloride (PVC) tube was used as the mould to prepare sand
specimens of 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height. All 3.1 Comparison of one-phase-low-pH and two-
tests were triplicated for repeatability. The one-phase-low- phase method
pH injection method [7] was adopted in this study for both
MICP and EICP treatment. Hydrochloric acid (HCl) with a Figure 1 shows the results of EICP and MICP treatment for
concentration of 2.0 M was used to adjust the pH of bacterial sand using either one-phase-low-pH or two-phase methods.
or urease solution. The procedure for the application of the It can be seen that the Calcium Conversion Efficiency
123
Acta Geotechnica
(CCE) (Fig. 1a), which is the ratio of calcium consumed to particle surface. The filter capacity of soil relies on its
total calcium supplied for each treatment, and Calcium physical properties of the soil (e.g., grain sizes and particle
Carbonate Content (CCC) (Fig. 1b) of sand treated by gradation) and the sizes of bacterial cells. Soil with smaller
EICP and MICP using the one-phase-low-pH method were particle sizes and good gradation has a better filter capac-
higher than that using the two-phase method. However, the ity. The larger bacterial cells are more likely to be trapped
amount of bacteria or urease for each injection using two- in soil. For the one-phase-low-pH method, all three
phase method is greater than that using one-phase-low-pH mechanisms will contribute to the retention of bacterial
method. The low CCE and CCC for the two-phase method cells or urease enzymes. For the two-phase method, the
are possibly due to the fact that most of the injected bac- bacterial cells or urease enzymes are retained through the
teria or urease would be flushed out during the CS first two mechanisms during the injection of bacterial or
injection. urease solution. However, during the injection for CS, the
In general, there are three mechanisms for the bacteria seepage force causes the flushing out of some bacterial
or urease to be retained in soil: (1) the adsorption capacity cells or urease enzymes.
of bacteria or urease; (2) the filtration capacity of soil; and Moreover, for the tests using the two-phase method, the
(3) the retention ability of other media such as the pre- CCE for the EICP treatment (Test EICP-2) is much lower
cipitated calcium carbonate. The adsorption capacity of than that for the MICP treatment (Test MICP-2). However,
bacterial cells or urease enzymes depends on its own when the one-phase-low-pH method is used, the CCE are
characteristics. The bacterial cells are considered as nega- high for both the EICP treatment (Test EICP-1) and MICP
tively charged [50] and thus will be attracted to the soil treatment (Test MICP-1). The possible reason for the low
Fig. 1 Comparison of EICP and MICP treatments of sand using either the two-phase or the one-phase-low-pH method: a calcium conversion
efficiency (CCE) versus number of treatments; b calcium carbonate content (CCC) versus number of treatments; c calcium carbonate content
(CCC) in each test after 4 treatments; and d unconfined compressive strength versus number of treatments
123
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 2 Comparison of Calcium carbonate content (CCC) in sand treated by EICP and MICP using the one-phase-low-pH method: a CCC versus
number of treatments; and b CCC distribution at different positions within a treated sand column
123
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 4 Comparison of SEM images of sand treated by EICP and MICP using the one-phase-low-pH method: a EICP-1 at CCC= 2.4% after one
treatment; b MICP-1 at CCC= 2.3% after one treatment; c EICP-1 at CCC= 4.4% after two treatments; d MICP-1 at CCC= 4.3% after two
treatments; e EICP-1 at = 8.4% after four treatments; f MICP-1 = 8.7% after four treatments
phase-low-pH method. Moreover, the distribution of One explanation for the above difference in the quc
CCC in EICP- and MICP-treated sand columns is similar versus CCC relationships was given by Hoang et al. [21] as
and uniform (Fig. 2b). the difference in the deposition location of the precipitated
The unconfined compressive strength (quc) of EICP- and calcium carbonate. However, this deposition difference is
MICP-treated sand columns is plotted versus calcium car- not significant in the current study. SEM images of both the
bonate content (CCC) in Fig. 3. As expected, quc increases EICP- and MICP-treated sand using the one-phase-low-pH
with increasing in CCC for both. However, quc obtained method at different CCC are compared in Fig. 4. It can be
from the EICP treatment is greater than that from the MICP seen that the calcium carbonate crystals were formed on
treatment for the same CCC. Similar observations have sand particles in both cases. Two major differences have
also been reported by Almajed et al. [4] and Hoang et al. been observed from the SEM images. Firstly, the mor-
[21]. phology of the calcium carbonate crystals formed in the
123
Acta Geotechnica
Fig. 5 Comparison of one-phase-low-pH EICP with published EICP treatments for sand: a relationship between calcium carbonate content
(CCC) and number of treatments N; and b relationship between unconfined compressive strength quc and CCC; c relationship between
unconfined compressive strength quc and number of treatments N
two different treatments is different. For EICP treatment, Secondly, the sizes of calcium carbonate crystals are also
mainly rhombic calcium carbonate crystals are observed different. The sizes of the calcium carbonate crystals
(Fig. 4a, c, e), whereas for MICP treatment, both rhombic induced by EICP are smaller than that by MICP at the
and spherical calcium carbonate crystals dominate similar CCC, as shown by a comparison of Fig. 4c with
(Fig. 4b, d, or f). Both types of calcium carbonate crystals Fig. 4d, which is consistent with the finding of Nafisi et al.
have been observed by other researchers [30]. The difference in the sizes of the crystals is related to
[1, 8, 14, 23, 29, 38]. By examining the crystals in Fig. 4a the sizes of bacterial cells or urease enzymes and the
more closely, it can be seen that each rhombic crystal crystallisation rate of calcium carbonate. As the sizes of
consists of a number of smaller cubic or prismatic shaped bacterial cell (within the range of 500–3000 nm [43]) are
calcium carbonate crystals, suggesting the rhombic crystals much bigger than those of urease enzyme (about 12 nm
were more closely related to calcite as also pointed by [6]), the calcium carbonate crystals formed with bacterial
Declet et al. [13]. Gebauer et al. [16] have reported that cells as nuclei [10] in MICP are much bigger than those
calcite is a more stable polymorph of calcium carbonate with urease enzyme as nuclei in EICP. In terms of crys-
and likely possesses a higher binding strength in the clus- tallisation rate, as the urea hydrolysis rate in EICP is
ters than other types. Khodadadi et al. [25] also reported quicker, but shorter than that in MICP, the crystallisation
that the less stable calcium carbonate mineral phases may rate of calcium carbonate by EICP treatment would be
not be as effective at improving the mechanical properties faster and the duration would be shorter than that of MICP.
of the soil. Furthermore, the surface of the spherical crys- Consequently, the calcium carbonate crystals formed dur-
tals is smooth and thus its contribution to interlocking ing each EICP treatment (Fig. 4c) would be smaller. If the
might not be as high as the rhombic type of crystals. same amount of calcium carbonate content (CCC) is
123
Acta Geotechnica
Jack bean Percolation method. Add EICP solution from top of sand EICP solution: 0.67 M 7 days Oven-dried Almajed
column CaCl2, 1.0 M urea, 3 g/ at 50 °C et al. [3]
Premixing method. Mix sand with EICP solution L enzyme 3 days Oven-dried Almajed
at 40 °C et al. [4]
Self- Circulated-percolation process including 4 steps: (1) Urease: 25.4 mM urea/ 24–27 h Oven-dried Hoang
extracted circulated percolation of urease (3 h); (2) drain off the min; CS: 0.3 M CaCl2, at 50 °C et al.
from pore volume urease; (3) circulated percolation of CS 0.3 M urea for 48 h [20, 21]
bacteria (9–12 h); (4) flush with deionized water (2 h), then drain
off all liquid (10 h)
Jack bean Inject EICP solution through the injection tube pre- EICP solution: 1.0 M 24 h Wet Neupane
embedded in sand CaCl2, 1.0 M urea, et al.
15 g/L urease [33]
Self- Pre-mixing method including 4 steps: (1) mixing jack bean – 3 days Wet Park et al.
extracted extract with urea (3 days); (2) adding calcium to yield [37]
from jack calcite solution: (3) mixing sand with calcite solution and
bean compacting into mould; (4) air curing
Jack bean Pre-mixing method including 3 steps: (1) pluviating sand CS: (1) 0.5 M CaCl2, 24 h Dry Yasuhara
into mould after well-mixing with urease powder; (2) 0.5 M urea; (2) 1.0 M et al.
evacuating and applying 50 kPa confining pressure on CaCl2, 1.0 M urea [49]
sand sample; (3) injecting CS solution
achieved in each EICP and MICP treatment, then the published studies [33, 37, 49] under the same CCC. As the
number of calcium carbonate crystals will be more. In number of treatments required is less in the one-phase-low-
other words, there will be more contact points for cemen- pH EICP method to achieve the same CCC, it implies that for
tation in EICP than those in MICP for the same CCC. As the same number of treatments, the quc will be higher. This is
biocementation of calcium carbonate between the adjacent indeed the case as shown in Fig. 5c. However, it needs to be
soil particles contributes to enhance the strength and pointed out that quc is also affected by other factors such as
stiffness properties of soil [22], the more cementation concentration of bacterial or cementation solutions used and
points of calcium carbonate will produce higher strength thus the data in Fig. 5b and c are scattered.
for EICP. In summary, the difference in strength
enhancement of sand treated by EICP and MICP could also
be explained by the differences in the properties of the 4 Conclusions
calcium carbonate crystals and the number and sizes of the
crystals. In this paper, a one-phase-low-pH EICP method was pro-
posed to improve the efficiency of calcium carbonate
3.3 Comparison of one-phase-low-pH EICP production for EICP. In this method, the EICP-solution
with published EICP treatment methods consisting of a mixture of low pH urease solution (pH =
6.5) and cementation solution (calcium chloride and urea)
The calcium carbonate content (CCC) and unconfined is injected together into soil. The following conclusions can
compressive strength (quc) versus number of treatments be drawn from this study:
obtained from the one-phase-low-pH EICP method in this
1. A higher calcium conversion efficiency and more
study is compared with those from the published EICP
uniform distribution of calcium carbonate in the soil
methods [3, 4, 20, 21, 33, 37, 49], as shown in Fig. 5.
specimens treated was achieved using the one-phase-
Information about the published EICP methods is sum-
low-pH EICP method compared with that using a two-
marised in Table 2. It can be seen from Fig. 5a that the
phase method, and thus producing higher unconfined
calcium carbonate production in this study is higher com-
compressive strength.
pared with three others under the same number of treatments
2. When the one-phase-low-pH method is adopted, the
[3, 4, 20, 21, 49]. Figure 5b shows that the quc obtained from
efficiency of calcium carbonate production for EICP
this study is similar to the results of Almajed et al. [3, 4] and
and MICP is almost the same. The injected calcium of
Hoang et al. [20, 21], but higher than the cases in the
123
Acta Geotechnica
each treatment could be converted almost completely 12. Cui MJ, Zheng JJ, Zhang RJ, Lai HJ, Zhang J (2017) Influence of
to calcium carbonate after 24 h incubation. The cementation level on the strength behaviour of bio-cemented
sand. Acta Geotech 12(5):971–986
unconfined compressive strength of the sand column 13. Declet A, Reyes E, Suárez OM (2016) Calcium carbonate pre-
with EICP treatment is greater than that of MICP cipitation: a review of the carbonate crystallization process and
treatment for the same calcium carbonate content. This applications in bioinspired composites. Rev Adv Mater Sci
can be explained by the differences in the types of 44:87–107
14. Fujita Y, Ferris FG, Lawson RD, Colwell FS, Smith RW (2000)
calcium carbonate crystals and the sizes of the crystals. Subscribed content calcium carbonate precipitation by ureolytic
3. Compared with the published EICP treatment methods, subsurface bacteria. Geomicrobiol J 17(4):305–318
the one-phase-low-pH method proposed in this study is 15. Gao YF, He J, Tang XY, Chu J (2019) Calcium carbonate pre-
more effective as it results in a higher shear strength cipitation catalyzed by soybean urease as an improvement
method for fine-grained soil. Soils Found. https://doi.org/10.1016/
and simpler as the number of injections is reduced by j.sandf.2019.03.014
half given the other conditions the same. 16. Gebauer D, Völkel A, Cölfen H (2008) Stable prenucleation
calcium carbonate clusters. Science 322(5909):1819–1822
17. Handley-Sidhu S, Sham E, Cuthbert MO, Nougarol S, Mantle M,
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr Xiaoniu YU Johns ML, Macaskie LE, Renshaw JC (2013) Kinetics of urease
of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, for the discussion mediated calcite precipitation and permeability reduction of
with him. The financial supports provided through Grant No. porous media evidenced by magnetic resonance imaging. Int J
MOE2015-T2-2-142 by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, and the Environ Sci Technol 10(5):881–890
Grant No. SMI-2018-MA-02 by the Singapore Maritime Institute are 18. Hamdan N, Kavazanjian E Jr (2016) Enzyme-induced carbonate
gratefully acknowledged. The first two authors would also like to mineral precipitation for fugitive dust control. Géotechnique
thank the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of 66(7):546–555
China (NSFC) (No. 51708243) and the China Postdoctoral Science 19. He J, Gao YF, Gu ZX, Chu J, Wang LY (2020) Characterization
Foundation (Nos. 2016M600595, 2018M632862 and 2018T110769) of crude bacterial urease for CaCO3 precipitation and cementa-
for the early stage of their research. tion of silty sand. J Mater Civ Eng 32(5):04020071
20. Hoang T, Alleman J, Cetin B, Choi SG (2020) Engineering
properties of biocementation coarse- and fine-grained sand cat-
References alyzed by bacterial cells and bacterial enzyme. J Mater Civ Eng
32(4):04020030
21. Hoang T, Alleman J, Cetin B, Ikuma K, Choi SG (2019) Sand and
1. Al Qabany A, Soga K, Santamarina C (2012) Factors affecting
silty-sand soil stabilization using bacterial enzyme—induced
efficiency of microbially induced calcite precipitation. J Geotech
calcite precipitation (BEICP). Can Geotech J 56:808–822
Geoenviron Eng 138(8):992–1001
22. Ivanov V, Chu J (2008) Applications of microorganisms to
2. Al Qabany A, Soga K (2013) Effect of chemical treatment used in
geotechnical engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of
MICP on engineering properties of cemented soils. Géotechnique
soil in situ. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 7(2):139–153
63(4):331–339
23. Ismail MA, Joer HA, Randolph MF, Meritt A (2002) Cementa-
3. Almajed A, Khodadadi TH, Kavazanjian E Jr (2018) Baseline
tion of porous materials using calcite. Géotechnique
investigation on enzyme-induced calcium carbonate precipita-
52(5):313–324
tion. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 144(11):04018081. https://doi.
24. Jiang NJ, Yoshioka H, Yamamoto K, Soga K (2016) Ureolytic
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001973
activities of a urease-producing bacterium and purified urease
4. Almajed A, Khodadadi TH, Kavazanjian E Jr, Hamdan N (2019)
enzyme in the anoxic condition: implication for subseafloor sand
Enzyme induced biocementated sand with high strength at low
production control by microbially induced carbonate precipitation
carbonate content. Sci Rep 9(1135):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/
(MICP). Ecol Eng 90:96–104
s41598-018-38361-1
25. Khodadadi TH, Kavazanjian E, Bilsel H (2017) Mineralogy of
5. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) D2166
calcium carbonate in MICP-treated soil using soaking and
(2013) Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength
injection treatment methods. Geotech Front 2017:195–201
of cohesive soil. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
26. Mahawish A, Bouazza A, Gates WP (2018) Effect of particle size
6. Blakely RL, Zerner B (1984) Jack bean urease: the first nickel
distribution on the bio-cementation of coarse aggregates. Acta
enzyme. J Mol Catal 23:263–292
Geotech 13(4):1019–1025
7. Cheng L, Shahin MA, Chu J (2019) Soil bio-cementation using a
27. Martin KK, Khodadadi TH, Kavazanjian E Jr (2020) Enzyme-
new one-phase low-pH injection method. Acta Geotech
induced carbonate precipitation: scale-up of bio-cemented soil
14:615–626
columns. Geo-Congress 2020:96–103
8. Cheng L, Shahin MA, Mujah D (2016) Influence of key envi-
28. Martinez BC, Dejong JT, Ginn TR, Montoya BM, Barkouki TH,
ronmental conditions on microbially induced cementation for soil
Hunt C, Tanyu B, Major D (2013) Experimental optimization of
stabilization. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(1):04016083
microbial-induced carbonate precipitation for soil improvement.
9. Choi SG, Park SS, Wu SF, Chu J (2017) Methods for calcium
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:587–598
carbonate content measurement of biocemented soils. J Mater Civ
29. Mujah D, Cheng L, Shahin MA (2019) Microstructural and
Eng 29(11):06017015
geomechanical study on biocemented sand for optimization of
10. Chu J, Ivanov V, Naeimi M, Stabnikov V, Liu HL (2014) Opti-
MICP process. J Mater Civ Eng 31(4):04019025
mization of calcium-based bioclogging and biocementation of
30. Nafisi A, Safavizadeh S, Montoya BM (2019) Influence of
sand. Acta Geotech 9:277–285
microbe and enzyme-induced treatments on cemented sand shear
11. Chu J, Wen ZY (2015) Proof of concept: biocement for road
response. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 145(9):06019008
repair. In: Trans project reports 129
31. Nam IH, Chon CM, Jung KY, Choi SG, Choi H, Park SS (2015)
Calcite precipitation by ureolytic plant (Canavalia ensiformis)
123
Acta Geotechnica
extracts as effective biomaterials. KSCE J Civ Eng 42. Terzis D, Laloui L (2019) Cell-free soil bio-cementation with
19(6):1620–1625 strength, dilatancy and fabric characterization. Acta Geotech
32. Nemati M, Voordouw G (2003) Modification of porous media 14(3):639–656
permeability, using calcium carbonate produced enzymatically 43. Tsesarsky M, Gat D, Ronen Z (2016) Biological aspects of
in situ. Enzyme Microb Technol 33(5):635–642 microbial-induced calcite precipitation. Environ Geotech
33. Neupane D, Yasuhara H, Kinoshita N, Ando Y (2015) Distribu- 5(2):69–78
tion of mineralized carbonate and its quantification method in 44. Wang XR, Tao JL (2019) Polymer-modified microbially induced
enzyme mediated calcite precipitation technique. Soils Found carbonate precipitation for one-shot targeted and localized soil
55(2):447–457 improvement. Acta Geotech 14:657–671
34. Neupane D, Yasuhara H, Kinoshita N, Unno T (2013) Applica- 45. Wen KJ, Li Y, Amini F, Li L (2020) Impact of bacteria and
bility of enzymatic calcium carbonate precipitation as a soil- urease concentration on precipitation kinetics and crystal mor-
strengthening technique. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng phology of calcium carbonate. Acta Geotech 15:17–27
139(12):2201–2211 46. Whiffin VS, Van Paassen LA, Harkes MP (2007) Microbial
35. Oliveira PJV, Freitas LD, Carmona JPSF (2017) Effect of soil carbonate precipitation as a soil improvement technique.
type on the enzymatic calcium carbonate precipitation process Geomicrobiol J 24(5):417–423
used for soil improvement. J Mater Civ Eng 29(4):04016263 47. Wu CZ, Chu J, Cheng L, Wu SF (2019) Biogrouting of aggre-
36. Pan XH, Chu J, Yang Y, Cheng L (2020) A new biogrouting gates using premixed injection method with or without pH
method for fine to coarse sand. Acta Geotech 15:1–16 adjustment. J Mater Civ Eng 31(9):06019008
37. Park SS, Choi SG, Nam IH (2014) Effect of plant-induced calcite 48. Wu CZ, Chu J, Wu SF, Cheng L, van Paassen LA (2019)
precipitation on the strength of sand. J Mater Civ Eng Microbially induced calcite precipitation along a circular flow
26(8):06014017 channel under a constant flow condition. Acta Geotech
38. Rong H, Qian CX, Li LZ (2012) Influence of molding process on 14:673–683
mechanical properties of sandstone cemented by microbe cement. 49. Yasuhara H, Neupane D, Hayashi K, Okamura M (2012)
Constr Build Mater 28(1):238–243 Experiments and predictions of physical properties of sand
39. Simatupang M, Okamura M (2017) Liquefaction resistance of cemented by enzymatically-induced carbonate precipitation.
sand remediated with carbonate precipitation at different degrees Soils Found 52(3):539–549
of saturation during curing. Soils Found 57(4):619–631 50. Zita A, Hermansson M (1994) Effects of ionic strength on bac-
40. Song JY, Sim Y, Jang J, Hong WT, Yun TS (2020) Near-surface terial adhesion and stability of flocs in a wastewater activated
soil stabilization by enzyme-induced carbonate precipitation for sludge system. Appl Environ Microbiol 60(9):3041–3048
fugitive dust suppression. Acta Geotech 15:1967–1980. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11440-019-00881-z Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
41. Sun XH, Miao LC, Tong TZ, Wang CC (2019) Study of the effect jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
of temperature on microbially induced carbonate precipitation.
Acta Geotech 14:627–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-018-
0758-y
123