Control and Stabilization of Fugitive Dust: Using Eco-Friendly

and Sustainable Materials

Vahab Toufigh, Ph.D., P.E.1; and Pedram Ghassemi2

Abstract: Untreated soil is prone to erosion and dust generation that result in various environmental and health hazards. The addition of
additives has been used as a soil treatment method to tackle this problem. Conventional techniques such as chemical additives impose
negative ecological impacts and significant implementation and maintenance costs. This paper evaluates the efficiency of three eco-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

friendly biopolymers, xanthan gum, guar gum, and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) with 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% concentrations for soil treat-
ment against dust generation. This study also investigates the long-term performance and durability of biopolymers. Three types of
samples (dust particles) were collected from different locations that generate the most dust in Iran: Hooralazim lagoon as a source of
soil, Urmia lake bed as a source of saline sand, and Sungun copper mine as a source of mine tailing. Approximately 500 samples prepared
and treated with different biopolymer concentrations were evaluated by the wind tunnel, moisture retention, surface strength, and uniaxial
compression tests to identify the most effective biopolymer. The addition of biopolymers improved moisture retention, surface strength,
compressive strength, and mitigation of dust generation. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging was also used to study the micro-
structures of the specimens after treatment. A strong correlation was found between the weight loss after the wind tunnel test versus the
maximum penetration force and the uniaxial compressive strength. In terms of dust generation preventive treatment, CMC was more
effective than xanthan gum and guar gum. Hence, CMC was introduced as an alternative material for dust control due to its promising
potentials. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001762. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Soils; Sand; Mine tailings (MTs); Fugitive dust emission control; Biopolymers; Wind tunnel test; Long-term durability;
Surface strength; Uniaxial compressive strength; Moisture retention capacity; Scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Introduction
Hooralazim lagoon, Urmia lake bed, and the mine tailing (MT) of
Sungun copper mine have been marked as potential sites for poten-
tial fugitive dust generation in Iran. The drying of the Hooralazim
lagoon is one of the main sources of dust problems in the Khouze-
stan province of Iran (Bastan et al. 2013). Fig. 1 shows the Hoor-
alazim lagoon. Urmia lake is the second great saline lake in the
world. The concentration of salt has increased considerably with
a water level fall of more than 5 m. Dust deflated from the salt-rich
sediments of dried lake beds could impose environmental damage
in the nearby region (Gholampour et al. 2015). Sungun copper
mine, as the largest open-cast copper mine in the northwest of
Iran, generates approximately 13.7 million tons of copper MT an-
nually as solid waste, which could either make fugitive dust leading
to decreased visibility along roads or infiltrate into groundwater in
the region and cause further environmental problems.
Untreated soil coming from natural sites or disposal of an indus-
trial process (construction, mining, etc.) lacks strength, hydraulic
conductivity, and durability in wetting and drying cycles. It is also
prone to wind erosion leading to visibility reduction, health prob-
lems, and agricultural loss. Soil treatment measures are taken to
1 vastly used in thermoplastic material (Carvalho 2008) and drilling
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif Univ. of Technol-
ogy, P.O. Box 11155-1639, 1458889694, Tehran, Iran (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2462-980X. Email: toufigh@sharif.edu
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif Univ. of Technol-
ogy, P.O. Box 11155-1639, 1458889694, Tehran, Iran.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 6, 2019; approved
on March 23, 2020; published online on June 17, 2020. Discussion period
open until November 17, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geo-
mechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
enhance soil characteristics and mitigate the dust pollution problem.
Chemical additives such as cement or lime are widely used to im-
prove stability by creating an artificial binding between constituent
particles. These additives, while being practical, inflict significant en-
vironmental damage, including excessive carbon dioxide discharge
in the production process, retarding vegetation growth, and reducing
water quality (Chang et al. 2015; Piechota et al. 2004).
Biopolymers are alternative eco-friendly soil treatment agents
and have shown great potential for large-scale deployment. Afford-
ability, biodegradation, self-proliferation, and environmental sus-
tainability are the main advantages of biopolymers compared
with conventional chemical methods (Pham et al. 2013). Among
typical groups of biopolymers, polysaccharides have been com-
monly employed in stabilization practices (Chang et al. 2016).
Polysaccharides are readily found in nature and widely used for
thickening and as gel-forming agents in the food industry (Saha
and Bhattacharya 2010).
Several polysaccharide groups have been used for soil treatment
through direct mixing or spraying due to the gelation properties.
Cellulose can considerably improve the tensile and flexural
strength of soils (Maher and Ho 1994; Sivakumar Babu and
Vasudevan 2008), and result in high soil aggregate stability by in-
creasing water resistance (Annabi et al. 2007). Starch has been
fluids [H. P. Francis et al., “High temperature drilling fluid compo-
nent,” US Patent No. 4,652,384 (1987)]. The rate of the soil aggre-
gation formation is also positively influenced by the starch.
Chitosan is a hydrophilic biopolymer with efficient metal-chelating
characteristics (Sahoo and Nayak 2011) that can be used to remove
copper and lead ions from contaminated groundwater (Gerente
et al. 2007; Wan et al. 2004), and induce a plugging effect by
permeability reduction in sandy soils (Khachatoorian et al. 2003).

© ASCE 04020140-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. A scene of dust present in the region of Hooralazim lagoon,
December 14, 2018.
Curdlan, a high molecular weight linear β-1,3-glucan biopolymer,
forms firm and thermo-irreversible gels when heated in aqueous so-
lutions at high temperatures (McArdle and Hamill 2011). It im-
proves the workability (Plank 2004) and soil clogging (Ivanov
and Chu 2008) in injection grouts. Xanthan gum, a biopolymer
generally used as a viscosity thickener, can decrease the hydraulic
conductivity of silty sand (Bouzza et al. 2009) and increase the liq-
uid limit of soil resulting in relatively high undrained shear strength
(Nugent et al. 2009). Agar gum forms strong gels when it cools
back to room temperature after dissolving in hot water (McHugh
2003), and effectively improves cohesion in sand grains (Khatami
and O’Kelly 2013). Gellan gum shares many properties with agar
gum, especially gelation rheology and strengthening effects
(Tang et al. 1997), and it is better than agar gum due to its mass
production potential.
These biopolymers are still in the infancy stage and have to win
the approval of the engineering community, especially due to a lack
of standard laboratory testing (Ivanov and Chu 2008). Therefore,
heavy scholarly attention has focused on evaluating the properties
of soil when treated by a controlled concentration of biopolymers.
Martin et al. (1996) and Karimi (1999) conducted hydraulic con-
ductivity and triaxial tests on xanthan-treated samples and observed
two orders of magnitude reduction in permeability and a 30% in-
crease in undrained shear strength. In addition to permeability
and shear strength, Etemadi et al. (2003) investigated the copper
uptake capacity of five different biopolymers. The combination
of xanthan and chitosan showed an increasing plugging effect.
Khachatoorian et al. (2003) measured the permeability reduction
of sand columns over an 11-day experiment. They hypothesized
that the plugging affects the structure of biopolymers. The perme-
ability ratio decreased by a factor of 107 for chitosan and only by a
factor of 30 for guar gum and 8 for xanthan. Chang and Cho (2012)
employed beta-glucan (β-1,3/1,6-glucan) for strengthening the
Korean residual soil. They observed a 200% increase in the com-
pressive strength of the treated soil and attributed this improvement
to the particle surface adsorption and tensile strength of the beta-
glucan. Khatami and O’Kelly (2013) showed that the addition of
positively charged starch to agar gum substantially increased the
cohesion and reduced the friction angle in sand grains. Chang
and Cho (2014) conducted further tests on beta-glucan treatments
to identify the geotechnical behavior. An increase in incompatibil-
ity, Atterberg limits and plasticity index (PI), swelling index and a
© ASCE 04020140-2
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140
decrease in the coefficient of consolidation were observed.
Ayeldeen et al. (2016) evaluated the effect of guar gum, xanthan
gum, and modified starch on permeability and shear parameters
of cohesive and cohesionless soils. The superiority of guar gum
to other biopolymers was attributed to its microbehavior and vis-
cosity. Kavazanjian et al. (2009) showed that spray-on application
and mixing of xanthan gum and chitosan with the soil before com-
paction could be effective for wind erosion control. Exposure to the
sunlight degraded the wind erosion resistance of the biopolymer-
treated specimens by one order of magnitude.
Chen et al. (2015) attempted to stabilize MTs for dust control.
Wind erosion, surface strength, and moisture retention were im-
proved for specimens sprayed with 0.6%–1.6% concentrations of
guar and xanthan gum solutions. For both biopolymers, the weight
loss of samples in a wind tunnel considerably increased after five
wet–dry cycles due to the adverse effect of sunlight on microstruc-
ture with cracks and degradation of biopolymer macromolecules.
Chen et al. (2016) focused on the curst formation mechanism for
xanthan-treated MT samples. They identified that by increasing
the biopolymer concentration, the infiltration depth of biopolymer
solution into dry MT decreased. However, the infiltration depth for
xanthan gum solution at a concentration of 0.8% was still large
enough to satisfy effective dust-resistive enhancement. Dehghan
et al. (2019) conducted a series of experiments to quantify improve-
ments in permeability, strength, and collapse potential of xanthan-
and guar gum-treated soil. Higher concentrations of both biopoly-
mers corresponded to increasing Mohr-Coulomb cohesion stress
accompanied by a slight decrease in the internal friction angle.
Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) or cellulose gum is a chemi-
cally modified derivative of cellulose formed by its reaction with
alkali and chloroacetic acid (Heinze and Koschella 2005). Since
CMC is highly viscous and nontoxic, it is widely used in the
food industry as a water-binder, thickener, and emulsion stabilizer.
Ghannam and Esmail (1997) studied the rheological properties of
CMC in detail. The binding advantages of CMC-synthesized nano-
particles are largely leveraged for heavy metal removal from soil
and contaminated water (Gong and Zhao 2013; He et al. 2007,
2009). However, soil stabilization properties of CMC have not
been studied yet in the literature.
In this study, comprehensive investigations have been con-
ducted to control the dust generation in various critical regions.
Three different types of dust particles were collected with distinc-
tive characteristics, which have the potential to generate dust. In ad-
dition, CMC is introduced as a soil treatment material, and its
improving behavior is comprehensively evaluated and compared
with xanthan and guar gum. The wind tunnel, surface strength,
moisture retention, and uniaxial compression tests, along with mi-
crostructure analysis were conducted to assess the enhanced prop-
erties of soil, sand, and MT samples, which were treated with
different concentrations of biopolymers. Treated samples were
also exposed to sunlight and 10 wet–dry cycles to study the long-
term performance and durability of biopolymers.
Materials and Methods
Dust Particles (Study Area)
The soil, sand, and MT from three critical locations associated with
dust generation were selected for this study. Two of them represent
two dust storms origin: Urmia lake bed and Hooralazim lagoon.
Both of these natural sites have been gravely impacted by water
shortage problems, can be a significant source of fugitive dust,
and pose a threat to urban facilities nearby, especially in the near
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 2. (a) Identified Hooralazim lagoon, Urmia lake, and Sungun copper mine (map data from SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO, Image
Landcat/Copernicus); and (b) samples of the identified region.
Fig. 3. The size distribution of soil, sand, and MT samples.
future. The third type of dust particle was taken from the MTs of the
Sungun copper mine in the northwest of Iran. Fig. 2 shows these
types of dust particles and their source locations on the map.
Fig. 3 shows the particle size distribution of them. According to
the XRD analysis, the Hooralazim lagoon soil consisted of approx-
imately 50% by weight of calcite, 26% quartz, and 12% dolomite.
The Urmia lake sand contained about 32% albite, 26% aragonite,
and 18% quartz. Sungun MT contained almost 40% anorthite,
23% albite, and 21% quartz. Fig. 4 illustrates the XRD pattern of
each type of dust particle sample.
Biopolymers (Stabilizers)
Guar gum, xanthan gum, and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) are
the biopolymers used individually for their soil treatment capacity
in this study. A plethora of literature is available on stabilization
properties of xanthan and guar gum (Ayeldeen et al. 2016;
Chang et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2015; Dehghan et al. 2019; Rahbari
et al. 2017). These two biopolymers owe their wide use to their
availability at a relatively low price. However, the direct applica-
tion of CMC for improving the mechanical characteristics of the
soil has not been studied in detail. CMC is a cellulose derivative
comprising groups of carboxymethyl. CMC is commonly used as
a binder in various industries since the adjoining CMC chains
© ASCE 04020140-3
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140
(b)
repel each other due to the electrostatic repulsion of molecules
that disperse in aqueous solution. It leads to form a colloidal solu-
tion with high viscosity (Gibis et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2015).
Solution Preparation
To prepare the biopolymer solution, the biopolymer powder was
gradually added to the distilled water to avoid clump formation.
The solution was stirred for 10 min for the powders to dissolve in
water and satisfy the homogeneous condition. The amount of pow-
der was specified according to the biopolymer concentration. Dis-
tilled water was used here to avoid any inadvertent effect of the
chemical components that may exist in tap water. The biopolymer
concentration was calculated based on the ratio of dry weight of bio-
polymer to total weight of the solution. Biopolymer concentrations
of 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% were used in this study. A biopolymer-free
solution (0%) was also used to establish a baseline for comparisons.
Sample Preparation
A total of 243 samples were prepared for water retention and wind
tunnel tests. First, 2,000 g of sun-dried soils, sands, and MTs were
each placed in aluminum trays (17.25 cm × 24.75 cm × 6.25 cm).
Small compaction was then applied to achieve the approximate
density of the field conditions and leveled surface. Finally, a
110 mL of biopolymer solution with a specific concentration was
sprayed on the surface of the samples to simulate the in-situ appli-
cation of a dust suppressant. Similarly, samples for surface strength
tests were made in the aluminum trays (23.5 cm × 23.5 cm × 7 cm)
with 90 mL of biopolymer solution with a specific concentration.
The rate of applying dust suppressant in practical applications
often falls in the range of 0.5–4.5 L/m2 depending on the type of
suppressant and treated soil (Bolander and Yamada 1999). In this
study, the application of a biopolymer solution corresponded to a
rate of 1.9 L/m2. A series of 162 cubic samples (5 cm × 5 cm ×
5 cm) treated with biopolymer solutions with different concentra-
tions were prepared for the uniaxial compression test. The biopol-
ymer solution and soil were combined to form a homogenous
mixture. Then, the mixture was placed into the lubricated molds,
and demolded after 48 h to simplify demolding.
Int. J. Geomech.
 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(b)
(c)
Fig. 4. XRD pattern of (a) Hooralazim lagoon soil; (b) Urmia lake sand; and (c) MT of Sungun copper mine (q = quartz; C = calcite; d = dolomite;
al = albite; ar = aragonite; and an = anorthite).
Moisture Retention Test
The dust problem can largely be alleviated by the interparticle
bonding induced by the presence of moisture in the soil struc-
ture (Chen et al. 2015). A series of tests were performed to eval-
uate the improvement of the water retention capacity of soil
samples. The methodology was adopted from the recommenda-
tion of Chen et al. (2015). The biopolymer-treated samples after
each wet–dry cycle were exposed to direct sunlight for one day
under standard conditions (atmospheric pressure and room tem-
perature). The weight of all samples was recorded at the end of
each day during the test time. To simulate the effect of long-
term exposure to the ambient air, rain, and sunlight, the
biopolymer-treated samples were rewetted multiple times with
only water (wet–dry cycles), and then placed through the test
procedure. The rate of weight loss during the testing time
gave a good measure of the water retention capacity of the
samples.
Wind Tunnel Test
A wind tunnel test was employed to evaluate the improving effect
of biopolymers on the dust resistance of samples. An existing wind
tunnel in the laboratory of the aviation college of Iran was used to
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140
monitor the weight loss of samples. Fig. 5 shows the wind tunnel
machine. The fan was adjusted to generate a wind of 72 km/h.
The wind speed was roughly chosen based on the annual maximum
wind speed measured in the locations from which the soil samples
were collected. The samples after each wet–dry cycle were sub-
jected to the fan-generated wind for 10 min. The weight of the sam-
ples was measured before and after exposure to the wind to
determine the weight loss during the test.
Surface Strength Test
Here, the test procedure for surface strength followed the method
recommended by Rice et al. (1997). A flat-ended cylindrical pene-
trometer with a diameter of 6 mm was fabricated and used in a load-
ing machine. A total of 81 sun-dried samples after each wet–dry
cycle were subjected to an increasing load until the penetration
was completed. A constant rate of 1 mm/min was applied in all
tests. The penetration test was continued until the penetration
depth reached 4.0 mm. Nine penetration tests were performed on
each sample, and the maximum force was recorded during each
penetration test. Fig. 6 shows a tested sample after performing
nine penetration tests. Each penetration point was approximately
6 mm from the adjacent test point.
04020140-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Wind tunnel machine.
Fig. 6. Biopolymer-treated sample after nine penetration tests.
Uniaxial Compression Test
The uniaxial compression test was conducted according to ASTM
D2166-06 (ASTM 2016) using a universal testing machine (UTM)
with a rate of 0.5 mm/min (1% strain/min). The samples were cured
under sunlight exposure and then tested after 7 and 28 days. The
compressive strength was obtained by averaging three tested sam-
ples for each condition.
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
SEM imaging was adopted to evaluate the microstructure of sam-
ples before and after treatment with the biopolymer solution. A
small sample was collected, and then fixed to a metal disk with car-
bon tape and coated with gold. Secondary electron imaging was uti-
lized to produce SEM images under vacuum conditions by using a
Tescan FE-SEM MIRA3 device.
Statistical Analysis
The Taguchi method was used to determine the maximum surface
strength and compressive strength and minimum weight loss during
the wind tunnel test by experimental parameters (Taguchi et al.
2005; Toufigh et al. 2018; Yarigarravesh et al. 2018). The aim
was to find the optimum experimental conditions to enhance the
surface strength and compressive strength and reduce weight
loss. The other objective of the Taguchi method was to investigate
the variation of the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio (Ghassemi and
Toufigh 2020). The S/N represents the variation of a response cor-
responding to the target value under different noise conditions. In
this study, noise factors can be controlled during experimentations.
Three main parameters, including the type of dust particle, type of
biopolymer, and wet–dry cycle were considered. “The larger the
better” type of quality characteristics was considered to maximize
the surface strength and compressive strength. “The lower the bet-
ter” type of quality characteristics was considered to minimize the
weight loss of treated samples during wind tunnel tests. The S/N
ratio can be calculated as


S 1/y2
= −10 × log (1)
N n
where n and y = the numbers of observations on the specific prod-
uct and the respective value, respectively.
Result and Discussion
Moisture Retention Test
Fig. 7 shows the changes in the total weight of Hooralazim, Urmia,
and Sungun samples treated with biopolymer solutions of different
concentrations during the first wet–dry cycle. Overall, samples
treated with only water had the lowest moisture retention capacity
in comparison with the samples treated with a biopolymer. For
Hooralazim and Urmia samples, the moisture loss was decreased
with the higher concentrations of biopolymer. Moreover, the
CMC biopolymers were more effective than guar gum and xanthan
gum, especially for the 1–6 day period. Regarding the long-chain
polymer structure, which leads to the absorption of high water mol-
ecules by hydrogen bonds, the moisture retention capacity in-
creased. The improvement of water retention is advantageous to
dust suppressants due to (1) the moisture making the particles
heavier and (2) the moisture enhancing the interparticle binding
force. Figs. 7(d–f) show that the superiority of CMC is highly no-
table related to other biopolymers for Urmia samples where guar
gum had an insignificant effect on the water retention capacity.
On the other hand, all biopolymers enhanced the moisture retention
of Sungun samples almost equally. It can be seen in Fig. 7(i) that
only xanthan 1.6% offered a better improvement over the 3–7
day period among other dust suppressants.
Fig. 8 plots the variations in the weight of the samples versus
time during the fifth cycle, which shows that the addition of bio-
polymers was still effective in the fifth cycle. For Urmia sand,
04020140-5 Int. J. Geomech.
 (a) (d) (g)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b) (e) (h)

(c) (f) (i)

Fig. 7. Total weight of the Hooralazim (a) 0.5%; (b) 1%; and (c) 1.5%; Urmia (d) 0.5%; (e) 1%; and (f) 1.5%; and Sungun (g) 0.5%; (h) 1%; and
(i) 1.5% samples treated with water and biopolymer solutions during the first wet–dry cycle.

(a) (d) (g)

(b) (e) (h)

(c) (f) (i)

Fig. 8. Total weight of the Hooralazim (a) 0.5%; (b) 1%; and (c) 1.5%; Urmia (d) 0.5%; (e) 1%; and (f) 1.5%; and Sungun (g) 0.5%; (h) 1%; and
(i) 1.5% samples treated with water and biopolymer solutions during the fifth wet–dry cycle.

CMC-treated samples preserved a higher amount of moisture com-
pared with two other biopolymers [Figs. 8(d–f)]. A wide gap be-
tween CMC and other treatment methods can be observed in
0.5% biopolymer concentrations [Fig. 8(d)]. This gap narrowed
as the concentration of biopolymers was increased. Figs. 8(g–i)
shows time variations of the weight of the Sungun samples. For
1.0% and 1.5% biopolymer concentrations, Sungun samples re-
mained indifferent to the biopolymer type. Similar behavior was
observed for Sungun samples during the first cycle results. Chen
et al. (2015) also reported that the treated Arizona MTs with xan-
than gum and guar gum had a higher moisture retention capacity
rather than samples treated with water.
As expected, the improving effect of biopolymers reduced due
to degradation of biopolymer macromolecules caused by sunlight
exposure, wet–dry cycles, and spray-caused disturbance (Chen
et al. 2015). According to Figs. 9(a–c), Hooralazim samples treated

© ASCE 04020140-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140

 (a) (d)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(b) (e)
(c) (f)
Fig. 9. Total weight of the Hooralazim (a) 0.5%; (b) 1%; and (c) 1.5%; Urmia (d) 0.5%; (e) 1%; and (f) 1.5%; and Sungun (g) 0.5%; (h) 1%; and
(i) 1.5% samples treated with water and biopolymer solutions during the tenth wet–dry cycle.
with xanthan gum offered a better-improving effect in the tenth
cycle than that of two other biopolymers. Guar gum and CMC
solution barely affected the moisture retention properties of
Urmia samples [Figs. 9(d–f)]. For all concentrations, no significant
improvement can be discerned for these biopolymers compared
with the water-treated samples. Only xanthan gum 1.0% and
1.5% solutions alleviate the weight loss to some extent. Similarly,
the biopolymer solution applied to Urmia samples lost their
efficiency. However, more improvement can be observed in
Hooralazim samples compared with Urmia samples during the
tenth wet–dry cycle. Figs. 9(g–i) indicates that the addition of bio-
polymers offered better improvement for Sungun MT during the
tenth wet–dry cycle in comparison with other samples. Except
for 0.5% concentration, xanthan gum and CMC were more effec-
tive than that of the guar gum.
Wind Tunnel Test
Fig. 10 plots the weight loss in the wind tunnel test for Hooralazim,
Urmia, and Sungun samples during the first, fifth, and tenth wet–
dry cycles. The addition of biopolymers led to a drastic reduction
in weight loss. In other words, biopolymers enhanced significant
dust resistance capacity in the soil, sand, and MT. It was likely
that the biopolymer solutions flow on the surface of samples, fill
in gaps between adjoining particles, and bond them to each
other. Therefore, biopolymers coated the surface of samples and
acted as a binding component between particles. CMC was the
most effective biopolymer, especially in the first wet–dry cycle.
For all biopolymers, higher concentrations were associated with
lower weight loss due to improving the bonding between particles.
Moreover, longer wet–dry cycles weaken the resistive dust agency
of all biopolymers. Chen et al. (2015) observed a similar time trend.
However, here, the weight loss of untreated samples decreased as
the number of cycles increased due to the presence of clay in the
Hooralazim soil and Sungun MT and consolidation of Urmia
© ASCE 04020140-7
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140
(g)
(h)
(i)
sand. The strength of clayey soils increased as the wet–dry cycle
were repeated.
Fig. 10(a) shows the wind tunnel test results for the Hooralazim
samples. For the Hooralazim samples, CMC proved to strengthen
the dust resistance better than the other two biopolymers. The
dust resistance of water-treated samples also improved over higher
wet–dry cycles. However, Urmia samples featured higher weight
losses compared with Hooralazim samples [Fig. 10(b)]. In other
words, they were prone to dust generation more than Hooralazim
samples. Sungun samples generated fugitive dust slightly more
than Hooralazim samples but less than Urmia samples
[Fig. 10(c)]. In Sungun samples, biopolymer treatments lost effec-
tiveness in higher wet–dry cycles. CMC also offered better im-
provement in wind tunnel tests for Sungun samples than the
other two biopolymers.
Surface Strength Test
Fig. 11 illustrates the average of nine measured maximum penetra-
tion force for Hooralazim, Urmia, and Sungun samples. For all dust
particle types and biopolymers, the increment of concentrations
raised the surface strength. The Hooralazim and Urmia samples
treated by CMC exhibited the greatest improvement under all
wet–dry cycles, which complies with the moisture retention results
shown in Figs. 7(a–f). The highest surface strength occurred in the
fifth cycle for all types of soils, whereas for the samples with only
water treatment, the tenth cycle created the greatest penetration
force due to the consolidation of soils after several wet–dry cycles.
Comparing the penetration forces of different samples indicates
that the addition of biopolymers was more effective on Hooralazim
samples than that of Urmia and Sungun. In contrast to the Hoora-
lazim and Urmia samples, xanthan worked better than the other
two biopolymers for treating Sungun MTs in terms of surface
strength.
The improvement in the surface strength of the samples might
be related to the fact that biopolymers have various chemical
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 10. Results of wind tunnel test at different concentrations and wet–dry cycles for (a) Hooralazim; (b) Urmia; and (c) Sungun samples.

functional groups including hydroxyls, amines, or esters. Addition-
ally, the long-chain structure of biopolymers provides more sites at
which the characteristic chemical response of a particular func-
tional group can happen (Ayeldeen et al. 2016). Chemical bonding
leads to the adhesive forces that hold the soil, sand, and MT parti-
cles together.
Fig. 12 shows the improving effect of biopolymers on the
surface of Urmia sand as an example compared with the water-
treated sample. The surface of water-treated soil cracked at the
penetration point, and crack lines were connected. However,
the surface of CMC-treated samples remained intact except
only for the penetration area. Therefore, the biopolymer stabili-
zation also remarkably increased the tensile strength of soil,
sand, and MT particles. This result is consistent with that
found by Khatami and O’Kelly in which the cohesion of
sand after biopolymer treatment increased (Khatami and
O’Kelly 2013). The applied biopolymers formed a bond be-
tween particles and coated the surface of the samples. It addi-
tionally delivered a strong and dense crust, which led to an
increase in surface strength.

© ASCE 04020140-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 11. Maximum penetration forces at different concentrations and wet–dry cycles for (a) Hooralazim; (b) Urmia; and (c) Sungun samples.

Fig. 13 illustrates the weight loss after the wind tunnel test ver-
sus the maximum penetration force for three different sample types
during the first, fifth, and tenth wet–dry cycles. Furthermore, a
power curve was fitted to the data related to each wet-day cycle.
Fig. 13 also indicates the equation of power-law curves. The coef-
ficient of determination, r 2, for all power-law fittings is close to
unity, indicating a strong correlation between the weight loss, Wl,
and the maximum penetration force, Fp, even though different bio-
polymers were applied to the dust particle samples. Consequently,
the surface strength test can be considered as a promising method
for determining the dust resistance of soils, sands, and MTs.
Uniaxial Compression Test
The compressive strength was determined for the samples at two
different curing times: 7 and 28 days (Table 1). The addition of
the biopolymers to all soil, sand, and MT samples increased the
compressive strength due to the dehydration of the moisture in
the gel developed inside the particle structures, which generates
rigid cross-links that keep the particles together (Ayeldeen et al.
2016).
For Hooralazim samples, xanthan gum and CMC showed an in-
creasing trend with biopolymer concentration in both curing times.

© ASCE 04020140-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 12. The surface of the Urmia sample after surface strength test (a) treated with water; and (b) treated with a 1.6% CMC solution.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 13. Weight loss after wind tunnel test versus maximum penetration force (surface strength) for (a) Hooralazim; (b) Urmia; and (c) Sungun
samples.

This can be due to the high molecular attraction between the Hoor-
alazim soil, CMC, and xanthan gum due to the formation of hydro-
gen bonds. CMC rendered better results except for a 1.5%
biopolymer solution in 28 days curing time where xanthan gum
produced the highest strength (884 kPa). An increase in the com-
pressive strength that occurred in the 1%–1.5% concentration
range was far greater than the 0.5%–1% range. For a seven-day cur-
ing time, xanthan gum produced a higher rate of increase than
CMC. The strength of xanthan-treated sample was increased by
6% (520 kPa) for 1% solution, and by 47% (719 kPa) for 1.5% sol-
ution compared with the 0.5% solution (489 kPa). However, the
rate of increase for CMC-treated samples were 4% (650 kPa) and
40% (880 kPa) at 1.0% and 1.5% concentrations, respectively.
The guar gum-treated sample showed a different compression be-
havior. Although the strength of 0.5% and 1.0% samples were
close to that of xanthan and CMC samples, the 1.5% guar gum sol-
ution drastically decreased the compressive strength in seven-day
curing time [dropping from 529 kPa (1% solution) to 410 kPa
(1.5% solution)].
The compressive strength of Urmia samples was noticeably
lower than that of the Hooralazim and Sungun samples. The higher
compressive strength for Hooralazim and Sungun samples than
Urmia samples may be attributed to the lack of clay, which plays
the role of a binder for soil particles. Similar to the Hooralazim
samples, CMC provided the highest strength in comparison with
all biopolymer concentrations. Meanwhile, the superiority of

© ASCE 04020140-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140

 Table 1. Uniaxial compressive strength of the samples treated by different biopolymers cured after 7 and 28 days
Uniaxial compressive strength (kPa)

Hooralazim lagoon Urmia lake Sungun copper mine

Biopolymer Concentration (%) 7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days

CMC 0.5 624.93(10.8) 618.22(16.3) 146.93(13.3) 218.96(12.4) 581.62(19) 643.01(18.1)
1 650.34(14.6) 645.33(14.5) 445.75(11) 492.23(10.4) 451.96(15.6) 451.25(16.8)
1.5 880.76(15.8) 860.71(13) 509.73(14.1) 593.80(13.6) 429.77(14.3) 596.39(14.9)
Guar gum 0.5 533.12(12.7) 520.24(14.7) 33.37(13.7) 117.04(16.4) 679.25(10.6) 746.09(12.4)
1 529.28(13.8) 584.67(12) 84.65(13.4) 135.74(10.8) 812.62(10.8) 946.31(14.1)
1.5 410.09(21.2) 516.12(15.1) 49.39(17.7) 90.73(15.4) 915.21(12.5) 991.81(10.7)
Xanthan gum 0.5 489.64(12) 554.33(10.4) 95.29(12.8) 191.93(13.5) 347.09(16.6) 313.27(11.2)
1 520.38(18.2) 540.40(15) 171.98(12.9) 193.18(19.2) 233.37(18.6) 245.13(19.7)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.5 719.96(19.1) 884.87(11.7) 290.99(14.1) 247.95(13.5) 495.32(10.7) 530.17(13.1)

Note: Parentheses include the coefficient of variation (COV %).

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 14. Weight loss after wind tunnel test versus uniaxial compressive strength for (a) Hooralazim; (b) Urmia; and (c) Sungun samples.

CMC was more intensified for the Urmia samples. This result is
also consistent with moisture retention results where a wide margin
was defined between CMC and two other biopolymers. More im-
portantly, xanthan gum was less effective than CMC, which pro-
duced more satisfying results compared with guar gum.
Additionally, the compressive strength was decreased when the
concentration of guar gum increased from 1% to 1.5%. Although
CMC-treated samples of Urmia sand exhibited lower strength on
average compared with Hooralazim samples, the addition of the bi-
opolymer produced more improvement in the Urmia sample than
Hooralazim. For seven-day curing time, the strength of the
CMC-treated sample rose by 203% (445 kPa) for 1% solution,
and by 246% (509 kPa) for 1.5% solution compared with the
0.5% sample (147 kPa). For the 28-day curing time, the rate of in-
crease for CMC-treated samples were 125% (492 kPa) and 171%
(593 kPa) at 1.0% and 1.5% concentrations, respectively. Note
that the longer curing time led to the higher compressive strength
for each sample than its counterpart with a shorter curing time es-
pecially in the higher concentrations. Samples treated with higher
concentration solutions required more curing time to obtain full
strength than those with lower concentrations.
Sungun MT samples reacted differently to the biopolymer treat-
ment. The guar gum treatment resulted in the highest compressive
strength and an increasing trend that was not seen in the Hoorala-
zim and Urmia samples. The MT samples treated with 1.5% guar
gum achieved the highest strength compared with all other types
of dust particles. Curing time increased the compressive strength
for all biopolymers. However, a more significant increase was ob-
served in the guar gum samples. In contrast, CMC and xanthan
gum samples fluctuated around the moderate concentration
(1.0%), with CMC being more effective than xanthan gum on av-
erage. In both curing times, 1.5% biopolymer solution of CMC and
xanthan gum produced quite close strength values compared with
0.5% and 1.0% solutions.

© ASCE 04020140-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140

 Primarily, the efficiency of the bonding is related to the force
types existing at the interface of the biopolymer gel and the particle.
These forces include electrostatic/ionic or covalent bonds (chemi-
sorption), van der Waals forces (physical absorption), and hydro-
gen bonding (strong polar attraction). As both short-range ionic/
electrostatic and covalent bonds have high bonding energy (kJ/
mol), they provide a strong bond. As a result, the interaction be-
tween biopolymers and particles leads to enhancement in the inter-
particle contacts and improves the strength. According to the
laboratory experiments results, the strength of biopolymer-treated
soils, sands, and MTs depends on four factors including biopoly-
mer material, type of dust particle, dehydration (e.g., moisture con-
tent), and method of mixing (Chang et al. 2015).
Fig. 14 demonstrates the weight loss after wind tunnel test ver-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sus the uniaxial compressive strength for soil, sand, and MT during
the first, fifth, and tenth wet–dry cycles. Similar to the weight loss–
penetration force correlation, a power curve was used to quantify
the correlation of data at each wet-day cycle. A good correlation
also exists between weight loss, Wl, and the uniaxial compressive
strength (USC), except for the Sungun samples where lower coef-
ficients were determined for all wet–dry cycles. Therefore, the uni-
axial compressive strength can be used as a good indicator of the
dust resistance of soils, sands, and MTs.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 15. SEM images of Hooralazim soil treated with (a) water; and (b) 1.6% CMC; and Sungun MT treated with (c) water; and (d) 1.6% CMC.
© ASCE 04020140-12
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140
Microstructure Characterization
Fig. 15 shows the SEM images of the surface of Hooralazim and
Sungun samples treated with water and 1.6% CMC solution. In
the SEM image of the water-treated sample, a loose structure rife
with voids can be observed between particles [Figs. 15(a and c)].
However, CMC coated the particle surfaces and increased the con-
tact area among the particles. Therefore, the CMC-treated sample
featured a denser structure compared with the water-treated sample.
Moreover, gaps between particles were accumulated with the bio-
polymer gel that bound the particles even those not directly in con-
tact. The integrated structure of dust samples was also associated
with the higher tensile strength of particles. This biopolymer-
strengthened structure justifies the improvement in moisture reten-
tion, dust resistance, and surface strength that was treated with a
biopolymer solution.
Statistical Analysis
The Taguchi method was used to determine the maximum surface
strength and compressive strength and the minimum weight loss
during the wind tunnel test. Table 2 shows the parameters used
in this study. Fig. 16 illustrates the S/N ratio for the surface
strength, compressive strength, and weight loss at each level of
(b)
(d)
Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 2. Levels of the control factors used for experiments of treated Urmia sand. Fig. 16(c) illustrates that the weight loss
Level
of Sungun MT was higher in comparison with Hooralazim soil
and Urmia sand. In addition, guar gum can be a good candidate
Control factors 1 2 3 after CMC as a dust suppressant. Moreover, by increasing the
Type of soil Hooralazim lagoon Urmia lake Sungun wet–dry cycle up to five, the efficiency of biopolymers did not
copper mine change significantly. However, the tenth wet–dry cycle had a con-
Type of biopolymer Carboxymethyl Guar gum Xanthan siderable effect on the samples and increased weight loss.
cellulose (CMC) gum
Wet–dry cycle First cycle Fifth cycle Tenth cycle
Curing time 7 days 28 days — Summary and Conclusion
(compressive
strength)
In this paper, the efficiency of three different biopolymers including
CMC, xanthan gum, and guar gum was evaluated for soil, sand, and
MT treatment. These three types of dust particles were collected for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

this study from different locations in Iran: Hooralazim lagoon,

(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 16. The S/N curve of the parameters in experiments for (a) the sur-
face strength; (b) the compressive strength; and (c) weight loss.
experimental factors. Overall, the results show that the effect of
CMC on enhancing the surface strength and compressive strength
and reducing weight loss was considerably higher than the other
biopolymers. The surface strength of Hooralazim soil was higher
than that of other dust particles. The highest surface strength also
occurred in the fifth wet–dry cycle. Fig. 16(b) shows that the com-
pressive strength of samples after 28 days curing was higher than
that of seven days curing. Furthermore, the compressive strength
of treated Hooralazim soil and Sungun MT was higher than that
Urmia lake bed, and Sungun copper mine. These locations were
identified to be a potential source of dust generation. The
biopolymer-treated samples were subjected to moisture retention,
wind tunnel, surface strength, and uniaxial compression tests to in-
vestigate their characteristics. The following conclusions can be
drawn from the results:
• The addition of biopolymers largely increased the moisture re-
tention capacity of the samples even under wet–dry cycles.
The higher concentration of biopolymers corresponds to better
moisture retention capacities. In short and medium term (first
and fifth wet–dry cycle), CMC either led to higher (for Hoora-
lazim soil and Urmia sand) or almost equal (Sungun MT) im-
provement in moisture retention capacity of the samples. The
superiority of CMC was more recognizable for Hooralazim
and Urmia samples.
• Dust resistance of the dust particle samples was also affected by
the application of biopolymers. A considerable reduction in
weight loss after wind tunnel tests corresponding to lower
dust generation was observed for the samples. CMC was the
most effective in preventing fugitive dust emission for all
three sample types. In contrast to biopolymer-treated samples,
repeating the wet–drying cycle improved the dust resistance
of water-treated samples.
• Biopolymer-treated samples exhibited higher surface strength
compared with untreated samples. Furthermore, a strong corre-
lation between the maximum penetration force and the weight
loss of samples after the wind tunnel test was found under all
wet–dry cycles.
• For Hooralazim soil and Urmia sand, CMC resulted in the high-
est compressive strength in both curing times; however, for Sun-
gun MT, guar gum was the most effective biopolymer.
• SEM analysis presented the formation of a coating on the soil,
sand, and MT particles and production of a cross-linking network
which led to a denser and integrated structure of particles, en-
hanced the dust resistance, improved the moisture retention capac-
ity, and increased the surface strength and compressive strength.
• The Taguchi analysis showed that the CMC had better perfor-
mance in comparison with xanthan gum and guar gum. In addi-
tion, by repeating the wet–drying cycle, the surface strength,
compressive strength, and dust resistance of the soils, sands,
and MTs were not affected significantly up to the fifth wet–
dry cycle. Therefore, CMC has a promising potential as an alter-
native material for dust control.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study ap-
pear in the published article.

© ASCE 04020140-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140

 Acknowledgments
We would like to show our gratitude to Ms. Romina Chegeni,
Ms. Hanieh Rajabi, and Mr. Morteza Azizmohammadi for their
help in this research.
References
Annabi, M., S. Houot, C. Francou, M. Poitrenaud, and Y. L. Bissonnais.
2007. “Soil aggregate stability improvement with urban composts of
different maturities.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71 (2): 413–423. https://doi
.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0161.
ASTM. 2016. Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cohesive soil. ASTM D2166/D2166M-16. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Ayeldeen, M. K., A. M. Negm, and M. A. El Sawwaf. 2016. “Evaluating
the physical characteristics of biopolymer/soil mixtures.” Arabian
J. Geosci. 9 (5): 371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2366-1.
Bastan, M., F. Abdollahi, and K. Shokoufi. 2013. “Analysis of Iran’s dust
emission with system dynamics methodology.” Tech. J. Eng. Appl. Sci.
3 (24): 3515–3524.
Bolander, P., and A. Yamada. 1999. Dust palliative selection and applica-
tion guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Bouzza, A., W. P. Gates, and P. G. Ranjith. 2009. “Hydraulic conductivity
of biopolymer-treated silty sand.” Géotechnique 59 (1): 71–72.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2007.00137.
Carvalho, A. J. F. 2008. “Starch: Major sources, properties and applications
as thermoplastic materials.” In Monomers, polymers and composites
from renewable resources, edited by M. N. Belgacem, and A.
Gandini, 321–342. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Chang, I., and G. C. Cho. 2012. “Strengthening of Korean residual soil
with β-1,3/1,6-glucan biopolymer.” Constr. Build. Mater. 30: 30–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.030.
Chang, I., and G. C. Cho. 2014. “Geotechnical behavior of a beta-1,3/
1,6-glucan biopolymer-treated residual soil.” Geomech. Eng. 7 (6):
633–647. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2014.7.6.633.
Chang, I., J. Im, and G. C. Cho. 2016. “Introduction of microbial biopoly-
mers in soil treatment for future environmentally-friendly and sustain-
able geotechnical engineering.” Sustainability 8 (3): 251. https://doi
.org/10.3390/su8030251.
Chang, I., J. Im, A. K. Prasidhi, and G. C. Cho. 2015. “Effects of Xanthan
gum biopolymer on soil strengthening.” Constr. Build. Mater. 74: 65–
72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.10.026.
Chen, R., I. Lee, and L. Zhang. 2015. “Biopolymer stabilization of mine
tailings for dust control.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (2):
04014100. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001240.
Chen, R., X. Ding, D. Ramey, I. Lee, and L. Zhang. 2016. “Experimental
and numerical investigation into surface strength of mine tailings after
biopolymer stabilization.” Acta Geotech. 11 (5): 1075–1085. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s11440-015-0420-x.
Dehghan, H., A. Tabarsa, N. Latifi, and Y. Bagheri. 2019. “Use of xanthan
and guar gums in soil strengthening.” Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
21 (1): 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1625-0.
Etemadi, O., I. G. Petrisor, D. Kim, M.-W. Wan, and T. F. Yen. 2003.
“Stabilization of metals in subsurface by biopolymers: Laboratory
drainage flow studies.” Soil Sediment Contam. 12 (5): 647–661.
https://doi.org/10.1080/714037712.
Gerente, C., V. K. C. Lee, P. Le Cloirec, and G. McKay. 2007.
“Application of chitosan for the removal of metals from wastewaters
by adsorption—Mechanisms and models review.” Crit. Rev. Env. Sci.
Technol. 37 (1): 41–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380600729089.
Ghannam, M. T., and M. N. Esmail. 1997. “Rheological properties of car-
boxymethyl cellulose.” J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 64 (2): 289–301. https://doi
.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19970411)64:2<289::AID-APP9>3.0
.CO;2-N.
Ghassemi, P., and V. Toufigh. 2020. “Durability of epoxy polymer and
ordinary cement concrete in aggressive environments.” Constr. Build.
© ASCE 04020140-14
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140
Mater. 234: 117887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019
.117887.
Gholampour, A., R. Nabizadeh, M. S. Hassanvand, H. Taghipour, S.
Nazmara, and A. H. Mahvi. 2015. “Characterization of saline dust emis-
sion resulted from Urmia Lake drying.” J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng.
13 (1): 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40201-015-0238-3.
Gibis, M., V. Schuh, and J. Weiss. 2015. “Effects of carboxymethyl cellu-
lose (CMC) and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) as fat replacers on
the microstructure and sensory characteristics of fried beef patties.”
Food Hydrocolloids 45: 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd
.2014.11.021.
Gong, Y., and D. Zhao. 2013. “In situ immobilization of mercury in water,
soil, and sediment using carboxymethyl cellulose stabilized iron sulfide
nanoparticles.” In Vol. 1123 of Novel Solutions to Water Pollution,
ACS Symposium Series, edited by S. Ahuja, and K. Hristovski, 61–
77. Washington, DC: ACS.
He, F., D. Zhao, J. Liu, and C. B. Roberts. 2007. “Stabilization of Fe–Pd
nanoparticles with sodium carboxymethyl cellulose for enhanced
transport and dechlorination of trichloroethylene in soil and groundwa-
ter.” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46 (1): 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1021
/ie0610896.
He, F., M. Zhang, T. Qian, and D. Zhao. 2009. “Transport of carboxy-
methyl cellulose stabilized iron nanoparticles in porous media:
Column experiments and modeling.” J. Colloid Interface Sci. 334 (1):
96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2009.02.058.
Heinze, T., and A. Koschella. 2005. “Carboxymethyl ethers of cellulose
and starch—A review.” Macromol. Symp. 223 (1): 13–40. https://doi
.org/10.1002/masy.200550502.
Ivanov, V., and J. Chu. 2008. “Applications of microorganisms to geotech-
nical engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of soil in situ.”
Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 7: 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11157-007-9126-3.
Karimi, S. 1999. A study of geotechnical applications of biopolymer treated
soils with an emphasis on silt. Los Angeles: Univ. of Southern
California.
Kavazanjian, E., E. Iglesias, and I. Karatas. 2009. “Biopolymer soil stabi-
lization for wind erosion control.” In Proc., 17th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: The Academia and
Practice of Geotechnical Engineering, 881–884. Alexandria, Egypt:
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering: The Academia and Practice of
Geotechnical Engineering.
Khachatoorian, R., I. G. Petrisor, C. C. Kwan, and T. F. Yen. 2003.
“Biopolymer plugging effect: Laboratory-pressurized pumping flow
studies.” J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 38 (1–2): 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0920-4105(03)00019-6.
Khatami, H. R., and B. C. O’Kelly. 2013. “Improving mechanical proper-
ties of sand using biopolymers.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (8):
1402–1406. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000861.
Maher, M. H., and Y. C. Ho. 1994. “Mechanical properties of kaolinite/
fiber soil composite.” J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (8): 1381–1393.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:8(1381).
Martin, G. R., T. F. Yen, and S. Karimi. 1996. “Application of biopolymer
technology in silty soil matrices to form impervious barriers.” In Proc.,
7th Australia New Zealand Conf. on Geomechanics: Geomechanics in
a Changing World: Conf. Proc., 814–819. Adelaide, Australia:
Institution of Engineers.
McArdle, R., and R. Hamill. 2011. “Utilisation of hydrocolloids in pro-
cessed meat systems.” Processed meats: Improving safety, nutrition
and quality, edited by J. P. Kerry, and J. F. Kerry, 243–269.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
McHugh, D. J. 2003. A guide to the seaweed industry. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization.
Nugent, R. A., G. Zhang, and R. P. Gambrell. 2009. “Effect of exopolymers
on the liquid limit of clays and its engineering implications.” Transp.
Res. Rec. 2101 (1): 34–43. https://doi.org/10.3141/2101-05.
Pham, V., L. van Paassen, A. Nakano, M. Kanayama, and T. Heimovaara.
2013. “Microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP) by
denitrification as ground improvement method-process control in sand
column experiments.” In EGU General Assembly Conference
Int. J. Geomech.
 Abstracts. Vienna, Austria: EGU General Assembly Conference
Abstracts.
Piechota, T. C., J. van Ee, K. A. Stave, and D. E. James. 2004. Potential
environmental impacts of dust suppressants: “avoiding another times
beach”. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Plank, J. 2004. “Applications of biopolymers and other biotechnological
products in building materials.” Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 66 (1):
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-004-1714-3.
Rahbari, M., M. Kianirad, S. M. Heydarian, and S. S. Mirdamadi. 2017.
“Effects of pH and Fe(III) concentrations in Xanthan gum treatments
on soil penetrability resistance.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81 (4): 775–
780. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.11.0366.
Rice, M. A., C. E. Mullins, and I. K. McEwan. 1997. “An analysis of
soil crust strength in relation to potential abrasion by saltating particles.”
Earth Surf. Processes Landforms 22 (9): 869–883. https://doi.org/10
.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199709)22:9<869::AID-ESP785>3.0.CO;2-P.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Drexel University on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Saha, D., and S. Bhattacharya. 2010. “Hydrocolloids as thickening and gel-
ling agents in food: A critical review.” J. Food Sci. Technol. 47 (6):
587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0162-6.
Sahoo, D., and P. L. Nayak. 2011. “Chitosan: The most valuable derivative
of chitin.” In Biopolymers: Biomedical and environmental applications,
edited by S. Kalia, and L. Avérous, 129–166. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sivakumar Babu, G. L., and A. K. Vasudevan. 2008. “Strength and
stiffness response of coir fiber-reinforced tropical soil.” J. Mater.
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(9): 04020140
Civ. Eng. 20 (9): 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899
-1561(2008)20:9(571).
Taguchi, G., S. Chowdhury, and Y. Wu. 2005. Taguchi’s quality engineer-
ing handbook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Tang, J., M. A. Tung, and Y. Zeng. 1997. “Gelling properties of gellan
solutions containing monovalent and divalent cations.” J. Food
Sci. 62 (4): 688–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1997
.tb15436.x.
Toufigh, V., M. Yarigarravesh, and M. Mofid. 2018. “The long-term eval-
uation of FRPs bonded to timber.” Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 76 (6):
1623–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-018-1337-5.
Wan, M. W., I. G. Petrisor, H. T. Lai, D. Kim, and T. F. Yen. 2004.
“Copper adsorption through chitosan immobilized on sand to
demonstrate the feasibility for in situ soil decontamination.”
Carbohydr. Polym. 55 (3): 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol
.2003.09.009.
Yarigarravesh, M., V. Toufigh, and M. Mofid. 2018. “Experimental and
analytical evaluation of FRPs bonded to masonry-long term.” Surf.
Coat. Technol. 344: 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018
.02.088.
Zhang, J.-N., Y.-H. Li, H.-Q. Zheng, Y.-T. Fan, and H.-W. Hou. 2015.
“Direct degradation of cellulosic biomass to bio-hydrogen from a
newly isolated strain Clostridium sartagoforme FZ11.” Bioresour.
Technol. 192: 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.034.
04020140-15 Int. J. Geomech.