4.3 Article

An experimental approach to microbial carbonate precipitation in improving the engineering properties of sandy soils

期刊

ANNALS OF MICROBIOLOGY
卷 71, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13213-021-01644-6

关键词

Soil improvement; Bacillus sp; Time-dependent behaviour; Sustainability; Microbial carbonate precipitation; Sandy soil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that microbially induced calcium precipitation by Bacillus sp. can reduce permeability and increase shear strength of soil. However, the strength of the soil is not negatively impacted when the nutrients in the soil are exhausted.
Purpose Stabilization of weak soil can be achieved through different methods, some of which include jet column, cement stabilization and fly ash stabilization. Unfortunately, the use of the aforementioned methods of soil improvement affects the environment negatively thereby leading to environmental degradation. With the aforesaid impediment in mind, the need for devising methods of weak soil improvement becomes pertinent. Methods Bacillus sp. - a non-pathogenic organism found abundantly in soil - was investigated in this study as a potential agent of soil improvement. The usability of Bacillus sp. in soil improvement was investigated with direct shear tests and permeability tests under optimum conditions in this study. Result Time-dependent study on the effect of the ureolytic bacteria Bacillus sp.-induced calcium carbonate precipitation shows reduction in permeability and increase in the strength of the soil under study. On exhaustion of the available nutrients in the soil, however, the strength of the soil is not negatively impacted. Conclusion Microbially induced calcium precipitation by Bacillus sp. is effective in soil improvement as such it may serve as substitute for conventional soil stabilization techniques. The ability of the bacteria to precipitate calcium carbonate in the soil leads to reduction in the permeability and increase in the shear strength of the soil.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据