Near-surface soil stabilization by enzyme-induced carbonate precipitation for fugitive dust suppression
- 66 Downloads
To resolve the environmental and sustainability issues from fugitive dust emission and conventional mitigation methods, multiple experiments were conducted to evaluate the suppression of fugitive dust and its effect on near-surface soil stabilization by enzyme-induced carbonate precipitation (EICP). The optimal recipes for maximum CaCO3 precipitation with high- and low-purity chemicals were first identified for the EICP treatment. Soil specimens treated with both solutions were characterized by measuring shear wave velocity and cone tip resistance. A wind tunnel test was conducted to examine how the near-surface treatment suppressed particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10) against wind and dynamic impacts. The results showed that both the shear wave velocity and the peak cone tip resistance increased almost linearly with increasing solution volume up to 7 L/m2. Dust emission was effectively mitigated by increasing solution volume up to 3 L/m2. Both high- and low-purity chemicals showed a similar ability to suppress fugitive dust. Upon vibration, the treatment effect vanished, but treatment with 7 L/m2 solution made the soil remain intact. Scanning electron microscopic imaging confirmed the precipitation of vaterite when low-purity chemicals were used.
KeywordsCone penetration test Dust suppression Enzyme-induced carbonate precipitation Shear wave velocity Wind tunnel test
This work was supported by the Land and Housing Institute (LHI) grant funded by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (2016R1A2B4011292), and the research fund of the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) (19CTAP-C142849-02).
- 6.Cesareo SD, Langton SR (1992) Kinetic properties of Helicobacter pylori urease compared with jack bean urease. FEMS Microbiol Lett 99:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.1992.tb05535.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Gambatese JA, James DE (2001) Dust suppression using truck-mounted water spray system. J Constr Eng Manag 127:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2001)127:1(53) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Goudie A, Middleton NJ (2006) Desert dust in the global system and summarises recent, vol 49. Springer, Berlin, p 6221Google Scholar
- 22.Lee J-S, Santamarina JC (2005) Bender elements: performance and signal interpretation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2005)131:9(1063) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Lee W, Shin D, Yoon H, Lee J (2009) Micro-cone penetrometer for more concise subsurface layer detection. Geotech Test J 32:1–7Google Scholar
- 32.Neupane D, Yasuhara H, Kinoshita N, Unno T (2013) Applicability of enzymatic calcium carbonate precipitation as a soil-strengthening technique. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:2201–2211. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000959 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.United States Environmental Protection Agency (1996) AP-42: compilation of air emissions factors. AP 42, 5th edn. Compil Air Pollut Emiss Factors, vol 1 Station. Point Area Sources 44Google Scholar
- 42.WHO (2005) WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide: Global update 2005. Glob. Updat. 2005, pp 1–21Google Scholar
- 45.Xu L, Pei Z (2017) Preparation and optimization of a novel dust suppressant for construction sites. J Mater Civ Eng 29:04017051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Zhao X-Y, Cheng S-Y, Tian G et al (2007) Construction fugitive dust pollution and control in Beijing. J Beijing Univ Technol 33:1086–1090Google Scholar