Advertisement

The Comparison of Microbiologically-Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation and Magnesium Carbonate Precipitation

  • Xiaohao Sun
  • Linchang Miao
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

Similar to calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate also has a cementing character, and the strength of magnetite ore is much higher than calcium ore. In this paper, firstly, the effects of different ions, such as the concentration of Ca2+ and Mg2+, on the urease activity of Sporosarcina pasteurii were researched. Then the productive rates for calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate were comparatively analyzed. Finally, with adding various amounts of urea to medium, the productive rates for magnesium carbonate were compared. The results show that the increase in the magnesium ion enhances urease activity, while calcium with high concentration significantly impairs it. Under the same conditions, productive rate for magnesium carbonate is smaller than its calcium counterpart. However, the method adding urea to the medium significantly promotes to form precipitation, and with higher urea concentration, more magnesium precipitation is got. Therefore, the presented method can solve the problem that insufficient magnesium precipitation cannot solidify sands, which acts as a guide for the magnesium carbonate sand solidification technology.

Keywords

Sporosarcina pasteurii Calcium carbonate Magnesium carbonate Productivity rate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51578147) and Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Southeast University (No. YBJJ1846).

References

  1. 1.
    Ehrlich HL (2002) Geomicrobiology, 4th edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lith YV, Warthmann R, Vasconcelos C et al (2003) Microbial fossilization in carbonate sediments: a result of the bacterial surface involvement in dolomite precipitation. Sedimentology 50(2):237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martínalgarra A (2006) Carbonate and phosphate precipitation by chromohalobacter marismortui. Geomicrobiol J 23(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wijngaarden WKV, Vermolen FJ, Meurs GAMV et al (2011) Modelling biogrout: a new ground improvement method based on microbial-induced carbonate precipitation. Transp Porous Media 87(2):397–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harkes MP, Paassen LAV, Booster JL et al (2010) Fixation and distribution of bacterial activity in sand to induce carbonate precipitation for ground reinforcement. Ecol Eng 36(2):112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paassen LAV, Ghose R, Linden TJMVD et al (2010) Quantifying bio-mediated ground improvement by ureolysis: a large scale biogrout experiment. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 136(12):1721–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Botter G, Basu NB, Zanardo S et al (2010) Stochastic modeling of nutrient losses in streams: interactions of climatic, hydrologic, and biogeochemical controls. Water Resour Res 46(8):416–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Whiffin VS (2004) Microbial CaCO3 Precipitation for the Production of Biocement. Murdoch University, PerthGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang Y, Guo HX, Cheng XH (2015) Role of calcium sources in the strength and microstructure of microbial mortar. Constr Build Mater 77:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geotechnical EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations