Major applications of MICP sand treatment at

multi-scale levels: A review.

Fatima-Zahra Haouzi, Benoît Courcelles
Polytechnique Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

ABSTRACT
Microbially Induced Calcite Precipitation (MICP, or biocalcification) is a biochemical process governed by microbial activity
to induce the precipitation of calcite between soil particles. The mechanical and hydraulic behaviors of bio-treated materials
are thus significantly enhanced. The potential application of MICP to deal with problems such as liquefaction, internal
erosion, settlements and frost damages has been demonstrated and this promising technique offers an environmentally
friendly alternative to traditional soil improvement approaches. However, since it emerged in the beginning of the 21th
century and despite extensive demonstration of the process at laboratory scale, few field applications have been completed
to evaluate the performances and understand the biochemical process at larger scale. This article reviews the main large
scale applications available in the published literature up to now. The major contribution of this research is to assess the
main parameters restricting the implementation of this method on site. A summary of improvements that should be
considered to meet industry needs and match the promises of this technique is also established.

RÉSUMÉ
L’amélioration des sols en place par voie biologique est un procédé basé sur le contrôle de l’activité bactérienne pour
cimenter les particules d’un sol par le biais de précipités de calcite. Les performances mécaniques et hydrauliques des
sols traités s’en trouvent ainsi améliorées. Cette technique, aussi connue sous le nom de biocalcification, possède un
potentiel d’application pour divers problèmes géotechniques tels que la liquéfaction, l’érosion interne, les tassements ou
encore le gel/dégel et elle constitue une alternative aux techniques traditionnelles d’amélioration des sols en place. Bien
que la technique ait démontré son efficacité au laboratoire depuis son apparition au début du 21ème siècle, son application
à grande échelle pour évaluer les performances et comprendre les processus biochimiques reste restreinte. Le présent
travail recense les différents essais de terrain réalisés jusqu’à présent. La principale contribution de cet article est d’évaluer
les contraintes limitant l’implantation de la biocalcification sur le terrain. À la fin de cet article, les recommandations et
améliorations, à mettre en place dans le futur, seront détaillées pour une meilleure insertion de cette technologie dans
l’industrie géotechnique.

1 INTRODUCTION 2017). Various methods were employed to enhance and

improve the performances of this technique at meter scale.
Historically, ground improvement techniques Although this research field has jumped forward thanks to
counted two main sorts: (1) mechanical compaction or laboratory investigations, some issues are stifling its
preloading, and (2) injection of cement or other chemicals. development at field scale.
While the first one was energy consuming and not suitable This paper provides an exhausted review of the
for urban areas, the second type needed the use of technique, the role of biological processes in geotechnical
synthetic materials that could be toxic for natural engineering, the process and factors of influence including
environment and people’s health (DeJong et al. 2010). examples of their application at larger scale and salient
However, soils constitute a niche for biological activity, issues encountered. The major purpose of this review is to
even though ignored for centuries, and there is an assess the main parameters restricting the implementation
opportunity to exploit those natural processes (Dejong et of this method into field. Several recommendations of
al. 2013). For instance, the influence of plant roots on slope authors are also considered to highlight the gap between
stability has been recognized and exploited (Gray and Sotir research and practice for different fields of application and
1996). Mitchell and Santamarina (2005) were the leaders a summary of improvements that should be considered to
in the application of biological processes in geotechnical meet industry needs is established.
engineering. Since then, researchers in the geotechnical
field have undertaken discussions and multidisciplinary 2 MICP BACKGROUND
research programs to develop strategies for advancing this
emerging field and identify primary challenges and Naturally, cementation is created through chemical or
opportunities (DeJong et al. 2006, Ivanov and Chu 2008, biochemical processes (diagenesis) associated with
Montoya and Dejong 2013, Mujah et al. 2016, Wang et al. weathering. For instance, sandstone formation is directly
2017). One of these biological techniques is the Microbially attributed to calcite precipitation. Within the same deposit,
Induced Calcite Precipitation (MICP) which has been natural cementation varies depending on controlled
widely investigated in laboratory and has demonstrated its characteristics of environmental conditions (Saxena and
efficiency to tackle number of geotechnical problems Lastrico 1978). Various factors either inhibit or facilitate the
(Montoya et al. 2013, Amin et al. 2017, Ning-Jun et al. process of cementation including pore-water chemistry
(degree of supersaturation), ability to transport Ca2+ and/or (ATCC 6453) that was reclassified as Sporosarcina
HCO3- to the precipitation site, the presence of pre-existing pasteurii (ATCC 11859). It is an alkalophillic bacterium able
carbonate substrate, and the permeability as well as to hydrolyze urea within a short period due to its high
texture (Molenaar and Venmans 1993, Hall et al. 2004, urease activity (Ciurli et al. 1996, Bachmeier et al. 2002, Ng
Mozley and Davis 2005). Calcite precipitation in nature Wei et al. 2014).
follows two different mechanisms, either by deposition from Biogrouting procedure is usually based on three main
supersaturated water with carbonates ions or from steps including (1) introduction of bacterial suspension
chemical exchanges at the water-soil interface (Ismail et al. solution, (2) injection of calcifying solution containing urea
1999). The earth’s crust counts various places where and calcium ions and (3) recovery of by-products by
naturally cemented sands are encountered such as flushing (Whiffin et al. 2007, Van Paassen 2011, Cheng
stromatolites in shallow high saline water in Australia and Cord-Ruwisch 2012, Cheng et al. 2013), Esnault-Filet
(Figure 1). et al. (2016). The bacterial metabolic activity uses urea as
a source of energy and raises the pH locally as result of
ammonia production. MICP occurs according to chemical
reaction completed in few hours as a result of enzymatic
hydrolysis of urea in the presence of calcium salts following
two stages (Kroll 1990, Stocks-Fischer et al. 1999, Bang et
al. 2001, Ramakrishnan et al. 2001):
1. Urea hydrolysis stage: 1 Mole of urea is
hydrolyzed to produce 1 Mole of carbonates and
2 Moles of ammonium ions (Equation 1).
2. CaCO3 precipitation stage: Calcium ions (Ca2+)
(derived from calcium chloride) reacts with
carbonate ions (CO32-) to form 1 Mole of calcium
carbonates (CaCO3) crystals (Equation 2).

𝐶𝑂(𝑁𝐻& )& + 𝐻& 𝑂 → 2𝑁𝐻+, + 𝐶𝑂- &. [1]

𝐶𝑎&, + 𝐶𝑂- &. → 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂- ↓ [2]

3 FACTORS CONTROLLING MICP EFFICIENCY

Figure 1. Stromatolites at shark Bay Western Australia As the effectiveness of this biogeotechnology
(Photo taken by Stuart Lilley Photography). depends directly on the spatial distribution of the
precipitated calcite and CaCO3 crystallographic patterns
(DeJong et al. 2010), factors influencing MICP treatment
Observations from nature leaded into exploring a new such as urease activity, availability of nucleation sites, pH
branch in geotechnical engineering called level, temperature, degree of saturation, concentration of
biogeotechnology. This multidisciplinary field aims to reagents solutions, and soil gradation curve must be
transform natural sands into biosandstones using controlled and well understood.
microbiological processes while improving their Geometric compatibility between microbes and the
engineering properties (Achal and Mukherjee 2015). MICP soil in which they are injected is a key factor. The lower
is the consequence of such microbial metabolic activities bound limit of particle size is relative to microbe size
and aims to transform sand into sandstones (Stocks- (between 0.5 and 3 µm) and was set as silt (Mitchell and
Fischer et al. 1999, Ramakrishnan et al. 2001). Various Santamarina 2005). Moreover, ex-situ mixing of microbes
processes including urea hydrolysis, denitrification, and nutrients with soil might extend the application of the
sulphate reduction inducing dolomite precipitation, and iron technique to clays (Fritzges et al. 2006).
reduction inducing ankerite or even other minerals A relationship between the initial soil pH and the
precipitation were investigated (Ciurli et al. 1999, Roden et solubility of CaCO3 crystals was pointed out by Cheng et
al. 2002, Karatas et al. 2008, van Paassen et al. 2010, al. (Cheng et al. 2014). MICP begins at pH level of 8.3 and
Dejong et al. 2013). The most efficient process in terms of increases to 9 where urease activity is high (Stocks-
energy is enzymatic hydrolysis of urea by microbes Fischer et al. 1999). Moreover, stable and continuous
(DeJong et al. 2010). It is also straightforward, easily CaCO3 production is directly linked with the cell growth and
controlled and generates up to 90% of chemical conversion urease enzymatic activities (Hammes et al. 2003, De
efficiency of the precipitated calcite amount in less than Muynck et al. 2008).
24 hours (Al-Thawadi 2011, Dhami et al. 2013). As temperature affects urease activity of
Number of bacteria species could be used for their microorganisms, nucleation, growth rates of calcium
urease enzyme production in biomineralization process carbonates crystals and CaCO3 solubility (Nemati and
(Kucharski et al. 2006). Those are not hazardous for Voordouw 2003, Rebata-Landa 2007), Cheng et al. (2014)
environment as they are natural (Fritzges et al. 2006). The investigated the impact of room temperature on the
most reported bacteria in literature is Bacillus pasteurii strength of biocemented sand samples. Although, the
amount of produced CaCO3 crystals was higher at 50 ˚C, performances as calcite precipitation results in a decrease
biotreated sand specimen strength was greater at 25 ˚C. in the pore space and an increase in solid content (DeJong
This observation demonstrated that the localization and et al. 2010). Several characteristics of biotreated soils are
form of the precipitates is as important as their quantity. modified namely strength, rigidity, permeability and
Moreover, the rate of calcite precipitation is controlled resistance to liquefaction.
by biochemical aspects such as the injection procedure In laboratory, biocalcification has demonstrated its
and the concentration of chemical reactants (Kakelar et al. efficiency to improve strength of loose sand and silt
2016). To ensure a successful ground improvement by (Montoya and DeJong 2015). Ng Wei et al. (2014)
biomineralization, the injection and retention of bacteria demonstrated that this parameter is increased by a factor
inside soil matrix are important. Indeed, only the retained of 1.4 to 2.6 for silty soils treated using Bacillus
bacteria in the soil can induce CaCO3 precipitation from a megaterium. Geotechnical soil parameters such as
solution of cementation. Three main treatment methods cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (𝜑) are a function of
were investigated in the literature: (1) alternate injection of the calcite content (Chou et al. 2012, Cheng et al. 2013, St-
reactant solutions in saturated soils (Whiffin et al. 2007, Onge 2016).
Harkes et al. 2010, Al Qabany et al. 2012), surface Many researchers used the unconfined compressive
spraying or percolation in non-saturated soils (Stabnikov et strength (UCS) to describe the strength of biotreated sands
al. 2011, Cheng and Cord-Ruwisch 2012, Chu et al. 2012), (Whiffin et al. 2007, Harkes et al. 2010, Cheng et al. 2013,
and (3) premixing method (Yasuhara et al. 2012, Zhao et Chu and Ivanov 2014, Ivanov et al. 2015, Waldschmidt
al. 2014). Figure 2 illustrates an example of a scanning 2017). Results showed that the amount of calcium
electron microscopy (SEM) image of sand specimen carbonates is related to the strength of the treated
treated by surface percolation where 6.7% of CaCO3 was specimen. Moreover, the stiffness, or soil elastic modulus
precipitated (Waldschmidt 2017). (E), is improved using MICP technique (Cheng et al. 2013)
and the small-strain shear stiffness is increased as bio-
mineralization occurs at particle to particle contacts
(Martinez 2012).
Biomineralized sand soils better resist to liquefaction
and show enhanced dynamic properties compared to
untreated specimen (Mortensen 2012, Montoya and
Dejong 2013, Zhang et al. 2015).
From a hydraulic point of view, MICP technique
improves soil strength while preventing the development of
excess pore water pressure as biotreated sands conserve
good drainage abilities (Esnault-Filet et al. 2016). Finally,
biocalcification inhibits leaching of finer particles within soil
skeleton when submitted to water flow seepage which
prevents internal erosion and suffusion to occur (Ning-Jun
et al. 2017).

5 MULTI-SCALE APPLICATIONS

Several field trials and up-scaled experiments were

performed to validate the effectiveness of MICP in site
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of conditions.
sand treated by MICP using pre-mixing method The first full scale attempt was performed in the
(Waldschmidt 2017). Netherlands to treat the Rotterdam port area in 2004
(Mujah et al. 2016). The application of MICP reduced
successfully the permeability of a sandy material and the
Homogeneous crystal distribution along sand bio-treatment showed good long-term performances
specimen was observed at lower cementation solution (Hongzhi 2007).
concentration (Al Qabany and Soga 2013, Cheng et al. A step-wise approach was followed by Van Paassen
2014, Ng Wei et al. 2014). et al. (2009) to scale up biocalcification from 1 m3 to 100 m3
Cheng et al. (2013) showed that MICP works better sand specimen. First, a box container was set up to mimic
at lower degree of water saturation, i.e. 20%, as the calcite an injection well. The dimensions of the container filled with
crystals are formed at effective locations of particle to sand were 0.9 m x 1.1 m x 1 m and the container had
particle contacts. drainage filters on its sides. A bacterial suspension and
0.5 M urea/calcium chloride reagent solutions were
4 IMPROVED ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF injected at the center of the box at a constant flow rate. A
SOILS total volume of 3 500 L of cementation solution was flushed
sequentially through in 8 batches during 50 days. The cubic
The biocalcification process relies on the creation of meter container is illustrated in Figure 3.
bonds at particle to particle contacts. This mechanism Afterwards, biocalcification was tested at larger scale
helps to strengthen and improve the mechanical as 100 m3 of Itterbeck sand was biocemented in a large
container using 100 L of inoculum. A total volume of 100 m3
of a reagent solution containing 1 M of urea and calcium
chloride were flushed during 12 days using
injection/extraction wells. The implementation of the MICP
technique was successful and 43 m3 of the sand particles
in the large container were bonded. The results also
showed that the strength was remarkably increased
following MICP treatment. However, the amount of the
precipitated calcite was spatially dispersed. These
observations were justified by several scenarios including
heterogenous transport of reagents and preferential flow
paths which leads to higher content of CaCO3 compared to
other areas.

Figure 4. Bio-cementing of gravel for borehole stability field

project (picture shared by van Paassen Leon).

De Jong et al. (2014) developed a three-dimensional

treatment method to implement MICP at field scale. The
method is based on a repeated five-spot
injection/extraction well pattern for treatment of 3m by 3m
by 0.15m experimental layout (Figure 5.a). Each spot
pattern is made up of one injection well placed at the core
and one production well at each corner of the targeted
treatment zone (0.5m by 0.5 m by 0.15 m) as illustrated in
figure 5.b. The experiment aims to treat Ottawa 50-70 sand
and was performed by injection of solutions into a saturated
sand. A two-phases MICP treatment was implemented.
The first phase consisted on the re-circulation of 30 L of S.
Pasteurii suspension in a urea-rich solution for 50 non-
continuous hours (the treatment was stopped during the
night). The second phase consisted in two stopped-flow
Figure 3. The cubic meter bio-grout experiment performed
cycles where a calcifying solution was injected at high flow
by van Paassen(2009) (picture shared by van Paassen
rate during 1 hour followed by 2 hours of rest period. The
Leon).
first cycle was performed in the same flow direction as the
injection of bacteria, while the second was performed in
the reverse direction (Martinez 2012). A uniform treatment
Another field test was performed by Van Paassen
was achieved experimentally even under highly active
(2011) to find a solution for borehole instability when
microbial conditions as clogging at injection well was
installed in gravel. This field test was preceded by
prevented using the two stopped-flow cycles.
laboratory tests on a 3 m3 container filled with gravel.
Horizontal directional drilling in this container demonstrated
the success of the treatment and an upscale in field was
performed. A total soil volume of 1 000 m3 was treated at
depth varying between 3 and 20 m below the surface. The
biotreatment required 200 m3 of bacterial suspension and
300 to 600 m3 of cementation solutions containing urea and
calcium chloride. Note that the groundwater was extracted
until ammonium concentrations measurements were equal
to initial values. During this step, the pumped water was
transferred to a local waste water treatment plant. The
results showed that the gravel layer remained stable during
drilling process, and laying gas pipeline was performed
without any collapse (Figure 4).
Figure 5. The repeated five-spot well pattern designed by
De Jong et al. (2014): a) Plan view of 3m by 3m layout and
b)Theoretical stream and potential lines for target
treatment zone of 0.5 by 0.5 by 0.15 m zone.
 structure in case of high pressure build up. Finally, the
Gomez et al. (2015) performed a field study backfill was composed of a compacted material of very low
focusing on the surface application of MICP to prevent permeability (Sandy silts matrix which permeability was
erosion of loose sand deposits at a mine site location in the lower than 10-6 m/s). Face with these constraints, Biocalcis
province of Saskatchewan in Canada. A depth of 28 cm of was proposed. The feasibility was first confirmed after
soil was improved and the formation of cemented crust of successful laboratory and pilot tests using real site
about 2.5 cm thick increased resistance to erosion. MICP material. The treatment was achieved by 23 horizontal
appears to be a promising technique to treat larger-scale walls having 5 m width, distributed over 3 lines of injection
fields. The results pointed out that low-concentration with a drainage line at the base of the injected zone
solutions achieved greatest improvement compared to high (Figure 6). The total volume was equal to 100 m3 over 3 m
and medium concentrations. height and 6 m length. The final results were estimated by
Soletanche-bachy, a French contractor, developed its in-situ coring and pressiometric tests. These tests
own method for industrial implementation of confirmed the feasibility of the procedure for the
biomineralization process. The process is called reinforcement of the wall, and allow proposals for the final
Biocalcis®. In 2009, the concept of the industrial process solution which consisted of a biocalcified block working as
was validated through a pilot test that was performed in the a gravity wall.
Netherlands, in partnership with VSF and Deltares All those experiments allowed to highlight
(Figure 5). This pilot test led to feasibility method definition advantages/challenges restricting the implementation of
and costs estimation (Filet et al. 2012). biogeochemical soil improvement processes into field.

Figure 6. Reinforcement of soil retaining wall using

Figure 5.100 m3 container provided by VSF company and
Biocalcis® at field scale (Esnault-Filet et al. 2015).
used by Soletanche-bachy (Esnault-Filet et al. 2015).

6 LIMITATIONS ENCOUNTRED WHILE UPGRADING

Esnault-Filet et al. (2016) successfully used
TO FIELD USE AND RECOMMANDATIONS
Biocalcis® to treat sandy-silt material at field scale in the
south of France. Signs of corrosion started to appear in the
From these few large-scale experiments, several
reinforcements of a retaining wall located beneath the
limitations of the MICP upscaling must be addressed:
abutment of a motorway interchange bridge. The site was
in a crowded urban area with a very difficult access under
the bridge abutment due to the presence of a tramway • By-products: Ammonium and nitrate are by-
passing just beneath and private buildings in the vicinity. products of urea hydrolysis. The generation of high
The wall was constructed in the 70’s and was made of concentrations of these compounds induces toxic
compacted backfill reinforced by sub-horizontal steel effects on human health, vegetation, atmospheric
tensile rods. The facing system was made of precast nitrogen deposition (van Paassen et al. 2010, Tobler
concrete panels equipped with embedded connections to et al. 2011, Dhami et al. 2013). Terrestrial
fix the steel reinforcement rods. No interruption in ecosystems are, by consequence, exposed to
motorway traffic flow or stopping the tramways was allowed eutrophication and acidification. Those by-products
during field works. Moreover, the site was in urban area must be properly controlled and eventually treated
which did not allow the implementation of conventional during the in-situ implementation of biogrounting to
techniques. Soil nailing was prohibited as available space follow environmental legislative norms (Mujah et al.
in front of the wall was insufficient for placing drilling 2016, Wang et al. 2017). Substantial volumes of
machine. On the other hand, jet grouting couldn’t be chemical reagents and microbial solutions are
considered as it might generate stability risks on the generated during MICP process especially for field
 applications. A treatment based on flushing is thought conditions, targeted applications and preliminary
to get rid of those by-products taking in consideration results at laboratory scale.
the fate and transport of by-products. Note that the
water is usually extracted until the electrical • Lifetime service: The biochemical treatment for a
conductivity and ammonium concentrations are back specific application requires a durability in
to initial values (Van Paassen 2011). Some authors accordance with its service life requirements. MICP is
also suggest the reuse of ammonia-rich effluents as expected to be stable for more than 50 years if
fertilizer for plants (Dejong et al. 2013, Wang et al. alkaline conditions are provided (Montoya and
2017). Dejong 2013) and an occasional retreatment can be
applied to extend this service life. Studies on longevity
• Cost: The biogeochemical process is material of treatment while in contact with acid rain
consuming as it could require about 88 kg of CaCl2 precipitations demonstrated that no large erosion
and 96 kg of urea per 1 m3 of sand to produce the occurs. Only 0.7g of weight loss was measured for
content of precipitated calcium carbonates of 75- sand columns after being flushed with 12 L of acid
100 g/kg of sand, which can cost up to 41 $/m3 rain volume corresponding to 5 years’ rainfall
(Ivanov and Stabnikov 2017). At a large scale, the (1000mm/year). Sand columns were treated under
technology is expensive but applicable to fully saturated conditions with CaCO3 content of
geotechnical applications (van Paassen et al. 2010). about 0.1-0.105 g/g sand (Cheng et al. 2013).
The cost of calcium reagent and urea are higher than Nevertheless, the calcite must be assessed to
conventional cement and implementation of the evaluate its long-term degradation. Also, the
process requires the preliminary investigations at application of this technology might target regions of
small and pilot scale before upgrading to field scale the world where factors such as temperature, pH,
which inflates costs (Van Paassen 2011, Esnault-Filet weather are favorable for its implementation such as
et al. 2012, 2016). Moreover, injection and extraction deserts.
wells could represent a non-negligible part of the final
cost. The method total cost of MICP treatment 7 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
(materials, equipment, and installation) in saturated
soils ranges from 25-75 $US/m3 to about 500 $US/m3 Soil improvement techniques based on
depending on the quantity of CaCO3 (Dejong et al. biomineralization have grown over the past 15 years and
2013, Wang et al. 2017). innumerable results proved the applicability of these
techniques to tackle geotechnical issues (optimization of
• Feasibility: Parameters such as injection flow rate, the bio-geochemical treatment procedure, controlled key
number of treatments, volumes, concentrations are factors influencing the process, geotechnical applications,
all key factors that control the success of MICP. numerical modeling). Research should now focus on
These parameters must be analyzed in laboratory, testing and modeling in-situ conditions and considering
which can be time- and cost consuming. Moreover, practical needs in terms of sustainability, costs,
clients are easily prone to use conventional soil performance, feasibility and life service.
improvement techniques as all parameters are Opportunities and challenges for geotechnical
controlled and have shown their efficiency over years. applications were identified in this work to open discussions
The advantage to use bio-geochemical-based soil for future possibilities.
improvement technologies is that they are natural and
non-intrusive/disturbing for existing structures (Filet et 8 AKNOWLEDGMENTS
al. 2012, 2016). Nevertheless, some activities
designed to raise awareness and industry training This research was funded by a CRSNG discovery
may be needed. Also, statistical studies must be grant. The authors acknowledge all the researchers cited
conducted including rigorous assurance/quality within this review for accepting to share their material.
control process, monitoring operations during
treatment and maintenance norms should be 9 REFERENCES
considered for re-treatment/healing processes.
Achal, V. and Mukherjee, A. 2015. A review of microbial
• Performance: Models for time- and cost precipitation for sustainable construction. Construction
effectiveness optimization have been assessed and Building Materials 93: 1224-1235.
aiming in-situ implementation of biogrounting (Weil et Al Qabany, A. and Soga, K. 2013. Effect of chemical
al. 2012, Gomez et al. 2015, Terzis and Laloui 2017). treatment used in MICP on engineering properties of
The homogeneity of treatment along the soil matrix cemented soils. Geotechnique 63(4): 331-339.
remains one of the weakness; although researchers Al Qabany, A., Soga, K. and Santamarina, C. 2012. Factors
have progressed a lot in this area. Nevertheless, a Affecting Efficiency of Microbially Induced Calcite
uniform treatment could be achieved when controlling Precipitation. Journal of Geotechnical and
variables will be fully understood including number of Geoenvironmental Engineering 138(8): 992-1001.
injections, method of injection, concentrations of Al-Thawadi, S. 2011. Ureolytic bacteria and calcium
reactants and flowrate of injection. All these carbonate formation as a mechanism of strength
parameters might be fixed depending on field
 enhancement of sand. Journal of Advanced Science DeJong, J.T., Mortensen, B.M., Martinez, B.C. and Nelson,
and Engineering Research 1: 98-114. D.C. 2010. Bio-mediated soil improvement. Ecological
Amin, M., Zomorodian, S.M.A. and Okelly, B.C. 2017. Engineering 36(2): 197-210.
Reducing the hydraulic erosion of sand using microbial- Dejong, J.T., Soga, K., Kavazanjian, E., Burns, S., Van
induced carbonate precipitation. Proceedings of the Paassen, L.A., Al Qabany, A., Aydilek, A., Bang, S.S.,
Institution of Civil Engineers: Ground Improvement Burbank, M., Caslake, L.F., Chen, C.Y., Cheng, X.,
170(2): 112-122. Chu, J., Ciurli, S., Esnault-Filet, A., Fauriel, S.,
Bachmeier, K.L., Williams, A.E., Warmington, J.R. and Hamdan, N., Hata, T., Inagaki, Y., Jefferis, S., Kuo, M.,
Bang, S.S. 2002. Urease activity in microbiologically- Laloui, L., Larrahondo, J., Manning, D.A.C., Martinez,
induced calcite precipitation. Journal of Biotechnology B., Montoya, B.M., Nelson, D.C., Palomino, A.,
93(2): 171-181. Renforth, P., Santamarina, J.C., Seagren, E.A., Tanyu,
Bang, S.S., Galinat, J.K. and Ramakrishnan, V. 2001. B., Tsesarsky, M. and Weaver, T. 2013.
Calcite precipitation induced by polyurethane- Biogeochemical processes and geotechnical
immonilized bacillus pasteurii. Enzyme Microbial applications: progress, opportunities and challenges.
Technol 28: 404-409. Geotechnique 63(4): 287-301.
Cheng, L. and Cord-Ruwisch, R. 2012. In situ soil Dhami, N.K., Reddy, M.S. and Mukherjee, A. 2013.
cementation with ureolytic bacteria by surface Biomineralization of calcium carbonates and their
percolation. Ecological Engineering 42: 64-72. engineered applications: a review. Frontiers in
Cheng, L., Cord-Ruwisch, R. and Shahin, M.A. 2013. microbiology 4: 314.
Cementation of sand soil by microbially induced calcite Esnault-Filet, A., Mosser, J.F., Monleau, S., Sapin, L. and
precipitation at various degrees of saturation. Canadian Gutjahr, I. 2015. Prix de l'innovation Solscope :
Geotechnical Journal 50(1): 81-90. Biocalcis. Public technical report.
Cheng, L., Shahin, M.A. and Cord-Ruwisch, R. 2014. Soil Esnault-Filet, A., Gutjahr, I., Mosser, J.F., Sapin, L. and
Stabilisation by Microbial-Induced Calcite Precipitation Ibrahim, K. 2016. A novel grouting process for the
(MICP): Investigation into Some Physical and reinforcement of low permeability soils with the use of
Environmental Aspects. 7th Congress on biocimentation by biocalcis. 19th Southeast Asian
environmental Geotechnics, Melbourne, Australia. geotechnical Conference & 2nd AGSSEA Conference.
Chou, C.-W., Seagren, E.A., Aydilek, A.H. and Lai, M. Kuala Lumpur.
2012. Biocalcification of sand through ureolysis. Filet, A.E., Gadret, J.-P., Loygue, M. and Borel, S. 2012.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Biocalcis and its applications for the consolidation of
Engineering 137(12): 1179-1189. sands. Geotechnical Special Publication, American
Chu, J. and Ivanov, V. 2014. Iron- and calcium-based Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), New Orleans, LA,
biogrouts for soil improvement. Geotechnical Special United states.
Publication, Atlanta, GA, United states, American Fritzges, M.B., DeJong, J.T. and Nusslein, K. 2006.
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Biologically induced improvement of loose sand. 8th US
Chu, J., Stabnikov, V. and Ivanov, V. 2012. Microbially National Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2006,
Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation on Surface or San Francisco, CA, United states, Earthquake
in the Bulk of Soil. Geomicrobiology Journal 29(6): 544- Engineering Research Institute.
549. Gomez, M.G., Martinez, B.C., Dejong, J.T., Hunt, C.E.,
Ciurli, S., Benini, S., Rypniewski, W.R., Wilson, K.S., Devlaming, L.A., Major, D.W. and Dworatzek, S.M.
Miletti, S. and Mangani, S. 1999. Structural properties 2015. Field-scale bio-cementation tests to improve
of the nickel ions in urease : novel insights into the sands. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
catalytic mechanisms. Coordination Chem. Rev.: 190- Ground Improvement 168(3): 206-216.
192. Gray, D.H. and Sotir, R.B. 1996. Biotechnical and soil
Ciurli, S., Marzadori, C., Benini, S., Deiana, S. and Gessa, bioengineering stabilization. John Wiley & Sons, New
C. 1996. Urease from the soil bacterium Bacillus York, NY, USA.
pasteurii: Immobilization on Ca-polygalacturonate. Soil Hall, J.S., Mozley, P., Davis, J.M. and Roy, N.D. 2004.
Biology & Biochemistry 28(6): 811-817. Environments of Formation and Controls on Spatial
De Jong, J.T., Martinez, B.C., Ginn, T.R., Hunt, C., Major, Distribution of Calcite Cementation in Plio-Pleistocene
D. and Tanyu, B. 2014. Development of a Scaled Fluvial Deposits, New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of
Repeated Five-Spot Treatment Model for Examining Sedimentary Research 74(5): 643-653.
Microbial Induced Calcite Precipitation Feasibility in Hammes, F., Boon, N., de Villiers, J., Verstraete, W. and
Field Applications. Geotechnical Testing Journal 37(3). Siciliano, S.D. 2003. Strain-specific ureolytic microbial
De Muynck, W., Cox, K., De Belle, N. and Verstraete, W. calcium carbonate precipitation. Applied and
2008. Bacterial carbonate precipitation as an Environmental Microbiology 69(8): 4901-4909.
alternative surface treatment for concrete. Construction Harkes, M.P., van Paassen, L.A., Booster, J.L., Whiffin,
and Building Materials 22(5): 875-885. V.S. and van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. 2010. Fixation and
DeJong, J.T., Fritzges, M.B. and Nusslein, K. 2006. distribution of bacterial activity in sand to induce
Microbially induced cementation to control sand carbonate precipitation for ground reinforcement.
response to undrained shear. Journal of Geotechnical Ecological Engineering 36(2): 112-117.
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132(11): 1381-
1392.
Hongzhi, L. 2007. Experimental study on biosealing heterogeneity in groundwater. Bulletin of the Geological
technology for seepage prevention. 5th international Society of America 117(11-12): 1400-1412.
symposium on RCC dams. Guiyang, China. Mujah, D., Shahin, M.A. and Cheng, L. 2016. State-of-the-
Ismail, M.A., Joer, H.A., Randolph, M.F. and Kucharski, art review of bio-cementation by microbially induced
E.S. (1999). CIPS, A novel cementing technique for calcite precipitation (MICP) for soil stabilization.
soils. Geotech. Report, University of Western Australia Geomicrobiology Journal: - 14.
Geomechanics Group. Nemati, M. and Voordouw, G. 2003. Modification of porous
Ivanov, V. and Chu, J. 2008. Applications of media permeability, using calcium carbonate produced
microorganisms to geotechnical engineering for enzymatically in situ. Enzyme and Microbial
bioclogging and biocimentation of soil in situ. Rev. Technology 33(5): 635-642.
Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 7((2)): 14. Ng Wei, S., Lee Min, L., Tan Chew, K. and Hii Siew, L.
Ivanov, V., Chu, J., Stabnikov, V. and Li, B. 2015. 2014. Factors Affecting Improvement in Engineering
Strengthening of Soft Marine Clay Using Properties of Residual Soil through Microbial-Induced
Bioencapsulation. Marine Georesources and Calcite Precipitation. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geotechnology 33(4): 325-329. Geoenvironmental Engineering 140(5): 04014006
Ivanov, V. and Stabnikov, V. 2017. Construction (04014011 ).
Biotechnology. Green Energy and Technology, Ning-Jun, J., Soga, K. and Kuo, M. 2017. Microbially
Springer Singapore: 271-277. induced carbonate precipitation for seepage-induced
Kakelar, M.M., Ebrahimi, S. and Hosseini, M. 2016. internal erosion control in sand-clay mixtures. Journal
Improvement in soil grouting by biocementation through of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
injection method. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical 143(3): 04016100 (04016114 ).
Engineering 11(6): 930-938. Ramakrishnan, V., Ramesh, K.P. and Bang, S.S. 2001.
Karatas, I., Kavazanjian, E. and Rittmann, B.E. 2008. Bacterial concrete. Proc. SPIE - Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.
Microbially induced precipitation of calcite using (USA), USA, SPIE-Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.
pseudomonas denitrificans. 1st International Rebata-Landa, V. 2007. Microbial activity in sediments :
Conference on Bio-Geo-Civil Engineering, effects on soil behavior., Georgia Institute of
Netherlands. Technology.
Kroll, R.G. 1990. Microbiology of extreme environmeents. Roden, E.E., Leonardo, M.R. and Ferris, F.G. 2002.
McGrawHill, New York. Immobilization of strontium during iron
Kucharski, E.S., Cord-Ruwisch, R., Whiffin, V., Al-Thawadi, biomineralization coupled to dissimilatory hydrous ferric
S.M.J., and Cord, R.R., 2006. Microbial oxide reduction. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta
Biocementation. United States Patent. 66(16): 2823-2839.
Martinez, B. 2012. Experimental and numerical upscaling Saxena, S.K. and Lastrico, R.M. 1978. Static Properties of
of MICP for soil improvement, University of California. Lightly Cemented Sand. 104(12): 1449-1464.
Mitchell, J.K. and Santamarina, J.C. 2005. Biological St-Onge, B. 2016. Validation d'un protocole d'injection pour
considerations in geotechnical engineering. Journal of l'amélioration des sols en place par MICP et analyse de
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering l'état critique d'un sable biocalcifié. Master Thesis,
131(10): 1222-1233. École Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada.
Molenaar, N. and Venmans, A.A.M. 1993. Calcium Stabnikov, V., Naeimi, M., Ivanov, V. and Chu, J. 2011.
carbonate cementation of sand: A method for producing Formation of water-impermeable crust on sand surface
artificially cemented samples for geotechnical testing using biocement. Cement and Concrete Research
and a comparison with natural cementation processes. 41(11): 1143-1149.
Engineering Geology 35(1-2): 103-122. Stocks-Fischer, S., Galinat, J.K. and Bang, S.S. 1999.
Montoya, B.M. and Dejong, J.T. 2013. Healing of Microbiological precipitation of CaCO3. Soil Biology &
biologically induced cemented sands. Geotechnique Biochemistry 31(11): 1563-1571.
Letters 3: 147-151. Terzis, D. and Laloui, L. 2017. On the application of
Montoya, B.M. and DeJong, J.T. 2015. Stress-Strain microbially induced calcite precipitation for soils: A
Behavior of Sands Cemented by Microbially Induced multiscale study. Springer Series in Geomechanics and
Calcite Precipitation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoengineering, Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland,
Geoenvironmental Engineering 141(6). Springer Verlag.
Montoya, B.M., Dejong, J.T. and Boulanger, R.W. 2013. Tobler, D.J., Cuthbert, M.O., Greswell, R.B., Riley, M.S.,
Dynamic response of liquefiable sand improved by Renshaw, J.C., Handley-Sidhu, S. and Phoenix, V.R.
microbial-induced calcite precipitation. Geotechnique 2011. Comparaison of rates of ureaolysis between
63(4): 302-312. sporosarcina pasteurii and an indigenous groundwater
Mortensen, B.M. 2012. Bio-Mediated Soil Improvement community under conditions required to precipitate
and the Effect of Cementation on the Behavior, large volumes of calcite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Improvement, and Performance of Sand. PhD, Acta 75(11): 3290- 3301.
University of California. Van Paassen, L.A. 2011. Bio-mediated ground
Mozley, P.S. and Davis, J.M. 2005. Internal structure and improvement: From laboratory experiment to pilot
mode of growth of elongate calcite concretions: applications. Geotechnical Special Publication, Dallas,
Evidence for small-scale, microbially induced, chemical TX, United states, American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE).
Van Paassen, L.A., Daza, C.M., Staal, M., Sorokin, D.Y.,
van der Zon, W. and van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. 2010.
Potential soil reinforcement by biological denitrification.
Ecological Engineering 36(2): 168-175.
Van Paassen, L.A., Ghose, R., van der Linden, T.J.M., van
der Star, W.R.L. and van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. 2010.
Quantifying Biomediated Ground Improvement by
Ureolysis: Large-Scale Biogrout Experiment. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
136(12): 1721-1728.
Van Paassen, L.A., Pieron, M., Mulder, A., van der Linden,
T.J.M., Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. and Ngan-Tillard,
D.J.M., 2009 2009. Strength and deformation of
biologically cemented sanstone. Rock engineering in
difficult ground conditions-Soft rocks and karst,
Dobrovnik, Croatia.
Waldschmidt, J.B. 2017. Étude de l'influence de cucles gel-
dégel sur le comportement d'un sable traité par
biocalcification. Master Thesis, École Polytechnique de
Montréal, Canada.
Wang, Z., Zhang, N., Cai, G., Jin, Y., Ding, N. and Shen,
D. 2017. Review of ground improvement using
microbial induced carbonate precipitation (MICP).
Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 35(8): 1135-
1146.
Weil, M.H., De Jong, J.T., Martinez, B.C. and Mortensen,
B.M. 2012. Seismic and Resistivity Measurements for
Real-Time Monitoring of Microbially Induced Calcite
Precipitation in Sand. Geotechnical Testing Journal
35(2): 330-341.
Whiffin, V.S., van Paassen, L.A. and Harkes, M.P. 2007.
Microbial carbonate precipitation as a soil improvement
technique. Geomicrobiology Journal 24(5): 417-423.
Yasuhara, H., Neupane, D., Hayashi, K. and Okamura, M.
2012. Experiments and predictions of physical
properties of sand cemented by enzymatically-induced
carbonate precipitation. Soils and Foundations 52(3):
539-549.
Zhang, Y., Guo, H.X. and Cheng, X.H. 2015. Role of
calcium sources in the strength and microstructure of
microbial mortar. Construction and Building Materials
77: 160-167.
Zhao, Q., Li, L., Li, C., Zhang, H.Z. and Amini, F. 2014. A
Full Contact Flexible Mold for Preparing Samples
Based on Microbial-Induced Calcite Precipitation
Technology. Geotechnical Testing Journal 37(5).