A Review of the Application of Biopolymers on Geotechnical Engineering and the Strengthening Mechanisms between Typical Biopolymers and Soils

Jang, Jungyeon

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1465709

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusions Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Renewable Polymer Materials and Their Applications

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 1465709 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1465709

A Review of the Application of Biopolymers on Geotechnical Engineering and the Strengthening Mechanisms between Typical Biopolymers and Soils

Jungyeon Jang¹

Guest Editor: Puyou Jia

Received05 Sept 2019

Revised05 Dec 2019

Accepted17 Dec 2019

Published09 Jan 2020

Abstract

The use of admixtures in soils to improve their properties has been implemented since ancient times. Diverse conventional admixtures such as lime, fly ash, and cement have been added to soils. Also, petrochemicals and bacteria are increasingly used for soil improvement and soil stabilization both mechanically and chemically. However, the conventional admixtures for soils cause significant environmental problems (e.g., CO₂ emission). Biopolymers can increasingly replace the conventional admixtures for the application of soil improvement and soil stabilization. Numerous studies have been conducted in the past decades to investigate the suitability and efficiency of various biopolymers for soil improvement. This paper focuses on the properties of the most common biopolymers (xanthan gum, gellan gum, agar, polyacrylamide, and guar gum) and gives the mechanism of biopolymer-treated soils for soil improvements proposed by researchers.

1. Introduction

Improving soil properties is a long-standing attempt and development in geotechnical engineering. From research related to civilization in the past, researchers noticed the use of many soil improvement techniques such as surface compaction, drainage methods, vibration methods, precompression and consolidation, grouting and injection, chemical stabilization, soil reinforcement, and geotextiles and geomembranes [1]. Ancient civil engineering techniques are the use of natural materials (e.g., mud, bitumen, and straw) and binders for storing water, for controlling the flooding near the rivers, and for various fundamental needs. In ancient Rome, Roman concrete made from a mixture of a natural pozzolan material (i.e., volcanic ash), aggregates, and a binder such as gypsum or lime was used primarily to build durable structures [1–3]. After the Industrial Revolution, ordinary Portland cement was invented for soil stabilization [4–6]. After the Postwar reconstruction, chemical mixtures and industrial by-products started to be investigated and developed. Since the Kyoto Protocol, all engineering disciplines are constantly striving to suppress environmental concerns including environmental protection [7]. The current generation has recognized that indiscriminate development has worsened the environment. We therefore inevitably take corrective action with sustainable technology for nature.

Ordinary Portland cement has dominantly been used for construction purposes (e.g., infrastructures and urbanization) with various advantages (e.g., low cost, high strength, durability, and workability) [8]. For example, in 2012, approximately 3.8 Gt of cement is consumed worldwide in just one year [9]. On the other hand, excessive dependence and excessive use of cement have a great impact on the environment as mentioned in the previous paragraph [8]. Particularly, air pollution due to carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, a major culprit of greenhouse gases generated in large quantities during cement production, is a serious situation. In order to mitigate this CO₂ production, geotechnical engineers have started to focus on bio-mediated soil improvement technologies.

Bio-mediated soil improvement techniques have been introduced to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission during the process of cement production [10–12]. The possible environmentally friendly materials (e.g., biopolymers) [13–16] and methods (e.g., microbial-induced calcite precipitation (MICP) [17–19]) are an alternative to conventional soil treatment and improvement techniques (i.e., mechanical improvement and chemical treatment). Particularly, biopolymers as biodegradable polymers have been investigated as a construction material for soil improvement [20–22].

In recent years, most studies on the applicability of biopolymers have been published with experimental results and their analyses, numerous theoretical explanations, and rare case studies of practical implementation. This paper provides a review of the application of biopolymers in geotechnical engineering using the most recent studies. Moreover, strengthening mechanisms between typical biopolymers (i.e., xanthan gum, gellan gum, agar, polyacrylamide, and guar gum) and soils based on microscopic interparticle interactions are summarized.

2. Application of Biopolymer in Geotechnical Engineering

2.1. Biopolymers

2.1.1. Xanthan Gum

Xanthan gum is an anionic polysaccharide that is formed by Xanthomonas campestris bacterium [3, 23–25]. When xanthan gum is stirred by both cold and hot water, xanthan gum solution will be highly viscous because of its viscous hydrogel formation with water [26]. Figure 1 shows the xanthan gum production process, and Figure 2 shows the xanthan gum production processes in detail. Xanthan gum is generally used as a viscosity thickener because it absorbs water molecules through hydrogen bonding [23, 27]. The usage of Xanthan gum in geotechnical engineering is to reduce the permeability of sandy soils by filling their pores [28] and enhance the soil erosion resistance by increasing water retention [2].

Chang et al. [20] showed that a small amount of xanthan gum-treated Korean red-yellow soil enhanced soil erosion resistance and improved the vegetation cultivation. Xanthan gum-treated soil has strong water adsorption during precipitation season and high soil moisture retention during the dry season [30]. Another recent study has studied possibilities for preventing liquefaction in sandy soils [30]. Im et al. investigated dynamic properties of xanthan gum with typical Korean sand (i.e., Jumunjin sand) through resonant column (RC) tests [30].

2.1.2. Gellan Gum

Gellan gum in the polysaccharide group is a high-molecular-weight polymer produced by the bacterium Sphingomonas elodea (formerly known as Pseudomonas elodea) [27, 31, 32]. Also, gellan gum is generated by four molecules: (1,3)-β-D-glucose, (1,4)-β-D-glucuronic acid, (1,4)-β-D-glucose, and (1,4)-α-L-rhamnose as shown in Figure 3 [27]. Low acetyl gellan gum (e.g., at low concentration: 0.05–0.25%) with thermal and acid stability can form gels [32, 33], and the network formation of biodegradable hydrogels crosslinked with gellan gum and chitosan has thermal stability up to 250 degree celsius [33]. Gellan gum with the pore filling effects has been investigated to decrease the permeability and improve the strength of shallow soils [1]. Another recent study has investigated the interactions between gellan gum and soils [32]. Chang and Cho [31] investigated the shear strength and cohesion of gellan gum-treated sand-clay mixtures increase with increasing the overburden stress levels through direct shear tests.

2.1.3. Agar

Agar is obtained from the red algae (e.g., Gelidium, Gracilaria, and Gelidiella) or red seaweeds [33]. Figure 4 shows the chemical structure of agar. Large quantities of Gelidium have been harvested in Spain, Portugal, and Morocco. Some Gracilaria are found in the cold waters of Chile and Canada, and some species live in warm, tropical climate water in Indonesia. Gelidiella is mainly distributed in India, mostly in the tropical and subtropical waters.

When agar forms gels, it provides rigid textures and has been used as a stabilizer [27]. Agar has hydrophobicity that excels in the solubility and the gelling of the agar. The melting point of agar is 85–95°C, and gelling point is 32–45°C. Gel strength of 1.5% agar at 20°C is 70–1000 g/cm³. The viscosity and the average molecular weight of 1.5% agar at 60°C is 10–100 centipoise and 36–144 kDa, respectively [33].

2.1.4. Polyacrylamide

Polyacrylamide (PAM) is a water-soluble polymer, and Figure 5 shows the structure unit of PAM polymer. PAM is widely used for EOR, water treatment, and soil amendment effects because PAM is more effective and relatively inexpensive [36–38]. For EOR, partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) solution with 0.5 wt.% NaOH showed a better sweep efficiency than polymer flood [37]. In wastewater treatment, a low cationic polyacrylamide (4 mg/L PAM) to high rate algal pond (HRAP) treating wastewater in New Zealand achieved at least 50% improvement of total suspended solid (TSS) removal [39]. In agricultural purposes, more flocculation efficacy and stable aggregates of PAM solution (compared to water) reduce water erosion [30].

2.1.5. Guar Gum

Guar gum is a polysaccharide and is obtained from the seeds of Cyamopsis tetragonoloba [25, 41]. The general composition of guar gum is galactomannan (75–85%), moisture (8–14%), protein, fiber, and ash [42]. Guar gum has high molecular weight and is a water-soluble polymer. Guar gum molecule consists of α-D-galactose and β-D-mannopyranose backbone as shown in Figure 6 [41].

The addition of guar gum (0.25–2% concentration) reduced the permeability of silt and sand and increased the cohesion stress of sand. Moreover, Chudzikowski [41] proved the pore filling effect of guar gum (2% concentration after curing time of 5 weeks) between the soil particles by scanning electron micrographs (SEM).

2.2. Development Process of Biopolymers for Soil Stabilization

The engineered treatment of soil in construction is always developed since the beginning of human civilization. In ancient civil engineering, engineers used natural materials and binders such as mud, straw, lime, and especially cement for soil improvement. After the Industrial Revolution, ordinary Portland cement was invented, and then it has improved as cement-based concrete. Humans have become interested in the usage of chemical mixtures and industrial byproducts during postwar reconstruction.

After Kyoto protocol 2005, geotechnical engineers and researchers have a distinct social need for sustainability in geotechnical engineering because massive carbon dioxide as the main culprit of global warming is released during the manufacturing of cement, which is widely used for soil improvement [43]. To lessen the amount of CO₂ emissions, several environmentally friendly materials have been proposed for soil improvement. The materials include geopolymer, MICP, biopolymers, and so on.

Geopolymer was invented in 1979 and has been continuously applied in various fields such as fire-resistant wood panels, insulated panels and walls, thermal shock refractory, and geopolymer-based cement and concrete. Especially, researchers have studied the usage of geopolymers in the field of cement and concrete. On the other hand, little studies have been done on soil improvement using geopolymers.

The MICP method as a biological process implements to precipitate calcium carbonate for filling the voids in the soil and then induces bonds between soil particles [3, 31, 44–46]. MICP has improved the engineering properties of soil (e.g., sand), rather than non-bio-mediated treatment methods [47, 48]. The MICP method improves the properties of coarse soil particles (e.g., sand or silt) [44, 49–52]. However, the MICP method may be an inefficient method for improving the soil strength when the fine particles are 25% or more in the soil distribution composed of fine and coarse soil particles [53].

Unlike geopolymers and MICP, numerous studies subjected to the usage of biopolymers in geo-materials have been investigated for soil stabilization. Biopolymer-treated soils enhance their soil strengthening [31], reduce their hydraulic conductivity [54], and improve soil dynamic properties and the resistance to soil erosion in geotechnical engineering [30]. The direct use of biopolymers in soil has some advantages over traditional biological soil treatment methods, and the direct use of exocultivated biopolymers for soil treatment overcomes some shortcomings of other approaches such as the need for microbial and nutrient injection, time for cultivation and excrement precipitation, and inappropriateness with clayey soils. Moreover, biopolymers can be used as a substitute for cement that emits greenhouse gases because biopolymers are easily found and are harmless in nature. Biopolymers in polysaccharide group recently have been examined for use in geotechnical engineering. Particularly, the characteristics of five common biopolymers are summarized in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the physicochemical properties of commercial biopolymers.

2.3. Physicochemical Properties of Each Biopolymer

Table 2 summarizes the physicochemical properties of each biopolymer. Common biopolymers are generally powder and soluble in water. Only PAM is insoluble in water. Table 2 also shows the experimental results for molecular weight, moisture, ash, viscosity, melting point, and gelling point. Although each biopolymer is of the same biodegradable polymers, we need to have an engineering judgement to use these properties appropriately because the physiochemical properties are different.

2.4. Potential Applications of Each Biopolymer

Table 3 summarizes the potential applications of xanthan gum-treated soils in geotechnical engineering. Through various studies, xanthan gum also has the potential to be applied to wind erosion control, soil remediation, soil grouting, and vegetation growth improvement in drylands. Xanthan gum generally treats coarse soils such as sand. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the potential application of gellan gum-treated soils and agar-treated soils, respectively. Table 6 shows the applications of PAM in various fields. Lastly, Table 7 summarizes the potential applications of guar gum-treated geomaterials (e.g., mine tailings and clay).

Figure 7 shows the prices of five representative biopolymers for soil stabilization. Xanthan gum and PAM are less than $2000/ton, which is relatively cheaper than the other three biopolymers. On the other hand, gellan gum and agar gum have a large price difference depending on the quality of the biopolymers, and therefore, a preliminary investigation for soil stabilization should be thoroughly conducted. Table 8 shows the detail price of the biopolymers.

3. Strengthening Mechanisms of Biopolymer-Treated Soils

3.1. Xanthan Gum

Figure 8 shows the peak strength behavior of xanthan gum-treated sand with varied xanthan gum gel phase (initial, dried, and re-submerged) [60]. The initial state means that the xanthan gum-treated sand specimens were immediately tested as soon as they were prepared in the disk-shaped mold (60 mm in diameter and 20 mm in height). The dried state represents that xanthan gum-treated sand specimens were tested after drying them at room temperature for 28 days. Lastly, the re-submerged state means that half of the dried sand specimens were submerged in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours before testing.

(a)

(b)

Even a very small amount of xanthan gum (i.e., 0.5%) in the sand affects the change in strength behavior of xanthan gum-treated sand. Increasing the content of xanthan gum on the initial gel of xanthan gum increases the cohesion, but the friction angle is constant. For the dried gel phase of xanthan gum, both the cohesion and friction angle increase with adding more xanthan gum content to the sand because of the formation of xanthan gum biofilm on the surface of sand particles and viscous hydrogels of xanthan gum that result in the pore clogging [54, 60, 67, 76]. At the re-submerged condition, the peak friction angles of xanthan gum-treated sand decrease with more xanthan gum content (from 1% xanthan gum) because the interaction (e.g., surface friction and interlocking) between interparticles is reduced by higher swelling pressure generated by the half of pure dried sand specimens swell [60].

The residual interparticle cohesion and friction angle values of xanthan-treated sand at initial, dried, and re-submerged conditions are shown in Figure 9. The residual shear strength properties of xanthan gum-treated sand depend on the condition of xanthan gum gel phase. At initial condition, the cohesion and friction angle of xanthan gum-treated sand are constant, regardless of xanthan gum content. Such constant values might be affected by the van der Waals interaction (i.e., hydrogen bonding) [60]. However, at dried condition, the residual shear strength properties (both cohesion and friction angle) of xanthan gum-treated sand increase with adding more xanthan gum content. Simultaneously, at the re-submerged condition, the residual cohesion of xanthan gum-treated sand increases with higher xanthan gum contents, whereas the residual friction angle of xanthan gum-treated sand decreases with more xanthan gum contents. In particular, the lower viscosity of xanthan gum hydrogels at higher strain level might explain the decrease of friction angle of xanthan gum-treated sand as pseudoplasticity behavior of xanthan gum hydrogels at high strain level [60].

(a)

(b)

Figure 10 represents the soil-water characteristic curve for Ottawa 20–30 sand saturated with a xanthan gum solution (Figure 10(a)) and the SEM image of Ottawa 20–30 sand in xanthan gum. The van der Waals force between fluid (i.e., xanthan gum solution) and the solid surface (i.e., sand surface) will decide the thickness of surface water film. The SEM image shows xanthan gum solution attached to the Ottawa 20–30 sand surface (Figure 10(b)). This adhesiveness will explain that the matric suction to desaturated Ottawa 20–30 sand saturated with xanthan gum solution is greater than that of the sand saturated with water.

(a)

(b)

3.2. Gellan Gum

Figure 11 shows the direct shear strengths of thermogelated gellan gum treated soils. Overall, both cohesion and friction angle of gellan gum-treated soils increase with higher gellan gum, except only pure sand (100% sand with no clay; SP in USCS). In Figure 11(a), a small quantity (1–5% gellan gum) of gellan gum in pure sand only dramatically increases its cohesion, whereas the friction angle of pure sand with the small amount of gellan gum is similar to that of pure sand without gellan gum.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figures 11(b) and 11(c) are the result of a mixture of gellan gum added in proportion to sand and clay. The sand to clay ratio of the prepared specimen is 80 : 20 (SC in USCS) in Figure 11(b) and 50 : 50 (CL in USCS) in Figure 11(c). Overall, the cohesion and friction angle of gellan gum-treated sand-clay mixtures increases with a gradual increase of gellan gum ratio. Even 1% gellan gum in sand-clay mixtures dramatically increases both the cohesion and friction angle because gellan gum binds clay particles in several places, and the aggregated clay and gellan gum increase cohesion and friction angle [31]. 1% gellan gum in sand forms bridges between adjacent sand particles as shown in Figures 12(a) (spatial resolution: 500 micrometer) and 12(b) (spatial resolution: 50 micrometer).

(a)

(b)

(c)

3.3. Agar

Figure 13 shows the unconfined compressive strength of air-dried-biopolymer-treated clayey soils (i.e., Korean residual soil) (Figure 13(a)) and sandy soils (Figure 13(b)) with time (i.e., up to 28 days). As the duration of air drying of biopolymer-treated soils increases, the unconfined compressive strength of clayey/sandy soil with biopolymers (i.e., gellan gum and agar) improves. The higher concentration of biopolymer improves the compressive strength values in both clayey and sandy soils.

(a)

(b)

SEM image of agar-clayey soil mixtures shows that agar gels cover massive mixtures of the clayey soil and agar because of the indirect interactions by long molecular structures of agar wrap clayey soil particles as shown in Figure 14 [27].

3.4. PAM

Figure 15 shows the relationship between pore saturation (i.e., the values of the displacement ratios) and flow rate in the air-saturated and decane-saturated silica micromodels (represented Ottawa sand). In order to perform the micromodel tests, air or decane (represented oil) fully filled the pores of micromodel. After filling all the pores, the micromodel tests were performed.

(a)

(b)

The pore saturation of the PAM solution in the air-saturated silica micromodel gradually increases with the faster flow rate (Figure 15(a)), whereas the effect of the PAM concentration is little. However, the pore saturation of the PAM solution in the decane-saturated silica micromodel suddenly increases at a flow rate of 1 μL/min (Figure 15(b)).

Moreover, the higher concentration of PAM does not always move more decane in decane-saturated micromodel. Therefore, to increase cost efficiency for soil remediation, it is best to increase the flow rate (i.e., the injection speed of PAM solution into the decane-saturated micromodel), and only 5 g/L PAM can achieve a similar effect as the PAM concentration of more than 15 g/L [58].

3.5. Guar Gum

The unconfined compressive stress of silt/biopolymers (e.g., pure sand, guar gum, modified starch, and xanthan gum) with varied concentrations after 5 weeks of curing time is shown in Figure 16. Increasing biopolymer content in silt enhances the unconfined compressive stress of silt/biopolymers. Adding guar gum to silt is the best choice for increasing strength among the three biopolymers. This implies that the rate of increase in the shear behavior of biopolymer-treated silt depends on the type of biopolymer.

The failure envelopes of sand/biopolymers (e.g., pure sand, 2% guar gum, 2% modified starch, and 2% xanthan gum) after 5 weeks curing time are plotted by the direct shear tests as shown in Figure 17. The cohesion of biopolymer-treated sand is higher than pure sand. However, cohesion depends on the type of biopolymer. The cohesion of guar-gum treated sand is the highest among the three biopolymers.

SEM can assess the improvement in the shear strength parameters of sand/guar gum mixtures (Figure 18). Guar gum accumulations are connected between guar gum and soil particles (i.e., poorly graded sand; Gs = 2.7) [55]. van der Waals forces as physical absorption generate the weakest bonds over a long range in the SEM (Figure 18) [78].

4. Conclusions

Soil improvement methods have been intensively studied and developed over centuries. Adding cement in soils is the simplest and easiest method for soil improvement. However, the need for eco-friendly construction methods is increasing due to severe environmental concerns.

The development of numerous possible cement substitutes, including the use of biopolymers and MICP for soil improvement, has been proposed. Recent studies have shown biopolymers are used for soil improvement/stabilization and applied with their several advantages. Therefore, this study focuses on the five common biopolymers, including their development process, physicochemical properties, possible applications, and cost of each biopolymer in the market.

Several studies have shown the improvement of soil strength induced by adding biopolymers to soils. Xanthan gum-treated sand improves its cohesion and friction angle at initial and dry condition, whereas the use of xanthan gum to sand at the re-submerged condition decreases the shear strength parameter. Gellan gum-treated soil depends on the amount of clay in sand-clay mixtures. The formation of gellan gum-pure clay mixtures significantly increases their cohesion. Proper mixing of coarse particles, clay particles, and gellan gum is thus expected to enhance the optimal strengthening effects because of the combination of increased connection effect between soil particles and gellan gum. Because of the long molecule structure of agar, more agar in clayey soils improves unconfined compressive strength. Even with a slight increase in the flow rate of PAM, we need to find the optimal flow rate of polyacrylamide because of the significant flushing effect on soils contaminated by oil. Guar gum is better able to increase the unconfined compressive strength and cohesion in biopolymer-treated silt than other biopolymers such as modified starch and xanthan gum.

Although the usage of biopolymers has numerous benefits for soil improvement/stabilization, each biopolymer has different advantages to soils because the interaction between biopolymer and soil depends on their conditions such as soil type, soil-biopolymer ratios, temperature, and reaction with water. Overall, we expect to better understand the physical and chemical properties of biopolymers and then will properly apply the biopolymers that fit geographical characteristics in the near future.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

N. J. Delatte, “Lessons from roman cement and concrete,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 109–115, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Brune, R. Perucchio, A. R. Ingraffea, and M. D. Jackson, “The toughness of imperial roman concrete,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures, Jeju Island, Korea, May 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Chang, J. Im, and G.-C. Cho, “Introduction of microbial biopolymers in soil treatment for future environmentally-friendly and sustainable geotechnical engineering,” Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 251, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Chang and G.-C. Cho, “Strengthening of Korean residual soil with β-1,3/1,6-glucan biopolymer,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 30, pp. 30–35, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Chen and Q. Wang, “The behaviour of organic matter in the process of soft soil stabilization using cement,” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 445–448, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Saadeldin and S. Siddiqua, “Geotechnical characterization of a clay-cement mix,” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 72, no. 3-4, pp. 601–608, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kim and K. Park, “Evaluation of the grouting in the sandy ground using bio injection material,” in Proceedings of the 2016 World Congress on Advances in Civil, Environmental, and Materials Research, Jeju Island, Korea, August 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Basu, A. Misra, A. J. Puppala, and C. S. Chittoori, “Sustainability in geotechnical engineering,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 2–6, Paris, France, September 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
S. A. Miller, A. Horvath, and P. J. M. Monteiro, “Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO₂ emissions from the production of concrete by over 20%,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 11, no. 7, Article ID 074029, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Cole, D. B. Ringelberg, and C. M. Reynolds, “Small-scale mechanical properties of biopolymers,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 138, no. 9, pp. 1063–1074, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Mitchell and J. C. Santamarina, “Biological considerations in geotechnical engineering,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 131, no. 10, pp. 1222–1233, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. B. Ringelberg, D. M. Cole, K. L. Foley, C. M. Ruidaz-Santiago, and C. M. Reynolds, “Compressive strength of soils amended with a bacterial succinoglycan: effects of soluble salts and organic matter,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 747–757, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. T. P. Tran, I. Chang, and G.-C. Cho, “Soil water retention and vegetation survivability improvement using microbial biopolymers in drylands,” Geomechanics and Engineering, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 475–483, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. S. Jeong, D.-H. Noh, E. Hong, K. S. Lee, and T.-H. Kwon, “Systematic modeling approach to selective plugging using in situ bacterial biopolymer production and its potential for microbial-enhanced oil recovery,” Geomicrobiology Journal, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 468–481, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Lee, J. Im, G.-C. Cho, and I. Chang, “laboratory triaxial test behavior of xanthan gum biopolymer-treated sands,” Geomechanics and Engineering, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 445–452, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
A. A. Qabany and K. Soga, “Effect of chemical treatment used in MICP on engineering properties of cemented soils,” Géotechnique, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 331–339, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Chang, M. Jeon, and G.-C. Cho, “Application of microbial biopolymers as an alternative construction binder for earth buildings in underdeveloped countries,” International Journal of Polymer Science, vol. 2015, Article ID 326745, 9 pages, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Lin, M. T. Suleiman, D. G. Brown, and E. Kavazanjian, “Mechanical behavior of sands treated by microbially induced carbonate precipitation,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 142, no. 2, Article ID 04015066, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wang, K. Soga, J. T. DeJong, and A. J. Kabla, “A microfluidic chip and its use in characterising the particle-scale behaviour of microbial-induced carbonate precipitation (MICP),” 2018, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1804/1804.02946.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Chang, A. K. Prasidhi, J. Im, H.-D. Shin, and G.-C. Cho, “Soil treatment using microbial biopolymers for anti-desertification purposes,” Geoderma, vol. 253-254, pp. 39–47, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Chang, J. Im, M.-K. Chung, and G.-C. Cho, “Bovine casein as a new soil strengthening binder from diary wastes,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 160, pp. 1–9, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Hataf, P. Ghadir, and N. Ranjbar, “Investigation of soil stabilization using chitosan biopolymer,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 170, pp. 1493–1500, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Chang, Y.-M. Kwon, J. Im, and G.-C. Cho, “Soil consistency and interparticle characteristics of xanthan gum biopolymer–containing soils with pore-fluid variation,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1206–1213, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-M. Kwon, I. Chang, M. Lee, and G.-C. Cho, “Geotechnical engineering behavior of biopolymer-treated soft marine soil,” Geomechanics and Engineering, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 453–464, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Smitha and A. Sachan, “Use of agar biopolymer to improve the shear strength behavior of sabarmati sand,” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 387–400, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Garcı́a-Ochoa, V. E. Santos, J. A. Casas, and E. Gómez, “Xanthan gum: production, recovery, and properties,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 549–579, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Chang, A. K. Prasidhi, J. Im, and G.-C. Cho, “Soil strengthening using thermo-gelation biopolymers,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 77, pp. 430–438, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Gioia and P. P. Ciriello, “The containment of oil spills in porous media using xanthan/aluminum solutions, gelled by gaseous CO₂ or by AlCl₃ solutions,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 500–506, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cao, B. Bate, J. Hu, and J. Jung, “Engineering behavior and characteristics of water-soluble polymers: implication on soil remediation and enhanced oil recovery,” Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 205, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Im, A. T. P. Tran, I. Chang, and G.-C. Cho, “Dynamic properties of gel-type biopolymer-treated sands evaluated by resonant column (RC) tests,” Geomechanics and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 815–830, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Chang and G.-C. Cho, “Shear strength behavior and parameters of microbial gellan gum-treated soils: from sand to clay,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 361–375, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. C. Sabadini, V. C. A. Martins, and A. Pawlicka, “Synthesis and characterization of gellan gum: chitosan biohydrogels for soil humidity control and fertilizer release,” Cellulose, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 2045–2054, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Rhein-Knudsen, M. Ale, and A. Meyer, “Seaweed hydrocolloid production: an update on enzyme assisted extraction and modification technologies,” Marine Drugs, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 3340–3359, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Grasdalen and O. Smidsrød, “Gelation of gellan gum,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 371–393, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Lahaye, “Developments on gelling algal galactans, their structure and physico-chemistry,” Journal of Applied Phycology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 173–184, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
D. C. Flanagan, K. Chaudhari, and L. D. Norton, “Polyacrylamide soil amendment effects on runoff and sediment yield on steep slopes: part I. Simulated rainfall conditions,” Transactions of the ASAE, vol. 45, no. 5, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Jung, K. Zhang, B. H. Chon, and H. J. Choi, “Rheology and polymer flooding characteristics of partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide for enhanced heavy oil recovery,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 4833–4839, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Xiong, R. D. Loss, D. Shields et al., “Polyacrylamide degradation and its implications in environmental systems,” NPJ Clean Water, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 17, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Mudgil, S. Barak, and B. S. Khatkar, “Guar gum: processing, properties and food applications-a review,” Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 409–418, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. E. Sojka, D. L. Bjorneberg, J. A. Entry, R. D. Lentz, and W. J. Orts, “Polyacrylamide in agriculture and environmental land management,” Advances in Agronomy, vol. 92, pp. 75–162, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Chudzikowski, “Guar gum and its applications,” Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, vol. 22, pp. 43–60, 1971.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Cao, J. Jung, X. Song, and B. Bate, “On the soil water characteristic curves of poorly graded granular materials in aqueous polymer solutions,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 103–116, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. T. DeJong, B. M. Mortensen, B. C. Martinez, and D. C. Nelson, “Bio-mediated soil improvement,” Ecological Engineering, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 197–210, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. C. Martinez, J. T. DeJong, T. R. Ginn et al., “Experimental optimization of microbial-induced carbonate precipitation for soil improvement,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 139, no. 4, pp. 587–598, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. De Muynck, N. De Belie, and W. Verstraete, “Microbial carbonate precipitation in construction materials: a review,” Ecological Engineering, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 118–136, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. van Paassen, R. Ghose, T. J. M. van der Linden, W. R. L. van der Star, and M. C. M. van Loosdrecht, “Quantifying biomediated ground improvement by ureolysis: large-scale biogrout experiment,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 136, no. 12, pp. 1721–1728, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. T. DeJong, M. B. Fritzges, and K. Nüsslein, “Microbially induced cementation to control sand response to undrained shear,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 132, no. 11, pp. 1381–1392, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-M. Ham, I. Chang, D.-H. Noh, T.-H. Kwon, and B. Muhunthan, “Improvement of surface erosion resistance of sand by microbial biopolymer formation,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 144, no. 7, Article ID 06018004, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chu, V. Ivanov, V. Stabnikov, and B. Li, “Microbial method for construction of an aquaculture pond in sand,” Géotechnique, vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 871–875, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Dadda, C. Geindreau, F. Emeriault et al., “Characterization of microstructural and physical properties changes in biocemented sand using 3D X-ray microtomography,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 955–970, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Mujah, M. A. Shahin, and L. Cheng, “State-of-the-art review of biocementation by microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP) for soil stabilization,” Geomicrobiology Journal, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 524–537, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Terzis and L. Laloui, “3-D micro-architecture and mechanical response of soil cemented via microbial-induced calcite precipitation,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 1416, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mahawish, A. Bouazza, and W. P. Gates, “Effect of particle size distribution on the bio-cementation of coarse aggregates,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1019–1025, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bouazza, W. P. Gates, and P. G. Ranjith, “Hydraulic conductivity of biopolymer-treated silty sand,” Géotechnique, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 71-72, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Ayeldeen, A. M. Negm, and M. A. El Sawwaf, “Evaluating the physical characteristics of biopolymer/soil mixtures,” Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 371, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Jang, “Characterization of biopolymer using SWCC and microfluidic models: implication on EOR,” Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2015, Master thesis.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Khatami and B. C. O’Kelly, “Prevention of bleeding of particulate grouts using biopolymers,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 192, pp. 202–209, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Jung, J. Jang, and J. Ahn, “Characterization of a polyacrylamide solution used for remediation of petroleum contaminated soils,” Materials, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 16, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Jung and J. Jang, “Soil-water characteristic curve of sediments containing a polyacrylamide solution,” Géotechnique Letters, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 89–94, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Lee, I. Chang, M.-K. Chung, Y. Kim, and J. Kee, “Geotechnical shear behavior of xanthan gum biopolymer treated sand from direct shear testing,” Geomechanics and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 831–847, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Tiwari, J. P. Sharma, and J. S. Yadav, “Behaviour of dune sand and its stabilization techniques,” Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Mechanics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Chen, L. Zhang, and M. Budhu, “Biopolymer stabilization of mine tailings,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 139, no. 10, pp. 1802–1807, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Parija, M. Misra, and A. K. Mohanty, “Studies of natural gum adhesive extracts: an overview,” Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part C: Polymer Reviews, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 175–197, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. B. Bajaj, S. A. Survase, P. S. Saudagar, and R. S. Singhal, “Gellan gum: fermentative production, downstream processing and applications,” Food Technology and Biotechnology, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 341–354, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Armisen and F. Galatas, “Production, properties and uses of agar,” 1987, http://www.fao.org/3/x5822e/x5822e03.htm#chapter%201%20%20%20production,%20properties%20and%20uses%20of%20agar.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Kavazanjian Jr., E. Iglesias, and I. Karatas, “Biopolymer soil stabilization for wind erosion control,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 881–884, Alexandria, Egypt, October 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Khachatoorian, I. G. Petrisor, C.-C. Kwan, and T. F. Yen, “Biopolymer plugging effect: laboratory-pressurized pumping flow studies,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 38, no. 1-2, pp. 13–21, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Im, I. Chang, and G.-C. Cho, Injection Capabilities of Xanthan Gum for Soil Grouting, International Association of Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2019.
S. Smitha, K. Rangaswamy, and D. S. Keerthi, “Triaxial test behaviour of silty sands treated with agar biopolymer,” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 1–12, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Z. Abidin, T. Puspasari, and W. A. Nugroho, “Polymers for enhanced oil recovery technology,” Procedia Chemistry, vol. 4, pp. 11–16, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Aften and W. P. Watson, “Improved friction reducer for hydraulic fracturing,” in Proceedings of the 2009 SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, January 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Sun, R. F. Stevens, J. L. Cutler, B. Wood, R. S. Wheeler, and Q. Qu, “A novel nondamaging friction reducer: development and successful slickwater frac applications,” in Proccedings of the 2010 Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, November 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
F. W. Barvenik, “Polyacrylamide characteristics related to soil applications,” Soil Science, vol. 158, no. 4, pp. 235–243, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Chen, I. Lee, and L. Zhang, “Biopolymer stabilization of mine tailings for dust control,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 141, no. 2, Article ID 04014100, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Acharya, A. Pedarla, T. V. Bheemasetti, and A. J. Puppala, “Assessment of guar gum biopolymer treatment toward mitigation of desiccation cracking on slopes built with expansive soils,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2657, no. 1, pp. 78–88, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Ivanov and J. Chu, “Applications of microorganisms to geotechnical engineering for bioclogging and biocementation of soil in situ,” Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 139–153, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Chang, J. Im, and G.-C. Cho, “Geotechnical engineering behaviors of gellan gum biopolymer treated sand,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 1658–1670, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. T. Dintcheva, M. Baiamonte, R. Teresi, G. Alotta, E. Bologna, and M. Zingales, “A fractional-order model of biopolyester containing naturally occurring compounds for soil stabilization,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2019, Article ID 5986564, 6 pages, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Jungyeon Jang. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

7278

Downloads

3190

Citations