bacterial concrete and effect of different bacteria … · 2016-09-12 · effect of different...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 43 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 7, Issue 5, September-October 2016, pp. 43–56, Article ID: IJCIET_07_05_006

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=5

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication

BACTERIAL CONCRETE AND EFFECT OF

DIFFERENT BACTERIA ON THE STRENGTH AND

WATER ABSORPTION CHARACTERISTICS OF

CONCRETE: A REVIEW

Abhishek Thakur

P.G. Student, Department of Civil Engineering,

Chandigarh University, Gharaun, Punjab, India.

Akshay Phogat

U.G. Student, Department of Bio-Technology,


Khushpreet Singh

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,


ABSTRACT

The concrete structures have various durability issues due to the different physiological

conditions and it results to irretrievable damage to the structure and eventually reduction in the

strength of concrete structure. The main reason behind the downgrading of the durability and

mechanical aspects of concrete is the pore structure of concrete. In the recent years MICCP

(microbiologically induced calcium carbonate precipitation) by the bacteria considered as an

environment friendly method to enhance the properties of concrete, also for the repair of concrete

structure and to consolidate different construction materials. This paper presents a review of

different researches in the recent years on the use of bacterial concrete/bio-concrete for the

enhancement in the durability, mechanical and permeation aspects of concrete. It contains studies

on different bacteria’s, their isolation process, different approaches for addition of bacteria in

concrete, their effects on compressive strength and water absorption properties of concrete and

also the SEM and XRD analysis of concrete containing bacteria.

Key words: durability, MICCP, bacterial concrete, SEM, permeation aspects.

Cite this Article: Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh, Bacterial Concrete and

Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of Concrete: A

Review. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(5), 2016, pp.43–56.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=5

Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh


1. INTRODUCTION

Bacterial concrete is a special type of concrete it has the ability to repair itself autonomously 1. one another

advantage of bacterial concrete is that the introduction of bacteria in concrete also helps in enhancing the

properties of concrete in both natural and laboratory conditions 2.With the reference from the previous

researches it has been found that MICCP technology has been already used for improvement in strength of

bricks and sand consolidation 3,4

. As per the self healing property and enhancement in other aspects of

concrete, it is clear that addition of this kind of agent in concrete would save environment and money 5.

Because the other pre-defined materials for enhancement in strength and durability were not good for

environment and also more costly than bacterial concrete and they also require regular maintenance 6. This

study is to understand the significance of different micro-organisms in concrete. The MICCP process

enhances the strength and durability of the concrete structures 7, 8

. It is basically due to the decrease in

water permeability and chloride ion permeability. And it also helps in binding the sand particles together

and make then act like cement 9. Form the studies it has been found that the possible mechanisms for Self-

healing are calcite formation, Blocking of the path by sedimentation of particles, continuous hydration of

particles of cement and swelling of cement matrix. MICCP for the crack healing and improvement in

mechanical properties is a result of biological activities and it is pollution free. MICCP basically depends

upon the various factors like pH 10, 11

, presence of nucleation site [12, 13, 14]

, and concentration of calcium

ions and dissolved inorganic carbon 15, 16

.

The basic advantages of MICCP by the bacteria in concrete are the increase in strength, low

maintenance cost of the concrete structure, resistance to freeze thaw, high carbonation which can help in

decreasing the porosity and permeability, and increase in resistance towards chloride attack 17-25

. And

according to the previous studies its disadvantages are 7 to 30% increase in cost, the usage of the bacteria

in concrete should be minimum because these bacteria are not safe for human health, there is no standard

design for the bacterial concrete design mix. The increase in cost is also due to its SEM analysis and this

analysis also required skilled personnel, which increase the overall cost of the bacterial concrete 22-28

.

Since 1980’s a lot of articles can be found related to bacterial concrete and many processes were

proposed for preparing the bacterial concrete. The use of bacteria to design bacterial concrete has been

defined as a biological strategy by several researchers 29,30

and they also suggested designs to prepare

bacterial or self healing concrete. According to these researches it has been found that this biological

process contains various steps. As shown in Figure 1.

2. METHODOLOGY

From literature review different bacteria in concrete

• Bacillus Sphaericus

• Bacillus subtilis

• Bacillus magaterium

• Bacillus pasteuri

• Bacillus cohnii

• Sporosarcina pasteurii

• Shewanella species

All these micro-organisms are studied in this paper for their comparison in their capabilities to enhance

the concrete characteristics.

According to the previous researches it has been found that, the methodology to produce bacterial

concrete involves various steps:

• Selection of bacterial species, isolation of bacteria and growth of bacteria.

• Preparation of test specimen.

Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of

Concrete: A Review


• Characterization studies:

a. X-ray diffraction analysis.

b. SEM analysis.

c. Permeation, durability and mechanical aspects of concrete.

3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES:

3.1. Selection of Bacteria

The pH of concrete is between 10 to 13 and its temperature can go up to 70◦c. After the drying of the

concrete there is no moisture left in it. So, the selection of bacteria is done on the basis of its high

resistance against pH, temperature and lack of water content. So, due to this reason Ghosh, mandal (2006)

and other researchers used thermophilic bacteria other than mesophilic bacteria 37

.

3.2. Isolation of Bacteria

The standard steps for isolation of micro-organisms from soils are:

• First of all, collection of soil samples in glass bottles or test tubes.

• Mix all these samples with some amount of water then vigorously shake it.

• After that take 1ml of mixed soil sample into a test tube and add 9ml of distilled water in it.

• After the addition of 1ml of bacterial water in 9ml of distilled water, the concentration of solution becomes

10-1

. This solution should be kept in a test tube.

• After this take 1ml solution from first test tube to the second test tube and again add 9ml of distilled water in

second test tube.

• Repeat the above 3 steps 5 to 6 times.

• After these steps the concentration of solution becomes 10-4

to 10-6

.

• After all these steps, make Patrick plates with some selective media according to the bacteria requirement.

• After this spread the above test tube solution of concentration 10-4

to 10-6

on the Patrick plate with media in

it. And check the plate after 24-48 hrs.

• After 24-48 hrs check the type of colony formation in the Patrick plate. And also made some more Patrick

plates with the same media and soil sample with different concentration.

• After this streak the different type of colonies on different plates. And check the growth after 24-48 hrs.

• Then check the morphology of different colonies by gram staining method. And also do some bio-chemical

reactions for proper identification of bacteria.

• Then again make a liquid broth of selective media and streak the identified bacteria in to it. After 24-48 hrs

check the growth. After certain time period the turbidity in media will show the growth of microbes

www.mbio.ncsu.edu 79

.

And this is the finally isolated bacteria. This bacterial solution is then checked for calcite formation by

X-ray diffraction analysis and SEM (stereo electron microscopic) analysis. Some of the different selective

media’s for the growth of bacteria: a. Bacillus Sphaericus : Trypticase soy broth

b. Bacillus subtilis : Nutrient broth agar

c. Bacillus magaterium : Hicrome bacillus agar

d. Bacillus Pasteuri : NH4-YE medium

e. Bacillus colli : BATS media

f. Bacillus flexus : Hicrome bacillus agar

g. Bacillus cereus : Hicrome bacillus agar

h. Sporosarcina pasteurii : NH4-YE medium

i. Shewanella species : Shewanella IRHLS Agar



All this information regarding the different media’s is taken from the http://www.himedialabs.com 80

.

The basic requirement in the bacterial concrete is to protect the bacteria in the concrete from the highly

alkaline environment of concrete. The next important part is the addition of bacteria in concrete. According

to the previous studies the different approaches for the addition of bacteria in concrete are; 38-40

1. In fresh concrete- direct addition of microbial broth or in form of spores.

2. Immobilized form onto activated carbon or silica gel

3. By encapsulation

4. By using the vascular network

• Direct addition of microbial broth in fresh concrete: this type of addition of bacteria in concrete is a simple

method and also economically good and also shows higher biological concrete workability. But the most

important thing is it shows very less increase in compressive strength, and durability. In this approach of

addition of bacteria in concrete, the lifetime of micro-organisms is less. This is the main reason for the less

increase in different characteristics of concrete.

• Immobilized form onto activated carbon or silica gel: in this approach the addition of attached micro-

organisms or their spores to the activated carbon or silica gel is done. In this case the micro-organisms

shows higher lifetime, bacteria shows less effect on durability, strength and permeation, it also shows higher

biological workability. One more disadvantage of this method is there is very less protection for the micro-

organisms in concrete.

• By encapsulation: in this method encapsulated micro-organisms are added directly in concrete. This

approach shows high lifetime of micro-organisms, less effect of durability, less strength and permeability,

and shows high biological concrete workability. The disadvantage of this method is, this method is

expensive and complex.

• By using the vascular network: In this method there is circulation of micro-organisms in the micro-vessels

throughout the concrete. This method is highly effective for the repair of crack and also makes the concrete

more durable. But this method is very costly, complex, shows less biological workability and also there is no

full information about this method in the previous studies.

These are the different approaches for the addition of bacteria in concrete. According to the pH,

temperature and other properties of concrete these conditions are not suitable for the growth of bacteria.

So, the bacterial spores are used instead of the nutrient broth or liquid form of bacteria in concrete. One

more alternative method is the encapsulation of the microorganisms. But this method is economically not

good. And the last method for introduction of bacteria in concrete is the use of vascular network to

distribute the microbial broth in the cement matrix. This method is very complicated and current

technology is not much developed to exhibit this method.

Since 1980’s after a lot of researches it has been found that, Out of all these methods the direct addition

and addition in form of spores mostly used by the researchers because these methods are economical and

easy to proceed with the current available technology.

The final chemical reactions, due to which the calcium carbonate production takes place in all these

bacteria, are shown below: 41,42,43

Ca2+

+ cell cell - Ca2+

Eqn (1)

Cell - Ca2+

+ Co32-

CaCo3 – cell (2)

In the equation (1) the bacterial cell wall is having the negative charge. So, the cell wall is able to draw

positively charged calcium ion (Ca2+

) to deposit it on the cell wall. In equation (2) the Ca2+

ion then react

with the Co32-

ion and finally it leads to the precipitation of CaCo3 at the cell surface and this precipitation

basically serves as a nucleation site.


Concrete: A Review


4. RESULTS

• SEM investigation of Calcite precipitation by different bacteria in concrete: [Figure 2]

• Influence of addition of bacteria in concrete as per the Stereo electron microscopic investigation: J.Y.Wang,

H. soers et.al observed that, to engineer the MICCP inside the concrete specimen by the addition of bacteria,

nutrients needed to be added with the bacteria in the concrete specimen. Taking this factor into account the

best option is to immobilize spores with the relevant nutrient in the concrete specimen 44

. Acoording to the

Kim Van Tittleboom, Nele De Belie et.al observed that the water permeability factors measured was

decreased with the passage of time, and all this is only possible due to the calcite precipitation 30

.

Namayakkara also observed the same thing that there is decrease in water absorption capacity of the

concrete specimen and he also concluded that it is possible due to the further hydration of unhydrated

cement particles and the carbonation of Ca(oH)2. Hearn states that, the reduction in water flow due to the

hydration and MICCP is increases with the passage of time. And he also concluded that the main condition

is to maintain the temperature and humidity up to 200C and 90%. Xingzi yang, En-husang et.al states that the

self healing by the MICCP is expected to overcome the present problem of cracking and enhancement of

concrete properties and also concluded that this process can also work in the natural environment 56

.

Mianluo, Chan-xiang et.al observed that the MICCP is higher on the cracks of concrete containing bacteria 57

. The MICCP presence was observed by the X-ray diffraction analysis. In this study spore forming alkali-

resistant bacteria was used. The XRD image of this research is shown below in [figure 3]

• Compressive strength and water absorption results of different bacteria after 28 days of curing: shown in

[table 1]

• Compressive strength and water absorption comparison of different bacterial species after 28days of curing

of concrete specimen, [figure 4 and figure 5]

5. CONCLUSION

Currently, the designing of bacterial concrete is the most popular research topic for the researchers. Till

now it has been found that the use of bacterial concrete can enhance the durability, mechanical and

permeation aspects of concrete. According to the previous researches till now, it has been found that the

maximum increase in the compressive strength is achieved by the addition of Bacillus cereus that is upto

50% for the cell concentration of 106 cells/ml, and the maximum decrease in water absorption is in case of

S. pasteurii that is 80-85% than the conventional concrete sample after the 28 days curing time period.

According to the previous researches, some of the bacteria are not good for human health but some

other bacteria like bacillus Sphaericus, bacillus pasteurii, bacillus subtilis, and bacillus flexus does not

impose any bad effect on human health and also shows higher ability of calcite precipitation, this property

makes these bacteria as ideal bacteria for the designing of bacterial concrete. As from the study is predicted

that the life of bacterial concrete is more than conventional concrete 1,51

. So, the use of biological concrete

can create new job opportunities for the experts. The cost of the bacterial concrete, according to the

opinions of other researchers can increase up to 30% than the conventional concrete, depending upon the

type and concentration of bacteria. But the maintenance cost can be reduced by the use of bacterial

concrete 78

.

This method is easy and convenient in the whole process of cementation. This technology will provide

long life to the structure due to its good durability properties but more work is required on the following

mentioned issues to improve the feasibility of this technology from practical viewpoints. Issues related to

its economical factors and qualities related to bacteria are still to be finding out.

• Studies are required to focus on different types of metabolic products and nutrients used for growing

calcifying microorganisms.

• More work is required to be done on the retention of nutrients and metabolic products in the building

material.



• Long term durability investigation is required to check the behavior of bacterial concrete after a long period

of time.

6. FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 Shows the biological process for the development of bacterial/bio-concrete

Figure 1 SEM images of bacterial concrete showing calcite precipitation. (A) J.Y. Wang, H.Soens et.al (2013) the

calcite precipitation in concrete specimen containing Bacillus Sphaericus micro-organism without spores 44

. (B)

P.Ghosh, S.Mandal et.al (2006) investigated the bacterial concrete containing 105 cells/ml concentration of bacteria

in concrete in this image rode shaped structure shows the presence of calcite in concrete specimen 37

. (C) (D)

S.Krishnapriya, D.L. Venkatesh babu et.al (2015) used Bacillus magaterium (C) scale bar 50µm and bacillus flexus

(D) scale bar 10µm in concrete for the purpose of crack healing investigation. These pictures show the SEM images

to investigate the calcite precipitation 45

. (E) (F) Varenyam achal, Abhijeet mukhrjii et.al investigated bacterial

concrete and finds the presence of calcite in case of bacterial concrete. First image shows the concrete without

bacteria without any calcite precipitation (E) and second image shows the presence of calcite in concrete as the rode

shaped structure 46

. (F).

Biological processes in selection of method

for preparation of bacterial concrete

Different biological precipitation

Precipitation of polymorphic iron aluminium silicate 35

MICCP 31-35

Different micro-organism families

which can be used to design bacterial

concrete

Bacteria 36

Fungi 5

Type of microorganisms

Mesophilic microorganisms 33

Thermopilic microorganisms 37

Precipitation by the use of Aerobic Bacteria

5

Anaerobic Bacteria 5, 37


http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

Figure 3 Image of XRD analysis of bacterial concrete by Mianluo, chan

shows the higher presence of calcite in


Concrete: A Review

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 49

Image of XRD analysis of bacterial concrete by Mianluo, chan-xiang et.al (2015) the higher peak values

shows the higher presence of calcite in the concrete specimen


[email protected]

xiang et.al (2015) the higher peak values

the concrete specimen 57

.



Table 1 Compressive strength and water absorption results of different bacteria after 28 days of curing:

S.No. Bacteria Authors Compressive

strength results

28 days

Water

absorption

results 28

days

References

1. Bacillus

Sphaericus

W.De.muynck et.al

(2008)

W.De. muynck et.al

(2010)

V.Achal et.al (2011)

Jagdeesha et.al

(2012)

Kumar jagdeesha

et.al (2013)

M. Manjunath et.al

(2014)

30-35% increase

than controlled

concrete sample

45-50% less

than controlled

concrete

sample

34,58,7,59,60

2. Bacillus

subtilis

Reddy et.al (2013)

Y.park et.al ()

R.pei et.al (2013)

I.I. Muhammad et.al

(2014)

12-17%

increase than

controlled

concrete sample

Nearly 50%

less than

controlled

concrete

sample

61,62,63,64

3. Bacillus

magaterium

Dhamia et.al (2012) 24.2% increase

than controlled

concrete sample

46% less than

controlled

concrete

sample

65

4. Bacillus

pasteurii

Ramachandran et.al

(2001) S.S.Bang et.al

(2001)

Ramakrishanan et.al

(2005)

De. Muynck et.al

(2008)

C. Qian et.al (2009)

Y.Park et.al (2010)

2-4% increase

than controlled

concrete sample

50-70% less

than controlled

concrete

sample

1,66,55,34,67,62

5. Bacillus cohnii Sierra –beltron et.al

(2014)

15% increase

than controlled

concrete sample

Nearly 35%

less than

controlled

concrete

sample

68

6. Baciillus

flexus

Kumar Jagdeesha

et.al (2013)

10-18%

increase than

controlled

concrete sample

Nearly 40%

less than

controlled

concrete

sample

69



7. Bacillus cereus W.D. Muynck et.al

(2010)

Maheshwaran et.al

(2014)

8. S. Pasteurii B.Topc et.al (2004)

Y.Park et.al (2010)


Navneet chahal et.al

(2012)


(2012)

R.Pei et.al (2013)

R.Chidara et.al

(2014)

Pacheco et al., [18]

(2013)

9. Shewanella

species

S.Ghosh et.al (2009)

Y.Park et.al (2010)


N.R.Iyer et.l (2011)

Figure 4 Shows the compressive strength comparison of different bacterial species after 28 days of curing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

%a

ge

in

cre

ase

in

co

mp

ress

ive

stre

ng

th


Concrete: A Review


W.D. Muynck et.al

(2010)

Maheshwaran et.al

(2014)

30-40%

increase than

controlled

concrete sample

50% less than

controlled

concrete

sample

B.Topc et.al (2004)

Y.Park et.al (2010)



(2012)


(2012)

R.Pei et.al (2013)

R.Chidara et.al

(2014)

Pacheco et al., [18]

(2013)

18% increase

than controlled

concrete sample

80-85% less

than controlled

concrete

sample

S.Ghosh et.al (2009)

Y.Park et.al (2010)


N.R.Iyer et.l (2011)

25-30 %

increase than

controlled

concrete sample

Nearly 50%

less than

controlled

concrete

sample

Shows the compressive strength comparison of different bacterial species after 28 days of curing

Bacterial Species

Compressive strength


[email protected]

50% less than

58,70

85% less

controlled

71,62,7,72,73,63,74,75

Nearly 50%

76,62,7,77

Shows the compressive strength comparison of different bacterial species after 28 days of curing

Bacillus

SphaericusBacillus Subtilis

Bacillus

MagateriumBacillus Pasteurii

Bacillus Cohnii

Baciillus Flexus



Figure 5 Shows the compressive strength comparison of diffe

REFRENCES

[1] S.K. Ramachandran, V. Ramakrishnan, S.S. Bang,

Mater. J. 98 (1) (2001) 3–

[2] B. Lian, Q. Hu, J. Chen, J. Ji, H.H. Teng, Carbonate biomineralization induced by soil bacterium

Bacillus megaterium, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70 (2006) 5522

[3] N. Kaur Dhamia, M. Sudhakara Reddya, A. Mukherjeeb,

bricks by bacterial calcite, Ecol. Eng. 39 (2012) 31

[4] Gurbuz, Y. Dursun Sari, Z. Nur Yuksekdag, B. Cinar,

biological treatment method, Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10 (38) (2011) 7432

[5] N. Chahal, A. Rajor, R. Siddique, (2011) Calcium

African Journal of Biotechnology, 10: 8359

[6] H. M. Jonkers, A. Thijssen, G. Muyzer, O. Copuroglu, and E. Schlangen,“Application of bacteria as

self-healing agent for the development of sustainable concrete,” Ecol. Eng., 36(2), 230

[7] Achal, V., Mukherjee, A. & Reddy, M.S., (2011a). "Effect of calcifying bacteria on permeation

properties of concrete structures", J Ind Microbial Biotechnology, Vo

[8] P. Lopez-Garcia, J. Kazmierczak, K. Benzerara, S. Kempe, F.

carbonate precipitation in the giant microbialites from the highly alkaline

Extremophiles 9 (2005) 263

[9] Y. Shen, R. Buick, D.E. CanWeld, Isotopic evidence for

Archaean era, Nature 410 (2001) 77

[10] Achal V, Mukherjee A, Reddy MS. Microbial concrete

structures. J Mater Civil En

[11] S. K. Ghosh (Ed.), (2009) Self

Wiley WCH, GmbH.

[12] K. van Breugel (2007) Is There a market for selfhealing

first international conference on self

[13] W. Zhong, W. Yao, (2008) Influence of damage

Building Materials, 22: 1137

[14] A. C. Balazs, (2007) Modeling self

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

%a

ge

de

cre

ase

in

wa

ter

ab

sorp

tio

n



Shows the compressive strength comparison of different bacterial species after 28

S.K. Ramachandran, V. Ramakrishnan, S.S. Bang, Remediation of concrete using microorganisms,

–9.

B. Lian, Q. Hu, J. Chen, J. Ji, H.H. Teng, Carbonate biomineralization induced by soil bacterium

Bacillus megaterium, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70 (2006) 5522–5535.

N. Kaur Dhamia, M. Sudhakara Reddya, A. Mukherjeeb, Improvement in strength prop

calcite, Ecol. Eng. 39 (2012) 31–35.

Gurbuz, Y. Dursun Sari, Z. Nur Yuksekdag, B. Cinar, Cementation in a matrix of loose sandy soil using

treatment method, Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10 (38) (2011) 7432–7440.

, A. Rajor, R. Siddique, (2011) Calcium carbonate precipitation by different bacterial strains,

African Journal of Biotechnology, 10: 8359-8372.

H. M. Jonkers, A. Thijssen, G. Muyzer, O. Copuroglu, and E. Schlangen,“Application of bacteria as

aling agent for the development of sustainable concrete,” Ecol. Eng., 36(2), 230

Achal, V., Mukherjee, A. & Reddy, M.S., (2011a). "Effect of calcifying bacteria on permeation

properties of concrete structures", J Ind Microbial Biotechnology, Vol. 38, pp. 1229

Garcia, J. Kazmierczak, K. Benzerara, S. Kempe, F. Guyot, D. Moreira, Bacterial diversity and

precipitation in the giant microbialites from the highly alkaline

Extremophiles 9 (2005) 263–274.

en, R. Buick, D.E. CanWeld, Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early

410 (2001) 77–81.

Achal V, Mukherjee A, Reddy MS. Microbial concrete – a way to enhance the

structures. J Mater Civil Eng 2011;23:730–4.

S. K. Ghosh (Ed.), (2009) Self-Healing Materials: Fundamentals, Design Strategies, and Applications,

K. van Breugel (2007) Is There a market for selfhealing cement-based materials. In: Proceedings of

al conference on self-healing materials, Noordwijkaan zee, the Netherlands.

W. Zhong, W. Yao, (2008) Influence of damage degree on Self-healing of Concrete. Construction and

Building Materials, 22: 1137-1142.

A. C. Balazs, (2007) Modeling self-healing materials, Mater. Today 10: 18

Bacterial Species

Water absorption


[email protected]

rent bacterial species after 28 days of curing

concrete using microorganisms, ACI

B. Lian, Q. Hu, J. Chen, J. Ji, H.H. Teng, Carbonate biomineralization induced by soil bacterium

Improvement in strength properties of ash

Cementation in a matrix of loose sandy soil using

7440.

carbonate precipitation by different bacterial strains,

H. M. Jonkers, A. Thijssen, G. Muyzer, O. Copuroglu, and E. Schlangen,“Application of bacteria as

aling agent for the development of sustainable concrete,” Ecol. Eng., 36(2), 230–235, 2010.

Achal, V., Mukherjee, A. & Reddy, M.S., (2011a). "Effect of calcifying bacteria on permeation

l. 38, pp. 1229-1234.

Guyot, D. Moreira, Bacterial diversity and

precipitation in the giant microbialites from the highly alkaline Lake Van, Turkey,

microbial sulphate reduction in the early

a way to enhance the durability of building

Fundamentals, Design Strategies, and Applications,

based materials. In: Proceedings of the

materials, Noordwijkaan zee, the Netherlands.

healing of Concrete. Construction and

Mater. Today 10: 18–23.

Bacillus

SphaericusBacillus Subtilis

Bacillus

MagateriumBacillus Pasteurii

Bacillus Cohnii

Baciillus Flexus


Concrete: A Review


[15] V. C. Li, & E. Yang, Self healing in concrete materials. In S. van der Zwaag (ed.) (2007) Self healing

materials – An alternative approach to 20 centuries of materials science. Springer, The Netherlands,

161–194.

[16] D.S. McKay, E.K. Gibson Jr, K.L. Thomas-Keprta, H. Vali, C.S. Romanek, S.J. Clemett, X.D.F.

Chillier, C.R. Maechling, R.N. Zare, Search for past life on Mars: possible relic biogenic activity in

martian meteorite ALH84001, Science 273 (1996) 924–930.

[17] F. Cappitelli, L. Toniolo, A. Sansonetti, D. Gulotta, G. Ranalli, E. Zanardini, C. Sorlini,“Advantages of

using microbial technology over traditional chemical technology in removal of black crusts from stone

surfaces of historical monuments,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 73(17), 5671–5675, 2007.

[18] A. Talaiekhozani, A. Keyvanfar, R. Andalib, M. Samadi, A. Shafaghat, H. Kamya, M. Z. Majid,M.

Z.Rosli,M. A.Fulazzaky, C. T. Lee, M. W. Hussin,“Application of Proteus mirabilis and Proteus

vulgaris mixture to design self-healing concrete,” Desalination and Water Treatment. 52:3623–3630,

2014

[19] G.Bou, J. L.Saleta, J. A.Sáez Nieto, M.Tomás, S. Valdezate, D. Sousa, F. Lueiro, R. Villanueva, M. J.

Pereira, and P. Llinares,“Nosocomial Outbreaks Caused by Leuconostocmesenteroidessubsp.

mesenteroides,” Emerging Infectiouse Diseases. 14(6): 968-971, 2008.

[20] R. Mikkola, M. A. Andersson, P. Grigoriev, V. Teplova, N. E. L. Saris, F. A. Rainey, and M. S.

Salkinoja-Salonen, “Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strains isolated from moisture damaged buildings

contained surfactin and a substance toxic to mammalian cells,” Archives of Microbiology. 181:314- 323,

2004.

[21] J. J. Michael,“Shewanella: a Marine Pathogen as an Emerging Cause of Human Disease,” Clinical

Microbiology Newsletter. 36(4), 25-29, 2014.

[22] Narayanasamy R., Alvarado A., Medrano J. S., Hernandez J. B., and Balagurusamy N.,“Potential of Soil

Bacteria From The Comarco Lagunera, North-East Mexico for Bioconcrete,” in Proceedings of the 4th

International Conference on Self-Healing Materials, Ghent, Belgium, pp. 601–605, 2013.

[23] K. P.Kota,R. K. Kota, J. B. Dulla, and A. P. Karlapudi,“Bioconcrete Enhancement from Biofilm

Producing Marine Bacterium,” Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Rev.

[24] N.Ranganathan, A.Macherone, B.Patel, R. Mehta, J. Marczely, J. Dickstein,Urea Hydrolysis And

Ammonia Uptake by Bacillus Pasteurii, Kibow Biotech, Inc. Philadelphia, USA., 10th International

Congress on Nutrition and Metabolism in Renal Disease - poster #P- 19, 2012.

[25] D.Worlitzsch, R.Tarran, M.Ulrich, U. Schwab, A. Cekici,K. C. Meyer, P. Birrer, G. Bellon, J. Berger, T.

Weiss, K. Botzenhart, J. R. Yankaskas,S.Randell, R. C.Boucher and G. Döring, “Effects of reduced

mucus oxygen concentration in airway Pseudomonas infections of cystic fibrosis patients,” J Clin

Invest., 109(3):317–325, 2002. 23.

[26] C.Jimenez-Lopez, F.Jroundi, M.Rodríguez-Gallego, J. M. Arias, and M. T.Gonzalez-

Muñoz,“Biomineralization induced by Myxobacteria, Communicating Current Research and

Educational Topics and Trends in Applied Microbiology.” A. Mendez-Vilas(Ed),pp. 143-154, 2007.

[27] R. Facklam , J. A. Elliott , “Identification, classification, and clinical relevance of catalase-negative,

gram-positive cocci, excluding Streptococci and Enterococci,” ClinMicrobiol Rev., 8, 479–95, 1995.

[28] A. Buu-Hoi, C. Branger, F. J. Acar,“Vancomycinresistant Streptococci or Leuconostoc sp.,” Antimicrob

Agents Chemother., 28:458–60, 1985.

[29] H. M. Jonkers, A. Thijssen, G. Muyzer, O. Copuroglu, E. Schlangen, (2008) Application of Bacteria As

Self-Healing Agent for the Development of Sustainable Concrete. In: Proceedings of the 1st international

conference on biogeocivil engineering, Delft, The Netherlands; June 23–25.

[30] K. V. Tittelboom, N. D. Belie, W. D. Muynck, W. Verstraete, (2010) Use of bacteria to repair cracks in

concrete. Cem Concr Res, 40: 157–66R.



[31] Siddique, N. K. Chahal, (2011) Effect of ureolytic bacteria on concrete properties, Construction and

Building Materials, 25: 3791–3801.

[32] H. M. Jonkers, (2007) Self Healing Concrete: A Biological Approach, Self Healing Materials. An

Alternative Approach to 20 Centuries of Materials Science, 195–204.

[33] S. M. Al-Thawadi, (2011) Ureolytic Bacteria and Calcium Carbonate Formation as a Mechanism of

Strength Enhancement of Sand, Journal of Advanced Science and Engineering Research, 1: 98-114.

[34] D. W. Muynck, K. Cox, N. Belie, W. Verstraete, (2008) Bacterial carbonate precipitation as an

alternative surface treatment for concrete, Construction and Building Materials,22: 875-885.

[35] U. K. Gollapudi, C. L. Knutson, S. S. Bang, M. R. Islam, (1995) A new method for controlling leaching

through permeable channels, Chemosphere, 30: 695– 705.

[36] S. Van der Zwaag, editor. (2007) Self-healing materials: an alternative approach to 20 Centuries of

Material Science.

[37] P. Ghosh, S. Mandal, (2006) Development of bioconcrete material using an enrichment culture of novel

thermophilic anaerobic bacteria, Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 44:336-339

[38] M. Wu, B. Johannesson, M. Geiker, (2012) A review: Self-healing in cementitious materials and

engineered cementitious composite as a self-healing material, Construction and Building Materials 28:

571–583.

[39] K. S. Toohey, N. R. Sottos, A. L. Lewis, J. S. Moore, S. R. White, (2007) Self-healing materials with

micro vascular networks, Published online, doi:10.1038/nmat1934.

[40] J. Wang, K. V. Tittelboom, N. D. Belie, W. Verstraete, (2012) Use of silica gel or polyurethane

immobilized bacteria for self-healing concrete, Construction and Building Materials, 26: 532–540.

[41] Min Wua, Björn Johannesson, Mette Geiker,” A review: Self-healing in cementitious materials and

engineered cementitious composite as a self-healing material”, Construction and Building Materials 28

(2012) 571–583

[42] Hamilton, W.A.(2003), "Microbially influenced corrosion as a model system for the study of metal

microbe interactions: a unifying electron transfer hypothesis", Biofoulin, Vol.19, 65-76.

[43] Stocks-Fischer, S., Galinat, J.K., and Bang, S.S.”Microbiological Precipitation of CaCO3,” Soil Biology

and Biochemistry, 31, 1999, 1563-1571.

[44] J.Y. Wang a,b, H. Soens c, W. Verstraete b, N. De Belie,” Self-healing concrete by use of

microencapsulated bacterial spores Cement and Concrete Research” 56 (2014) 139–152

[45] Varenyam Achal, Abhijeet Mukerjee, M. Sudhakara Reddy,” Biogenic treatment improves the durability

and remediates the cracks of concrete structures structures”Construction and Building Materials 48

(2013) 1–5

[46] S. Krishnapriyaa,∗, D.L. Venkatesh Babub, Prince Arulraj G ,” Isolation and identification of bacteria to

improve the strength of concrete” Microbiological Research 174 (2015) 48–55ScienceDirect.

[47] Autogenous healing of engineered cementitious composites at early age Yingzi Yang a, En-Hua Yang b,

Victor C. Li b,⁎ Cement and Concrete Research 41 (2011) 176–183

[48] XRD Factors affecting crack repairing capacity of bacteria-based self-healing concrete Mian Luo, Chun-

xiang Qian ⇑, Rui-yang LiConstruction and Building Materials 87 (2015) 1–7

[49] H. M. Jonkers, A. Thijssen, G. Muyzer, O. Copuroglu, E. Schlangen, (2008) Application of Bacteria As

Self-Healing Agent for the Development of Sustainable Concrete. In: Proceedings of the 1st international

conference on biogeocivil engineering, Delft, The Netherlands; June 23–25..

[50] S.Soundharya and Dr.K.Nirmalkumar, Strength Improvement Studies on Self-Healing Characteristics of

Bacterial Concrete (Review Paper) International Journal of Engineering Science Invention Research &

Development; Vol. I Issue IV October 2014 www.ijesird.com e-ISSN: 2349-6185


Concrete: A Review


[51] Amirreza Talaiekhozan, Ali Keyvanfar et al., “A Review of Self-healing Concrete Research

Development”, Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques 2014, Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages: 1-

11Enviro. Treat. Tech. ISSN: 2309-1185

[52] Hammes F, Verstraete W. “Key roles of pH and calcium metabolism in microbial carbonate

precipitation” Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2002;1(1):3–7.

[53] Day JL, Ramakrishnan V, Bang SS. Microbiologically induced sealant for concrete crack remediation.

In: Proceedings of 16th engineering mechanics conference, Seattle, Washington; 2003.

[54] Bang SS, Galinat JK, Ramakrishnan V. Calcite precipitation induced by polyurethane-immobilized

bacillus pasteurii. Enzyme Microb Technol 2001;28(4):404–9.

[55] Ramakrishnan V, Panchalan RK, Bang SS. Improvement of concrete durability by bacterial mineral

precipitation. In: Proceedings of 11th international conference on fracture, Turin, Italy; 2005.

[56] Bachmeier KL, Williams AE, Warmington JR, Bang SS. Urease activity in microbiologically-induced

calcite precipitation. J Biotechnol 2002;93(2):171–81.

[57] M. Wu, B. Johannesson, M. Geiker, (2012) A review: Self-healing in cementitious materials and

engineered cementitious composite as a self-healing material, Construction and Building Materials 28:

571–583.

[58] W. De Muynck, N. De Belie, W. Verstraete, “Microbial carbonate precipitation in construction

materials: A review,”Ecol. Eng., 36(2),118–136, 2010.

[59] Jagadeesha Kumar B G, R Prabhakara, Pushpa H., “Effect of Bacterial Calcite Precipitation on

Compressive Strength of Mortar Cubes,” International Journal of Engineering and Advanced

Technology (IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-2, Issue-3, February 2013.

[60] M. Manjunath, Santosh A. Kadapure, Ashwinkumar A. Kalaje,” An Experimental Investigation on the

Strength and Durability Aspects of Bacterial Concrete with Fly Ash” Civil and Environmental Research

ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online) Vol.6, No.6, 2014

[61] N. K. Dhami, A. Mukherjee, M. S. Reddy,“Biofilm and Microbial Applications in Biomineralized

Concrete, in Advanced Topics in Biomineralization,”ed Jong Seto, editor (New York, NY: In Tech;), p.p

137–164, 2012.

[62] Y. Park, W. Chun, W. Kim, and S. Ghim,“Calcite- Forming Bacteria for Compressive Strength

Improvement in Mortar,” J. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 20, 782–788, 2010.

[63] Ruoting Pei, Jun Liu, Shuangshuang Wang, Mijia Yang, “Use of bacterial cell walls to improve the

mechanical performance of concrete,” Cement & Concrete Composites 39 (2013) 122–130.

[64] I. I. Muhammad, H. Afifudin, S. H. Mohd, “Bacillus Subtilis and Thermus Thermophilus Derived

Bioconcrete in Enhancing Concrete Compressive,” Int. Sustain. Civ. Eng. J., 1(1), 48–56, 2012.

[65] Navdeep Kaur Dhami, M. Sudhakara Reddy, Abhijit Mukherjee, “Improvement in strength properties of

ash bricks by bacterial calcite,” Ecological Engineering 39 (2012) 31– 35.

[66] S. S. Bang, J. K. Galinat, V. Ramakrishnan,“Calcite precipitation induced by polyurethane-immobilized

Bacillus pasteurii,” Enzyme Microb. Technol., 28: 404– 409, 2001.

[67] C. Qian, J. Wang, R. Wang, L. Cheng,“Corrosion protection of cement-based building materials by

surface deposition of CaCO3 by Bacillus pasteurii,” Mater.Sci.Eng. C., 29(4), 1273–80, 2009.

[68] M. Guadalupe Sierra-Beltran, H.M. Jonkers, E. Schlangen, “Characterization of sustainable bio-based

mortar for concrete repair,” Construction and Building Materials 67 (2014) 344 – 352.

[69] Jagadeesha Kumar B G, R Prabhakara, Pushpa H., “Effect of Bacterial Calcite Precipitation on

Compressive Strength of Mortar Cubes,” International Journal of Engineering and Advanced

Technology (IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-2, Issue-3, February 2013.



[70] S. Maheswaran, “Strength improvement studies using new type wild strain Bacillus cereus on cement

mortar,” Current Science, vol. 106, no. 50 1, 10 January 2014.

[71] B. Topc,“Properties of concretes produced with waste concrete aggregate,” Cem. Concr. Compos., 34,

1307– 1312, 2004.

[72] Navneet Chahal, Rafat Siddique, Anita Rajor,”Influence of bacteria on the compressive strength, water

absorption and rapid chloride permeability of fly ash concrete” ELSEVIER, a Construction and Building

Materials 28 (2012) 351–356

[73] Navneet Chahal, Rafat Siddique, Anita Rajor,”Influence of bacteria on the compressive strength, water

absorption and rapid chloride permeability of fly ash concrete” ELSEVIER, Construction and Building

Materials 37 (2012) 645–651

[74] R. Chidara, R. Nagulagama, S. Yadav, “Achievement of Early Compressive Strength in Concrete Using

Sporosarcina pasteurii Bacteria as an Admixture,” Adv.Civil. Eng., 2014, 1-7, 2014.

[75] F. Pacheco, Labrincha b,” Biotech cementitious materials: Some aspects of an innovative approach for

concrete with enhanced durability” Construction and Building Materials ELSEVIER 40 (2013) 1136–

1141

[76] S.Ghosh, M.Biswas, B. D.Chattopadhyay, andS. Mandal, “Microbial activity on the microstructure of

bacteria modified mortar,” Cem. Concr. Compos., 31 (2), 93–98, 2009.

[77] N. R. Iyer,“An overview of techniques based on biomimetics for sustainable development of concrete,”

Curr. Sci., 101, 741-741, 2011.S. S. Bang, J. K. Galinat, V. Ramakrishnan,“Calcite precipitation induced

by polyurethane-immobilized Bacillus pasteurii,” Enzyme Microb. Technol., 28: 404– 409, 2001

[78] J.Wang, K. V.Tittelboom, N.De Belie, W.Verstraete,“Use of silica gel or polyurethane immobilized

bacteria for selfhealing concrete,” Construction and Building Materials. 26, 532–540, 2012.

[79] www.mbio.ncsu.edu/MB103/Bacillus Isolation.pdf, http://www.himedialabs.com

[80] Rushabh A. Shah and Jayeshkumar R. Pitroda, “Assessment of Sorptivity and Water

Absorption of Mortar with Partial Replacement of Cement by Fly Ash (Class-F)”. International

Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), 4(5), 2013, pp.15-21.

bacterial concrete and effect of different bacteria … · 2016-09-12 · effect of different...

Documents