bacterial concrete and effect of different bacteria … · 2016-09-12 · effect of different...
TRANSCRIPT
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,
Chandigarh University, Gharaun, Punjab, India.
Khushpreet Singh
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Chandigarh University, Gharaun, Punjab, India.
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
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 44 [email protected]
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
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 45 [email protected]
• 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
Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 46 [email protected]
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.
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
Concrete: A Review
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 47 [email protected]
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.
Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 48 [email protected]
• 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
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
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
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
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
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
xiang et.al (2015) the higher peak values
the concrete specimen 57
.
Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 50 [email protected]
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
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
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)
V.Achal et.al (2011)
Navneet chahal et.al
(2012)
Navneet chahal et.al
(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)
V.Achal et.al (2011)
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
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
Concrete: A Review
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 51
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)
V.Achal et.al (2011)
Navneet chahal et.al
(2012)
Navneet chahal et.al
(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)
V.Achal et.al (2011)
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
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
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
Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
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
Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 52
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
Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh
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
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
Concrete: A Review
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 53 [email protected]
[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.
Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 54 [email protected]
[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
Bacterial Concrete and Effect of Different Bacteria on the Strength and Water Absorption Characteristics of
Concrete: A Review
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 55 [email protected]
[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.
Abhishek Thakur, Akshay Phogat and Khushpreet Singh
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 56 [email protected]
[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.