materials
arq (2016), 20.1, 51–64. © Cambridge University Press 2016
The emergence of bioreceptive design is a new material
phenomenon that is changing the environmental and
biologically-integrated performativity of architecture.
Bioreceptive design: a novel approach
to biodigital materiality
Marcos Cruz and Richard Beckett
Today, at a time of unprecedented urban
development, there is urgency to improve the
environmental quality of cities. The present ‘greening’
of urban spaces is an ongoing response to a dirty
industrial past and present, with a drive to transform
cities to have better air and water, more tree-lined
streets and open parks. But the amount of urban
public green space varies massively between cities
around the world and increasing this, or designing for
it, is a particular challenge where there is pressure for
space, resources, and development. The architectural
fabric itself – building envelopes, roofs, and façades –
has been targeted as an opportunity for additional
1
greening. A number of strategies integrating
vegetation and other photosynthetic systems onto
buildings have been developed, which provide passive
climatic control as well as aiding storm-water
management and creating new ecological habitat, in
addition to lowering atmospheric CO2. However,
‘green walls’, where plants and foliage are grown on
the sides of buildings as a kind of secondary skin, have
been less successful and have proven expensive to
2
implement. Maintenance costs are significant due to
the need to overcome gravity, primarily through
mechanical irrigation.
doi:10.1017/S1359135516000130
Architectural bark
Where the metaphor for green walls might be seen as
that of the ‘garden’ bolted onto a vertical surface, a
more biologically intelligent idea might be that of
tree bark [1], whereby the building material or façade
itself acts as a host to propagate living micro-
organisms, cryptogams, and other more complex
3
plants. It is possible to observe here a paradigm shift
from the notion of skin, one of the most used
metaphors in contemporary architecture, to that of
an architectural bark, which is more receptive,
mediating between internal and external conditions.
Beyond being a defence mechanism and an internal-
external regulation system, the bark allows for
growth to happen on the immediacy of the
architectural skin. Architectural barks offer a
different interface for material-tectonic-
environmental negotiations to take place between
nature and architecture via specific biomaterial
performativity.
In temperate climates, like that of the UK, many
types of cryptogams – including algae, fungi, lichens,
and mosses – have benefits over larger vegetative
plants for use on buildings [2]. They propagate with
spores and do not have root systems that can damage
1 Tree Bark. 180 degree
photo taken in
November, February,
and April showing
variations of
cryptogamic cover
surfaces on an ash
tree at Wakehurst
Place, Sussex, UK.
materials   arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016 51
52 arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016    materials
2 Retaining wall along
railway line in
Finsbury Park with
moss propagation.
buildings. Such species behave like epiphytes, yet
they are also lower plants that grow on supporting
substrates without necessarily affecting or damaging
the host. They are hardier and need much less
maintenance to survive and establish. More
importantly, they can absorb large amounts of
pollutants, such as oxides of nitrogen and carbon,
which are particularly predominant in our cities. A
team of researchers at the Max Planck Institute and
University of Kaiserslautern in Germany has assessed
the importance of cryptogams in fixing carbon
dioxide and nitrogen from the atmosphere and how
this is influencing global and regional
biogeochemical cycling of these vital chemicals. They
estimated that cryptogamic covers take globally up
around 3.9 Pg carbon per year, which corresponds to
approximately 7% of net primary production by
terrestrial vegetation. Nitrogen uptake by
cryptogamics, on the other hand, is of approximately
49 Tg per year, suggesting that cryptogamic covers
account for nearly half of the biological nitrogen
4
fixation on land.
The architectural bark is not to be understood
solely as a biomimetic extrapolation from nature to
architecture. In design terms, it is a concept that
derives from a specific phenomenon in nature but
5
goes beyond its formal or functional mimesis. In the
twentieth century, architects such as Antoni Gaudí,
Bruce Goff, and Eero Saarinen, and engineers such as
Felix Candela, Pier Luigi Nervi, or Frei Otto have
successfully applied structural and formal principles
of nature to design. Today, however, bioinspiration
or replication tends to focus more on
environmentally-led performativity. Current
biomimicry, as promoted by science writer Janine
Benyus, on the other hand, proclaims the
6
understanding of ‘nature as mentor’, which risks
not only an overtly prescriptive vision for design but
also a narrow field of applications, mainly in
product-based design. The architectural bark, on the
other hand, allows for more complex applications,
being nature-inspired and simultaneously nature-
integrated, that is, biocolonised and with nature
embedded in the depth of the architectural fabric.
Cruz and Beckett  Bioreceptive design
Biocolonisation
Surface growth of plants upon a material is known as
biological colonisation. Buildings – or more
specifically building materials – are all prone to
vegetative covers at some point in time, especially
micro-organisms and cryptogams that are abundant
in air, water, and soil systems. The creation of diverse
microbial communities that are in competition and/
or synergy with each other on the surfaces of
materials is only recently in the process of being
7
understood. Micro-organisms are pioneer
organisms, and studies investigating biofilms and
the types of species present on colonised building
materials show the initial colonisers tend to be
phototrophs – algae and cyanobacteria which only
8
require inorganic materials for growth. When
established, heterotrophic organisms such as lichens
and mosses then follow as a natural succession. The
way in which these micro-organisms interact with
the material substrate is defined by the mechanisms
of their metabolism. Of the high diversity of species
and dusts present in urban air, it is the specific
environment at the material surface that then acts as
a selection factor in determining the predominance
of particular strains. This level of adaptability is
demonstrated where, through their metabolism,
species can cause the chemical conditions to change
towards ones that are more favourable to the species.
Observation of such growth on buildings show
clearly that colonisation is more likely to happen on
some materials than others and that this is
dependent on the physical and chemical
characteristics of the material substrate. Research
has shown that particular physical characteristics of
roughness and porosity create an ideal attachment
system for spores and air dusts to settle. Chemical
properties of mineral composition and surface pH
9
are also key properties that affect biocolonisation.
Biocolonisation is often seen on older buildings
such as churches and castles and also commonly on
roof tiles and statues. This ‘growth’ can have both
positive and negative connotations depending on
the viewer. Colonisation in a negative sense can be
associated with biodeterioration and biofouling,
whereby the originally ‘clean’ surface of the
materials become blemished and stained, making
buildings look dirty and unkempt. In addition, plant
roots can work their way into gaps and cracks in
buildings inducing chemical and physical

3
4
3 Romantic gardens 4 Gardens of
with well of Palacio Harewood House,
da Regaleira, Sintra, UK.
Portugal.
weathering. As a result, much effort is put into
façade design to prevent microbial growth and
maintain the integrity of materials while
safeguarding a much desired ‘aesthetic of
10
cleanliness’. Formal strategies to remove growth,
such as the use of biocides, external paints and crack
fillers all aim to maintain a sense of clean and
‘untouched’ appearance. The problem with the
random look and irregular nature of growth
patterns, especially in twentieth-century Modernist
11
buildings, is that they feel like ‘matter out of place’.
Buildings of that time were largely depleted of
ornamentation and therefore of important
environmental defence mechanisms, making them
more vulnerable to growth. This in turn made
growth patches look even more like imperfections or
pathologies affecting the pseudo ‘health’ of the
architectural skin. Blotches, speckles and spots of
cryptogamic growth evoke visual associations with
epidermal disorders, similar to acne or skin sores
and rashes; chromatic variability of growth material
recalls pigment deviations in skin; and the more
three-dimensional the excretions or protuberances
of growth, the more the disturbing its visual
12
impact. Current design trends, however, are
reconsidering such preconceptions in favour of
potentially more natural and thus ‘impure’
aesthetics: more three-dimensional and complex
rather than flat; figurative and recognisable rather
than abstract; and visceral rather than epidermal
conditions. Walls are gaining a sense of ‘inhabitable
13
flesh’. Positive associations of biocolonisation
create an additional layer to the material which
relates to a feeling of protection and a sense that
greenery has an inherent vitality. Vivid
materials   arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016 53
biocolonisation has, most of all, connotations of
environmental health and wellbeing. Noteworthy is
also the nostalgic association of biocolonised
surfaces following a bucolic, idyllic vision of nature
often experienced at historic palaces, gardens, and
ruins. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
romanticism, for example, exploited images of
nature gradually taking over manmade
constructions with rocks, walls, and staircases
covered with mosses and lichens. This is best seen in
the romantic lush of the secret gardens of Sintra in
Portugal [3], or the ruins of Harewood Castle in
Yorkshire [4], which formed the focal point of its
pleasure gardens in romantic paintings. This
highlights the significance for contemporary design
of culture and aesthetics in the judgement of
bioreceptive design, and ultimately the key question
for designers about where and how buildings might
be colonised.
Bioreceptivity
The likelihood of a material to become biocolonised
might be determined by its bioreceptivity; an
increasing fundamental phenomenon in
sustainable design and, not least, in all the
biodigital materiality discussed in this article. The
bioengineer Olivier Guillitte defined this term as
‘the aptitude of a material (or any other inanimate
object) to be colonised by one or several groups of
living organisms without necessarily undergoing
14
any biodeterioration’. The same material may be
colonised differently in different geographical
locations, or even at different facing orientations.
As the degree of colonisation on surfaces is
dependent on both the inherent properties of the
material itself and environmental conditions, this
area of work asks design to explore the relationship
between the material substratum and areas of the
surface that enhance or inhibit growth, as well as
specific environment and organisms that thrive in
it. Such phenomena, involving designing with
living organisms, will never be a static condition.
Seasonal changes in environmental conditions,
physical and chemical variations of materials that
occur over years, and changes that occur as species
and other organisms compete and interact with the
material, suggest that bioreceptivity is an
inherently time-based, yet self-regulating condition
in sustainable design.
Guillitte defined three types of bioreceptivity based
on this evolving condition. ‘Primary or intrinsic
bioreceptivity’ describes the initial potential of a
material to be colonised, as affected many of the
projects described later in this article. ‘Secondary
bioreceptivity’ refers to the potential of biological
colonisation of a material that has changed over
time due to external factors. Finally, ‘tertiary
bioreceptivity’ describes the colonisation potential
of a material that has been changed due to human
activity such as painting or polishing. Guillitte also
defines an ‘extrinsic bioreceptivity’, which is when a
type of colonisation occurs that is not related to the
initial conditions of the material but is due to
deposits such as soil, dust, and other organic
  Bioreceptive design   Cruz and Beckett
54 arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016    materials
particles accumulating on the material surface upon
which species can grow. This type of receptivity is
especially important for architecture as it affects the
slow and long-term evolution of roofs, walls, and
façades of buildings – especially those with a high-
15
level textural and topological variability.
For a material to be bioreceptive, it has to be
biocompatible with particular types of species that
will colonise it in a specific environment.
Biocompatibility is well explored in the biomedical
field where materials and devices for implant must
be physically and chemically suitable to achieve a
mutually acceptable coexistence within the host.
Understanding these characteristics and the ability
to design for them is key:
5 Architecture, UCL
1) Structural function: Ordinary Portland Cement;
2) Anchoring and sealing function: interface;
3) Non-structural function: Bioreceptive mortar with
water retention capabilities;
4) Absorption, water retention and water addressing:
Coating.
Water
Cruz and Beckett  Bioreceptive design
It is critical to recognise that synthetic materials have
specific bulk and surface characteristics that are
property dependent. These characteristics must be
known prior to any […] application, but also must be
known in terms of changes that may take place over
time in vivo. That is, changes with time must be
anticipated at the outset and accounted for through
16
selection of biomaterials and/or design of the device.
But the physical dynamics of bioreceptivity within an
architectural context are less well understood. There
are currently a range of building components and
façade elements that are being designed to be
bioreceptive using principles of careful physical and
chemical control of the surface and bulk properties
of the material. The material design in all of these
projects creates a kind of scaffolding that aims to
provide surface roughness, pH levels, and optimised
porosity values along with water absorption,
distribution and retention properties to provide
optimal conditions favourable for micro-organisms,
algae, lichens, and bryophytes to establish and grow.
Cementitious materials are of great significance to
architecture and design; especially concrete, which
17
not only is the most used material today but
arguably also ‘the world’s most emotionally loaded
18
material’. Typically, Portland cement is too alkaline
for living systems to survive. Gradual degeneration
affects its consistency decades after having being
exposed to the environment, making it less alkaline
and creating environmental conditions for some
6 Layering of façade 7 Façade panel cast with
panels. SEED-funded expressive tool path
project at the Bartlett for slowing down
School of water and create grip
Architecture, UCL, surfaces for
using Sandra Manso cryptogamic growth.
Blanco’s PhD research EPSRC funded project
on bioreceptive ‘Computational
concrete. Seeding of
Bioreceptive
Materials’, Bartlett
School of
(2016).

micro-organisms to colonise its surface. This growth
alters the appearance of concrete considerably –
which is perceived by many as looking ugly and
inhuman. A significant step was made by the Spanish
biologist Sandra Manso Blanco who tested and
developed a new type of bioreceptive concrete that
provides a biological substratum for growth of
photosynthetic systems to proliferate without
19
affecting structural concrete. This pivotal research
has led to several research projects that have been
developed in the BiotA Lab at the Bartlett School of
Architecture, UCL, where the impact of
biocolonisation on façades, from the small-scale
design of the surface geometry to its application on
20
building panels, is being applied. But the
application of Manso’s preliminary material tests in
architectural façade components raises fundamental
research questions about how much biomass such
bioreceptive components can really produce in a
large scale? It also questions the material
performance of water absorption, retention, and
distribution within the bioreceptive substratum of
the panels, as well as thermal benefits once the
components are fully-grown. Ultimately, it brings
about aesthetic questions of how new bioreceptive
designs will be accepted by a wider audience [6].
The most recent research in the BiotA Lab explores
the use of bioreceptive magnesium phosphate
concrete (MPC) for application as a façade panel
prototype for buildings, derived directly from
Manso’s research. The research examines the
potential for growth at the interfacial layer between
the architectural surface and its immediate ecology
[7]. The panels aim to provide a primary protective
layer for a building, but also to act as a host system to
support the growth of cryptogams on the outer
substratum layer of the architecture itself. This
growth of phototropic organisms serves to improve
7 structures, scaffolds, prosthetics, incubators, etc. are
materials   arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016 55
the thermal properties of the panel as well as
providing solar absorption and to absorb CO2 and
other pollutants from the environment. Digital
design methods and fabrication techniques are
being employed to manufacture the panels,
exploring how three-dimensional geometries can
augment the biological growth and improve panel
performance. Observations of tree barks led to the
design of geometry types that, along with controlled
material application, can serve to define more clearly
where areas of growth occur on the panel or not.
Features such as fissures, depressions, and striations
are designed onto the facing surface of the panels,
serving to define areas for growth, channelling
rainwater towards them. This allows the creation of
areas of shade and protection in some parts whilst
exposing other areas. It also pursues an aesthetic
aim, towards the positive connotations described
earlier. Some of the ordered, yet intricate patterning
of the panels relies on motifs that resembled Art
Nouveau and Art Deco vocabularies, aiming to
control what otherwise could be negatively perceived
as a random and ugly looking growth pattern. The
panels are designed to have northwest orientation
and to be fabricated using a layered concrete casting
method into CNC-milled moulds. The panels are then
seeded with a mix of algae cells and moss spores
using a novel robotic seeding method allowing for
precise deposition and amounts of microbial matter
in to the growth areas. The seeded panels are
prepared to be located outside to undergo
environmental monitoring and measurements over
a twelve-month period.
Interdisciplinary methods
The accomplishment of this, as with any bioreceptive
design project, relies on the implementation of
interdisciplinary work methods, requiring
knowledge in high-end computation (integrating
various software packages and environmental
analysis tools), manufacturing (3D printing and
robotics), design engineering, along with lab
protocols and biology. Such cross-disciplinarity and
complementarity of workflows between different
expertise and strands of research has, for example,
been experienced in the Alga(e)zebo folly for the
21
London Olympics in 2012 [8]. While the design of
the structure was developed in London, structural
calculations were done by engineers in Vienna,
material and fabrication experiments with
perforated double-steel curvature carried out in
Germany, and algae bioreactors prepared and tested
back in London. Bioreceptive design then moves
beyond a ‘top-down’ design approach where
architectural forms are exclusively modelled. The
multidisciplinarily approach, as well as recursive
methods of ‘scanning – scripting – fabricating –
growing’ implies simultaneously a ‘bottom-up’ and
‘top-down’ approach. In many cases, the growth of
vegetation is monitored and scanned so as to
influence the scripts that result from each growth
moment and the environmental vicissitudes that
determine the growth. Once fabricated, the designs,
  Bioreceptive design   Cruz and Beckett
56 arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016    materials
8 purposes [9]. Exploring self-generative processes
8 Alga(e)zebo by bioreactors inserted
marcosandmarjan at in double-steel
Euston Square corteen structure by
Gardens, London, UK. marcosandmarjan
Algae photo- and Richard Beckett.
then manufactured to grow species with the
intention to either enhance or diminish its growth.
This is again scanned while determining a different
scripted outcome.
At the same time, bioreceptive design is highly
dependent on the implementation of sophisticated
environmental simulations and analysis that allow
for evaluating and determining the design outputs
according to climatic factors, including humidity and
temperature. But while common sustainable design
relies primarily on the analysis of environmental
conditions on a building scale, new bioreceptive
design suggests that material and environmental
conditions need to be taken into account on various
scales simultaneously. Building orientations and
exposure to climate (macro) are commonly analysed
with software such as Ecotect, Diva plug-in for Rhino,
Ladybug, and Honeybee plug-ins for Grasshopper, or
ADMS. These techniques can work in tandem with a
more specific evaluation of textural and geometric
morphologies of façade components (meso) that
measure the specific ‘microclimates’ on the surface.
Numerical analysis of moisture retention and
movement can be achieved with multiphysics
software. Physical testing and evaluation of fabricated
prototype designs can then be fed back into such
systems, preserving the ‘bottom up’ approach. Such
analytic tools should be complemented with
additional monitoring and testing of material
performativity, including the porosity and pH level of
surface and bulk properties via porosimetry and x-ray
tomography (micro). In cementitious materials, for
example, tests need to take in account the type of
hydraulic binder, aggregate size, water/cement ratio
22
and amount of cement paste. The combination of all
these material and environmental factors analysed on
various scales allow for a more complete
understanding of the design.
Laboratory experimentation is a key aspect of
preparatory research work for such projects, both
Cruz and Beckett  Bioreceptive design
indoor and outdoor. While indoor (mainly in vitro)
growth procedures have the advantage of sterile
surroundings that allow for growth in isolation of
species – essential for scientific experimentation –
outdoor labs are specifically chosen natural
conditions in which nature works in its entirety and
with all its levels of complexity. A well-chosen spot
allows for careful observation procedures and
predictions of how nature responds to certain
changes of material and climate.
Modelling growth
Bioreceptive design differs from the common
23
biodesign that is widely explored in the arts and is
by-and-large uncomputational. Bioreceptive design is
specifically architectural in its application, material-
driven, and dependent on the use of sophisticated
computation for both simulation and fabrication
using computational design tools can grow and
evolve three-dimensional complex geometries as an
alternative approach to manually drawing and
modelling form. In the 1960s, the architect William
Katavolos, in his manifesto essay titled ‘Organics’,
described a new type of ‘chemical architecture’ in
which furniture, buildings, and even cities could be
grown from genetically-engineered and pre-
24
programmed polymers and seeds. And the architect
John M. Johansen defined a new type of architecture
that he defined as ‘molecular nanoarchitecture
structures’ and spoke of the possibility of growing an
entire house with all its inner complexities from
25
genetically pre-programmed seeds. Today, even
when far from achieving such visions, new
computational systems can begin to shape form
from self-emergent logics, but also in response to
environmental factors such as sunlight, or nutrient
availability or physical factors such as gravity or wind
loading via simulations. This introduces a parameter-
driven, evolutionary, and responsive dimension to
the design process.
In order to model growth, specific algorithms are
defined based on mathematical models of growth
systems that exist in nature. These algorithms exploit
9

9 Computational entity and the surface
simulation with structure. This created
Houdini software. The an additional layer of
use of a fibrous morphing surfaces that
structure provided the further enriched the
opportunity for a geometry.
porous
multidimensional 10 Computational
mesh to be occupied simulation with
by meta-ball Houdini software. The
aggregates. These design derived from a
fibrous assemblages self-generative
allowed for aggregates branching system that
to be attached defined the overall
following an extra complexity and
torsion, or noise, in intricacy of the pervious
between the solid material structure.
a procedural approach, building geometries
recursively from base elementary rules where
repetition of these basic functions repeat and layer
together resulting in more and more complex forms
throughout the generations of the algorithm.
Seminal influences have been Alan Turing’s mid-
twentieth-century computational experiments in
what he called ‘Diffusion Reaction Theory of
26
Morphogenesis in Plants’, as well as Aristid
Lindenmayer’s geometric branching models that
created the precursors to what today are some of the
most used procedural growth algorithms, including
L-System; Diffusion Limited Aggregation; Venation
System and; Grey-Scott Reaction Diffusion. In practice,
such systems have a large amount of parameters that
can be adjusted, and the simulation run again.
In this context, digital simulations imply two
distinct, yet complementary principles. On the one
hand, simulations can generate form. Scripts derived
from the specific growth patterns can be use to create
self-emergent processes that lead to morphological
iterations. This is, to a large extent, an inside-out
process that is vital to define the outer contour of
each project [10]. On the other hand, simulations are
used to show real growth that will emerge on the
surfaces of designs. These simulations are
illustrations or predictions that are dictated by the
behavioural understanding of species,
environmental factors, and specific location. In
addition to the use of self-generative design tools are
digital fabrication processes that enable the high-
resolution manufacturing of designs in various
scales and add another level of complexity to the
design. The careful choice of tool paths in CNC
milling, for example, as it happened in the Algae-
materials   arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016 57
10
Cellunoi wall construction exhibited at Archilab in
2013, not only changed the surface roughness, but
also increased substantially the three-dimensional
27
depth of the overall geometry. 3D printing and
robotic printing in particular is important for the
making of bioreceptive scaffolds with a high level of
filigree on which plants can flourish.
Bioscaffolds
To grow architecture from living cells is an
intriguing proposition, but raises the problem of
how one might grow cells or tissues in to specific,
defined, and even complex geometries. One solution
to this is to design a scaffold system in and on which
the cells can grow and proliferate but where the
overall geometry is designed and formed by the
geometry of the scaffold. The notion of bioscaffolds
stems specifically from research done in the field of
tissue engineering which has focussed on the aim of
developing biological substitutes that are
biocompatible and which serve functionally to
28
restore, replace, or regenerate damaged tissues. In
such cases, the scaffold – typically made of a
biomaterial, has a structural function providing
mechanical support for cell attachment and
29
subsequent tissue development. Furthermore,
these scaffolds exhibit voids and pores so that the
tissues or cells grow throughout the volume of the
scaffold, which eventually degrades, leaving the
grown cells occupying the space defined by the
scaffold. In the field of architectural design, without
the complexities of tissue engineering and without
the need for implanting into the body, the idea of a
bioscaffold is inherent in the condition of
bioreceptivity of materials that work as hosts for
species to grow according to predetermined
geometries not available in nature.
Primarily, the material itself, providing it has the
right bulk properties of roughness and porosity
levels, can become the direct scaffold for growth
where the designer can define the overall geometry.
Contemporary fabrication techniques mean that
form creation is almost unlimited. 3D printing in
particular now allows for the creation of complex
geometries with detailed internal matrices, which
can be defined using engineering principles of
architectured materials that can either augment or
decrease the growth of species in areas.
  Bioreceptive design   Cruz and Beckett
58 arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016    materials
Bioscaffolds can be understood in architectural,
biological, and/or mechanical terms. For architecture,
bioscaffolds can be designed according to the notion
of scalar hierarchies. The lower level is defined by the
properties of the material chosen, which should have
a degree of porosity but not at the expense of
mechanical strength. The medium level describes how
the geometry of the material property space of the
larger level volume is filled. Rather than being solid,
this internal geometry is designed as spatial lattices as
such to facilitate tissue or cell integration upon
seeding. Typically this means that a level of cellular or
porous structure exists that allows for the movement
of water, nutrients, and cells throughout the volume.
The larger level defines the overall geometry of the
object in its final form. Providing a structural
framework on which cells can grow, this allows a
predetermined geometry to be achieved which may or
may not be typical in nature. In biological terms, the
materials used to fabricate the scaffold should be
compatible with the cells or tissues that are to be
grown. The material can be a nutrient source for the
developing cells, which can be absorbed or
metabolised, degrading as the cells grow. Bioscaffolds
can be biodegradable or rigid (non-degradable). When
biodegradable – in some cases working as implants –
they can work as temporary scaffolds, temporary
barriers, or multifunctional scaffolds. On the other
hand, bioscaffolds can be a more permanent system
that acts a delivery system for growth stimulating
factors, remaining as part of the object throughout its
lifespan. In mechanical terms, the scaffold should
provide the mechanical strength and form of the
geometry and for long enough that the cells can grow.
Bioreceptive design projects
A number of projects are being developed with
researchers and students in the BiotA Lab at the
Bartlett focused on creating bioreceptive designs
with integrated bioscaffolds that are both
biodegradable and rigid. These projects combine
processes of self-emergent design, digital fabrication,
and material and environmental testing while being
done with a variety of materials, ranging from
magnesium phosphate to sandstone, cellulose-
filament composites, and hydrogels. The projects aim
at creating new façade prototypes that can
potentially increase green surfaces in our cities.
One of the first projects focused on design
engineering bioreceptive bricks to support moss
30
growth [11]. Complex three-dimensional
geometries increased the overall surface area
available for microbial growth within the bounding
box volume of the elements. Real world observations
of sandstone rocks in Kew Gardens, London, which
were covered in an abundance of algae, lichens, and
mosses proliferating upon the material substratum,
created the material test bed of the project.
Following extensive material testing, a mix of MPC
and sandstone was employed to achieve comparable
values in terms of mineral composition and pH levels
to that of the original rocks. The material composite
was developed chemically to acquire a rather neutral
pH level of 7–8, optimal values for the colonisation of
Cruz and Beckett  Bioreceptive design
the chosen moss species including Atrichum
Undulatum and Hedwigia Ciliata (White-tipped Moss).
Aggregate sizes and water content were carefully
explored in order to achieve suitable porous surfaces
and bulk properties. This included water retention,
surface roughness, and capillary action for these
specific moss species, as well as maintaining a
suitable particle size and powder flow behaviour for
the 3D printing. The platform used was a ZCorp 510
machine that printed in 0.25mm layers using an
organic binder at various deposition rates and
amounts. Once printed, the bricks were removed and
dried at 30 degrees for 2 hours prior to depowdering.
Further steps in the manufacturing of the bricks
included bioengineering the sandstone mortar with
different types of bacteria in order to find new ways
to structurally stabilise the 3D-printed MPC. The
design of the bricks followed sediment branching
geometries that were developed via computational
simulations with Spatial Colonisation System and
Diffusion-Limited-Aggregation algorithms. The coral-
like branching geometries had both primary and
secondary structural elements. These followed a rule
of distance between each line (branch) that enabled
the swollen material during the 3D printing to keep
sufficient interstitial spaces for moss to grow.
A second project explored robotic extrusions of
cellulose-based materials as a physical and
nutritional architectural scaffold for the growth of
mycelium within defined areas upon larger
31
architectural screens and façade panels [12]. The
project addressed issues of bridging the biological
scale in design from the microscopic, within a petri
dish, to the macro scale of architectural application.
It differed from previous projects that integrated
fungi in buildings, such as Steve Pike’s
‘Contaminant’, as it used complex computational
algorithms of filamentous geometries. It also
differed from the mycelium bricks by Ecovative that
were grown throughout to achieve maximum
32
solidity and homogeneity. The robotically extruded
mycelium screens were inspired by fungal spore
growth to explore multiscalar geometric design
applied to multi material fabrication. They also used
mycelium as binding elements while exposing the
previously incubated mycelium in its stable and
fully-grown condition on the panels without the
need of onsite encapsulation.
The fabrication platform of the panels was
composed of a Kuka robotic arm as a positioning
system with a bespoke double extrusion head to
control height and speed of deposition. Algorithmic
growth patterns evolved the negative spaces and
channels between the filamentous geometries,
which were interpreted by the robot as various
degrees of ‘curly’ geometries that depended on the
careful calibration of distance, speed and size of
printing nozzle. These augmented the porosity and
bioreceptivity of the channels for mycelial growth.
Pore size gradients defined by material permeability
(micro) and geometry (meso), along with variation in
percentage cellulose allowed for design strategies
that served to augment or restrict the mycelium
growth in specific areas. Laboratory based processes
 materials   arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016 59

11

11 3D printed
bioreceptive
sandstone brick for
moss growth.

12 Screen made of a
cellulose composite
for mycelium growth.

12

  Bioreceptive design   Cruz and Beckett

60 arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016    materials
13 Hydrogel screens for
algae growth.
Cruz and Beckett  Bioreceptive design
for incubating and growing mycelium spores seeded
into these filamentous scaffolds led to a novel
feedback system. Mycelium spores were manually
placed into the initial scaffold and incubated under
optimal laboratory conditions for one week. The
components were then scanned using an
AriusTechnology scanner and the subsequent point
cloud data reintroduced into the computational
algorithm that defined the next geometry to be
fabricated directly on top of the existing component.
The pieces were then reincubated and the cycle
repeated, creating a multilayered and multimaterial
screen composite.
A third research project focused on the design and
manufacturing of a new type of environmentally
33
responsive screens [13]. It explored a novel
bioreceptive gel based material fabrication process
tailored for direct 3D printing of algae cells within
semi solid hydrogel composites, including Curran
13
and Sodium Alginate. The project was aimed at
medium scale architectural panel screens that could
14 Lightweight concrete host and provide the nutrients for the growth of
components for
cryptogam growth. algae species as an aesthetic and/or functional
14

prototype for biomass production and wastewater
treatment. Bottom-up material design used water
primarily as a life sustaining element to promote the
growth of Chlorella Sorokiniana, while at the same time
controlling the percentage of water content to
control viscosity for fabrication and exploring the
principles of variable hydration. To date, many
architectural proposals using algae growth for
potential energy have employed the notion of
containment. This includes the Urban Algae Farm in
34
Milan by EcoLogicStudio and, more so, the BIQ
façade by Arup / SSC / Colt for an experimental
housing project in Hamburg, where the algae cells
were cultured in a liquid within a container with
clear tubular bioreactors or flat transparent panel
35
containers. Such bioreactor systems are heavy due
to large amounts of water, energy intensive in terms
of pumping and circulation and expensive to run
and maintain. The proposed hydrogel panels, on the
other hand, created an alternative, inverting the idea
of a container by growing terrestrial rather than
aquatic algae on the gel surface itself. The
multilayering of hydrogel printing allowed for the
lower (back) layers to dehydrate and become rigid,
providing a structural support for the upper (front)
layers, which could be moisturised according to
variable air humidity or rainfall. This allowed to
define stiffness gradients providing structural and
non-structural areas towards an architectural
proposition where the hydrogel created its own
scaffold on which algae growth could switch on and
off according to variable climate conditions.
The geometries used in the hydrogel panels were
tailored to provide a large surface area for biomass
growth whilst remaining lightweight, requiring
little maintenance and potentially being recyclable
as a system. Fibrous geometries defined by the
fabrication technique and inspired by natural algal
formations in aqueous environments were explored
through particle simulations and cell division
algorithms using Houdini software. The linearity of
the geometries provided a perfect network of
channels for water to irrigate the whole panel
according to gravity, humidity, wind, and solar
conditions. The design patterns were later decoded
for a UR10 robotic arm to print the panels. The robot
had a positioning system with a bespoke pneumatic
deposition container and nozzle that digitally
controlled the hydrogel in terms of height and speed
of material deposition.
A fourth project explored the notion of
bioreceptivity through the design and fabrication of
lightweight aggregate concrete façade components
that acted as a physical scaffold upon which a second
36
bioreceptive coating could be applied [14]. Explored
as a series of ‘plug-in’ façade components, the project
proposed the tessellation of elements across a
building envelope. These lightweight elements were
seeded, incubated, and planned for attachment to a
building, allowing them to be easily removed for
reincubation or cleaning and replacement.
Geometric design of the components used cell
division algorithms to define growth areas and
particle flow techniques considering directional
materials   arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016 61
water channelling to these growth areas. Endolithic
blob geometries were also ‘grown’ and defined by
environmental feedback from solar/shading analysis
and predominant wind directions. Rigorous and
extensive material design controlling aggregate size
and water content was explored to achieve a gradated
control over surface roughness and porosity related
to moisture uptake. High surface roughness and
high moisture uptake defined a secondary
bioreceptive condition whereas smooth surfaces and
low porosity defined non-bioreceptive areas. These
principles were then materialised through a series of
casting experiments in order to develop fabrication
strategies that could be extrapolated to other designs
and scale components.
A new paradigm for sustainable architecture
As seen in all the research projects, the shift from
skin to bark and material bioreceptivity has brought
about a new paradigm for sustainable architecture
defined here as bioreceptive design. All projects were
determined by novel computational methods and
manufacturing processes, while at the same time
relying on a complex interdisciplinarity. But all the
projects discussed have shown that bioreceptive
design has to consider carefully the transition and
interaction between biological (plants) and synthetic
(inert) systems. This integration of small-scale
growth systems in large-scale architectural
structures is undoubtedly one of the biggest
challenges for all designs. The visions of Peter Cook’s
Veg House project, which he has been developing
since the 1970s, has highlighted the potential beauty
– but also complexity – of integrating different scales
and intertwining nature and architectural artifice
into a new hybrid biodigital materiality. In
bioreceptive design, growth patterns were tested on
small scale and in vitro (from molecular to petri dish
scale), making it hugely unpredictable when trying
to incorporate these procedures into the scale and
complexity of buildings. What can be successfully
grown under environmentally controlled conditions
will not necessarily succeed on a larger scale and in
an outdoor context. As a consequence, bioreceptive
projects tend to look for new solutions that can
bridge scale and material differences. Possible
solutions include building bioscaffolds as transition
paths that are created as geometric derivatives from
the species own geometries. For example, the
filamentous geometry of fungi or mosses suggests a
mirrored and/or negative geometry into which these
species can grow, creating a contiguous and seamless
gradient from naturally grown (species) to
synthetically stable (architecture).
At an architectural scale, it is not the intention
that all areas should be fully grown and covered.
Selected areas of growth, as opposed to complete
coverage, demands the design and careful control of
growth and non-growth areas or, as they are
otherwise defined, ‘enhancing’ or ‘inhibiting’ areas.
It remains as a necessary challenge for
multidisciplinary teams of designers, biologists, and
engineers to define these areas based on aesthetics,
material, morphological and biological, as well as
  Bioreceptive design   Cruz and Beckett
62 arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016    materials
scale variability. In this sense, rather than letting
walls, façades or any other mechanism become
colonised randomly, design should choreograph the
bioreceptive surface and bulk properties of the
materials in what could be considered a new, ever-
evolving, and changing ecological map of
architecture. Physical properties relating to water
retention and pH level are key to determining areas
of growth or inhibition of species but one should
also consider morphological variations including
the size and depth of surface geometries which can
Cruz and Beckett  Bioreceptive design
15 Robotic printing of
hydrogel screens for
algae growth.
16 Robotic printing of a
cellulose composite
screen for mycelium
growth.
15
16
also stimulate diverse intensities of growth within an
outdoor environment. Areas of shadow, areas of
protection, crevices that trap dust and nutrients and
water channels are all typological variables that
occur on tree barks that provide very specific
conditions at the material surface which allow for or
restrict growth.
In the future, advances in robotic printing and
milling will allow for increasingly complex design
methodologies to integrate large data sets and
improve accuracy, precision, and speed for
 materials   arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016 63

fabrication [15]. It will also allow for the ability to
monitor and adapt during fabrication a sense of
‘operating’ in vivo on bioreceptive components.
Feedback systems can be integrated in to the
fabrication stage which can add material where it is
needed to provide more scaffold, or subtract material
where it is not needed and robotically ‘seeding’ living
cells, or more nutrients in to specific areas that have
the best chance for growth to occur both in the lab
or once established in the external environment [16].
By designing for microbial colonisation using a
predominantly bottom-up, yet in steps also top-
down, process, biocreceptive design defines an
architecture of ‘impure aesthetics’ where the
material substratum, in supporting and enhancing
growth, goes beyond the current idea of green walls
because it does not need any maintenance of
irrigation for nature to regulate itself. Ultimately,
bioreceptive design of newly biocompatible scaffold
systems allows nature to grow according to its own
rules in a reciprocal response to parameters of a
biodigital materiality.

Notes 1986), pp. 156–81. Incredible Installations’. Design

1. Marc Ottelé, The Green Building
Envelope: Vertical Greening (PhD
thesis: Technical University of
Delft, 2011), p. 2.
2. Ibid.
3. Note that in tropical
environments, tree barks can
create prolific ecosystems where
numerous plant parasites are
formed of complex plants with a
substantial growth bulk.
4. Wolfgang Elbert, Bettina Weber,
Susannah Burrows, Jörg
Steinkamp, Burkhard Büdel,
Meinrat O.Andreae, Ulrich Pöschl,
‘Contribution of Cryptogamic
Covers to the Global Cycles of
Carbon and Nitrogen’, in Nature
Geoscience, 5 July (2012), 459–62
(p. 459).
5. This principle reflects what has
previously stated in Marcos Cruz
and Steve Pike’s AD – Neoplasmatic
Design (London: Wiley, 2008); as
well as William Myers’s BioDesign:
Nature + Science + Creativity (London:
Thames and Hudson, 2012).
6. Janine Benyus, Biomimicry:
Innovation Inspired by Nature
(London: Harper Collins
Publishers, 1997).
7. A. Z. Miller, P. Sanmartin, L. Pereira-
Pardo, A. Dionisio, C. Saiz-Jimenez,
M. F. Macedo, B. Prieto,
‘Bioreceptivity in Building Stones:
A Review’, in Science of the Total
Environment, 426, 1 June (2012), 10.
8. Christine Gaylarde and L .H. Glyn
Morton, ‘Deteriogenic Biofilms on
Buildings and their Control: A
Review’, in Biofouling: The Journal of
Bioadhesion and Biofilm Research, 14:1
(1999), 59–74.
9. J. J. Ortega-Calvo, X. Ariño, M.
Hernandez-Marine, C. Saiz-
Jimenez, ‘Factors Affecting the
Weathering and Colonization of
Monuments by Phototrophic
Microorganisms’, in Science of the
Total Environment, 167:1–3, May
(1995), 329–41.
10. This term is used by Adrian Forty
in his chapter on ‘Hygiene and
Cleanliness’, in Objects of Desire:
Design and Society since 1750
(London: Thames and Hudson,
11. The anthropologist Mary Douglas
uses this expression in relation to
the cultural construction of ‘dirt’
in her seminal book Purity and
Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of
Pollution and Taboo (London:
Routledge, 1966), p. 165.
12. This analysis derives from Marcos
Cruz’s descriptions of the
aesthetics of flesh, where he refers
to a long-standing cultural
construct of clean and pure
aesthetics in architecture. For
more see Section 1 of his book The
Inhabitable Flesh of Architecture
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2013), pp.
41–66.
13. See the definition of ‘inhabitable
flesh’, Ibid., pp. 1–34.
14. Olivier Guillitte, ‘Bioreceptivity: A
New Concept for Building Ecology
Studies’, in Science of the Total
Environment, 167:1–3, May (1995),
215–20.
15. Ibid., p. 216.
16. Buddy D. Ratner, Allan S. Hoffman,
Frederick J. Schoen, Jack E.
Lemons, Biomaterials Science: An
Introduction to Materials in Medicine
(London: Academic Press, 1996),
p. 11.
17. James Mitchell Crow, ‘The Concrete
Conundrum’, in Chemistry World,
March (2008), 62–6.
18. Invited text for the conference
Concrete: A Cultural History held at
the Royal Institute of British
Architects in London on 7 July
2015.
19. Sandra Manso Blanco, Bioreceptivity
Optimisation of Concrete Substratum
to Stimulate Biological Colonisation
(PhD Thesis: Universitat Politècnica
de Catalunya, 2014).
20. An internal SEED-funded project at
the Bartlett led to ‘Computational
Seeding of Bioreceptive Materials’,
which is an ongoing ESPRC-funded
research project (2015–17)
developed by Marcos Cruz, Richard
Beckett, Sandra Manso Blanco,
Chris Leung, and Bill Watts, with
the support of the industrial
partner Laing O’Rourke.
21. Alga(e)zebo, one of the Mayor of
London’s ‘Part of Wonder:
team: marcosandmarjan;
Manufacturer: Formstaal / CSI,
Stralsund Germany; Engineering:
Bollinger, Grohmann und
Schneider, Vienna Austria;
Photobioreactor: Richard Beckett
with UCL Algae.
22. Information derived from Manso
Blanco, Bioreceptivity Optimisation of
Concrete Substratum.
23. This term has been widely
disseminated through the
exhibition and publication Bio-
design: Nature Science Creativity,
curated by William Myers in 2012.
24. See the description of William
Katavolos’s work in William W.
Braham and Jonathan A. Hale
(eds.), Rethinking Technology: A Reader
in Architectural Theory (London:
Routledge, 2007), p. 140.
25. Available online: <http://
johnmjohansen.com/
Nanoarchitecture.html> (accessed
7 March 2016).
26. P. T. Saunders (ed.), Collected Works of
A. M. Turing: Morphogenesis
(Amsterdam: North Holland, 1992).
27. Algae-Cellunoi wall installation for
the Archilab exhibition at the FRAC
in 2013. Design team:
marcosandmarjan with Guan Lee
and Richard Beckett;
Collaboration: Olivia Pearson, Emu
Masuyama, Jessie Lee, Keith
McDonald, Jonas Brazys, Cullum
Perry; Fabrication: Grymsdyke
Farm, DMC London; Algae
Technology: Marin Sawa with
Nixon Group and Hellgardt Group
(Imperial College, London) and
Richard Beckett (UCL). Sponsors:
Bartlett School of Architecture;
Grymsdyke Farm; Innsbruck
University.
28. S. Levenberg and R. Langer,
‘Advance in Tissue Engineering’, in
Current Topics in Developmental
Biology, 61, February (2004), 113.
29. B. P. Chan and K.W. Leong,
‘Scaffolding in Tissue Engineering:
General Approaches and Tissue-
specific Considerations’, in
European Spine Journal, 17,
Supplement 4, December (2008),
467.

  Bioreceptive design   Cruz and Beckett

64 arq . vol 20 . no 1 . 2016    materials
30. The project of bioreceptive bricks
was develop by BiotA Lab at the
Bartlett with Zhixiong Yang,
Chang Lui and Chae Ah Ahn in
2014–15.
31. The project of robotically
extruded mycelium screens was
develop by BiotA Lab at the
Bartlett with Cheng-Hsiang Lew,
Xia Chen Wei, You-Han Hu, and
Yuan Jiang in 2014–15.
32. The project Hy-Fi designed by
David Benjamin in 2014 explored
the use of mycelium bricks to
build a pavilion in New York as an
experiment with reused and
recycled mushroom materials.
33. The project of hydrogel algae
screens was develop by BiotA Lab
at the Bartlett with Shneel Malik,
Soo Hyung Kin, Sunbin Lee, Yuxi
Lu in 2014–15.
34. EcoLogicStudio completed a range
of installations exploring algal
cultivation within architecture.
The Urban Algae Farm done for
the Expo Milan 2015 used bag
bioreactors incorporated in to the
structural elements of the folly.
35. The BIQ façade is a seminal
project constructed in 2013 in
which algal strains are cultivated
in flat panel bioreactors
integrated on to the façade of the
building and harvest.
36. The project of lightweight
biocereptive façade components
was developed by BiotA Lab at the
Bartlett with Sul Ah Lee, Tae Hyun
Lee, Dan Lin, Wen Cheng in
2014–15.
Cruz and Beckett  Bioreceptive design
Illustration credits
arq gratefully acknowledges:
Richard Beckett, 5, 7
BiotA Lab / Chen Wen, 9
BiotA Lab / Chang Liu, 10
BiotA Lab / Zhixiong Yang, Chang Lui,
Chae Ah, 11
BiotA Lab / Cheng-Hsiang Lew, Xia
Chen Wei, You-Han Hu, Yuan Jiang,
12, 16
BiotA Lab / Shneel Malik, Soo Hyung
Kin, Sunbin Lee, Yuxi Lu, 13, 15
BiotA Lab / Sul Ah Lee, Tae Hyun Lee,
Dan Lin, Wen Cheng, 14
Viigilio Ferreira, 8
Freestock, 2
Harewood House, 4
Taehyun Lee, 1
www.placestoseeinyourlifetime.com,
3 or semi-living materials in the built
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr
Brenda Parker, UCL Biochemical
Engineering.
Authors’ biographies
Marcos Cruz is Professor of Innovative
Environments at the Bartlett, UCL,
and Director of BiotA Lab. He
researches design driven by advances
in computation, biotechnology, and
the environment. His research on
Neoplasmatic Architecture won the
RIBA President’s Award for Research
in 2008. In addition to the
Directorship of the Bartlett (2010–14)
where he has run MArch Unit 20 for
over 16 years, he has also taught at
UCLA, University of Westminster and
IaaC Barcelona. Cruz also cofounded
the atelier marcosandmarjan with
whom he has built over twenty
installations and buildings. He is
currently Principal Investigator of a
major EPSRC ‘Design the Future’
research grant.
Richard Beckett is an architect,
lecturer, and Director of BiotA Lab at
the Bartlett, UCL. He has a
multidisciplinary background,
studying biochemistry and working
in R&D for Glaxosmithkline as a
material scientist before studying
and teaching architecture at UCL. His
research focuses on digital
architecture and novel fabrication
techniques and, more specifically,
investigations into the use of living
environment. He has expertise in the
field of computational data
production, 3D printing, and digital
manufacturing. He cofounded
design/fabrication consultancy
Arch-T in 2013 working at a range of
scales and industries from
architecture to fashion. A recent
design collaboration, developing
novel 3D printed fabrics with Pringle
of Scotland 2014–15, found
international acclaim. Beckett is
currently working on an EPSRC
‘Design the Future’ research grant.
Authors’ addresses
Marcos Cruz
m.cruz@ucl.ac.uk
Richard Beckett
richard.beckett@ucl.ac.uk
CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Department of Concrete and Masonry Structure

Bio-active concrete tile

Bachelor thesis

Written by: Mária Husarčíková

Supervised by: Prof. Ing. Petr Štemberk, Ph.D., D.Eng.

Prague, May 2019

 CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Thákurova 7, 166 29 Prague 6, Czech Republic

BACHELOR´S THESIS ASSIGNMENT FORM

I. PERSONAL AND STUDY DATA

Surname: Husarcikova Name: Maria Personal number: 458884

Assigning Department: Department of Concrete and Masonry Structure
Study programme: (B3648) Civil Engineering
Branch of study: (3647R016) Building Structures

II. BACHELOR THESIS DATA

Bachelor Thesis (BT) title: Bio-active concrete tile
Bachelor Thesis title in English: Bio-active concrete tile
Instructions for writing the thesis:
1.Design and development of form for concrete tile
2.Developing of low Ph concrete
3.Bonding between two layers of cocrete
4.Numerical analysis of the tile

List of recommended literature:

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. EN1992-1-1

Name of Bachelor Thesis Supervisor: prof. Ing. Petr Štemberk, Ph.D., D.Eng.

BT assignment date: 18.02.2019 BT submission date: 19.05.2019

BT Supervisor’s signature Head of Department’s signature

III. ASSIGNMENT RECEIPT

I declare that I am obliged to write the Bachelor Thesis on my own, without anyone’s assistance, except for
provided consultations. The list of references, other sources and consultants’ names must be stated in the
Bachelor Thesis and in referencing I must abide by the CTU methodological manual “How to Write University
Final Theses” and the CTU methodological instruction “On the Observation of Ethical Principles in the
Preparation of University Final Theses”.

Assignment receipt date Student’s name

 ABSTRACT

The aim of this thesis is to design and fabricate bio-active concrete tiles which encourage
rapid plant coverage of building walls and urban spaces with vegetation. ​A design comprises
two different types of tile, which one of them intends to be used as a planter for a variety of
climbing vegetation. Through the process of designing a and manufacturing suitable mould
for tiles, a complex macro pattern was developed to ensure water retention on the structural
surface. The concrete properties were tuned in order to improve bioreceptivity of the tiles.
The concrete was modified by changing the mix design and using a different type of
hydraulic binder to fulfil the required condition for biological growth. Two main properties of
concrete were considered in this work, the pH and porosity. The results of this thesis provide
an alternative solution to the existing green wall systems by the implementation of a
bioreceptive cementitious material. The proposed solution creates an opportunity for further
research on the aforementioned topic.
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………. 1
2. STATE OF ART ……………………………………………………………….... 2
2.1. Green cities……………………………………………………………….2
2.2. Green walls ……………………………………………………………....3
2.3. Bioreceptivity of materials……………………………………………….6
2.4. Bio-active concrete……………………………………………………….8
3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................12
4. MATERIALS AND METHODS………………………………………………..13
4.1. Design of tile…………………………………………………………….13
4.2. Numerical analysis………………………………………………………17
4.3. Design and fabrication of tile forms…………………………………….19
4.4. Development of low pH concrete …………………………………........22
4.5. Alteration of physical properties of concrete…………………………....24
4.6. Concreting of tiles……………………………………………………....27
5. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………….29
6. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................34
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..36
APPENDIX …………………………………………………………………………..39
 1. INTRODUCTION

Today, more than half of the world's population live in the cities. With the rapid growth of the
population, this number is still increasing and the situation in the urban areas are getting
worse. Cities have become a huge built impervious environment, and they are facing
enormous problems connected with the loss of natural green areas. A dense city infrastructure
leaves no space for implementing the greenery on a ground level. This has resulted in the high
demand for the green walls and roofs since they required little or no ground space. In
particular, the living walls effectively uses vertical spaces as an opportunity for greenery​.
Their environmental and health benefits, as well as appealing aesthetics positively influence
life in the urban area and lessen the environmental impact of the city. ​Unfortunately, the
problem regarding these living walls rests on their usually very costly and demanding
maintained system. The plants need a supporting structure with the complex watering system
and sometimes ​the costs might outweigh the benefits. Therefore, an innovative new solution is
needed.

As opposed to the typical green walls a new approach of integrating the vegetation
directly on the building surfaces has been developed. By altering the physical and chemical
properties of traditional concrete a new type of biologically receptive concrete has been
produced. This concrete encourages and sustain the growth of the microorganisms such as
mosses lichens and algae directly on its surface and thus increases the cryptogamic cover of
the material. The bioreceptive concrete supports a plant life to thrive on buildings in a way
that is both more sustainable and more efficient than existing green walls. It brings an
interdisciplinary approach of architecture, engineering and biology.

A use of bioreceptive concrete for the integration of microflora directly on the

building structure is still in a stage of development. But an ongoing effort of making our cities
greener and more sustainable creates and potential for these new type of bio-active
cementitious material to reduce the ecological footprint of the concrete based infrastructure.

1
 2. STATE OF ART

2.1. Green cities

Cities are now-days, facing big pressure from increasing urbanisation. According to the
United Nations report, the world population is expected to increase from 7.6 billion to 8.6
billion in 2030, reaching 9.8 billion in 2050. This rising trend is assumed to be continued
(Population.un.org, 2019) ​and by 2050 75% of the world population will live in cities ​(Eames
et al., n.d.). Accelerated population growth leave the mark on earth rapidly and associated
urban development increasingly transforms natural areas into engineers infrastructure and
creates enormous challenges for maintaining the urban ecosystem. This built environment has
created large impervious paved surfaces, leading to loss of vegetations, increased surface
runoff and retention of solar energy (Growinggreenguide.org, 2019). ​There is a great need for
rethinking and rebuilding the urban infrastructure in response to these problems and many
cities starting to recognise the importance of green infrastructure in the city. Incorporation of
greenery into the dense city areas for an environmental uplift is in high demand.

Public green space has a positive effect on biodiversity, climate, wellness and air
quality. It supports physical activities, relaxation and creates space for social interactions.
Plants produce oxygen and polluted air particles are filtered out. Moreover, green areas play a
critical role in cooling cities. All these impacts ensure that cities are becoming better places to
live and work, with a positive influence on our mental health and well-being. Therefore,
natural green assets, parks or water systems are in great need, unfortunately, they acquire a lot
of ground spaces which are in scarcity. In a dense urban centre with insufficient space, it is an
obstacle to implement these green areas ​(Growinggreenguide.org, 2019).

Green roofs, walls and facades seem to be the solution to the problem since they
require a little or no space on the ground level. ​There are a great many free spaces, naked
facades, retaining walls which surface potential could be in better used. Architect and
engineers should have these green solutions in their minds while designing a new city
infrastructure. An example is the city of Singapore, where the government launch the program
called LUSH to support and encourage and architect in incorporating flora into their design
leading to the boom in living walls and roofs constructions (Greenroofs.com, 2019).

2
Architects have applied green walls and roofs worldwide. However, the green walls are more
spatial effective since the vertical areas are up-taking more space than roofs and therefore the
primary focus shifted from roof structures to the plant integration for the walls system.

2.2. Green walls

Green walls, also called vertical gardens or living walls refer to all forms of vegetated vertical
surfaces (Manso and Castro-Gomes, 2015). They can be incorporated into the new buildings
as well as the already existing one. There is a great demand to involve innovative green
technologies for architectural and construction design. The green roof and green walls are
highly popular among developers for their aesthetic features and sustainable character.

Greening of the surfaces is not just the idea of modern society. Its history is dating
more than 2000 years ago when Hanging gardens of Babylon were built. Later on, in Greek
and Roman Empires, vines were used to cover and shade pergolas and building a wall to cool
down building envelope in hot climate regions. The modern version of green walls was used
since the 1980s when the idea of green walls as contributors to the environmental city
planning, arose (Livingwallart.com, 2019). However, only in the latest years these living
walls rapidly rose on popularity. According to greenroof.com, 80% of green walls databased
online were built after 2009. And the popularity has been rising since then. The most seen
benefit is it's aesthetic. It is adding colour and texture and it drives interest of walk by people.
It creates a great comparison to the sharp building materials. But this is not the most valuable
aspects of the green wall.

At the city scale, green walls and green roofs contribute to the preservation of green
areas and the recovery of degraded areas without occupying extra space. They improve the
city environment by improving the biodiversity, stormwater management, air quality and
reducing the heat island effect (Urbanhabitats.org, 2019). But the greening has not only
environmental aspects, but it also contributes to social and economic benefits. Vegetation has
a positive impact on psychological wellbeing and it is a form of therapy for some people. A
city image is improved as well which leads to an increase in property value (Ichihara and
Cohen, 2010).

3
 At the small building scale, green walls, help and protect the building itself. They
contribute to the sustainable performance of the building and improve the microclimate.
Plants add to the air quality through oxygen production and reduction of atmospheric CO​2​.
High foliage cover captures pollutants as well (Urbanhabitats.org, 2019). Recent studies show
that green walls systems have the ability to influence the heat gain and loss of the building
and therefore decrease the energy demand of the building and improve indoor thermal
comfort (GhaffarianHoseini et al., 2013). Moreover, living walls are passive acoustic
insulators as well.

Green wall systems

There are many types of green wall systems. Generally, they can be divided into two major
categories: Green facades and Green walls, both of which are described below
(Greenscreen.com, 2019).

Green facades are a type of green wall system consisting of a supporting structure for
the plants to climb up to cover the wall area. (See Fig. 1) These climbing plants can be rooted
on the ground, rooftops or in intermediate planters and it takes more than 3 years to cover the
entire area​. Facades can be built as separate structures or the framework could be fixed to the
existing walls as well​ (​Greenscreen.com, 2019).

Green walls consist of pre-vegetated panels, vertical modules or planters that are
attached vertically to a structural wall or frame. (See Fig. 2) The most usual materials for
these panels are plastic, expanded polystyrene, synthetic fabric, clay, metal. One of the
benefits of this system is its diversity and density of green coverage. However, due to this
diversity, the plants need more extensive care and maintenance than the facade system
(Greenscreen.com, 2019).

4
 Fig. 1. Green facade Fig. 2. Green wall

Unfortunately, green walls have their drawbacks as well. They are very demanding on
maintenance and they need a highly elaborate watering system leading to the high cost. There
is a need for more efficient technical solutions. With new technologies in building and
architectural industry, there is an attempt for a more innovative approach to green walls
systems, combining environmental and structural aspects. It was observed that there is
generally low integration between vegetation and structural elements. Therefore, the new
concept of integrating plant directly into the structure as an additive to the construction
material, has been developed ​(Ottelé, 2011).

5
2.3. Bioreceptivity of materials

As the attempt of integration plants to the structure rises, the relationship between living
organisms and the building materials should be established. The study of the natural
colonisation of building materials is commonly studied from a negative point of view. ​There
is a general belief that the microorganisms are harmful to structural materials in terms of
biodegradation and biodeterioration. These terms are widely used and relate to the
unfavourable chemical and physical changes of materials (Guillitte, 1995). Biodeterioration
defined by Hueck (1965), refers to “​any undesirable change in the properties of a material
caused by the vital activities of living organisms​”. However, colonisation does not have to
necessarily cause degradation of structures. It can primarily lead to the changes of colour
which could not only be harmless but can be considered as aesthetically pleasing and have a
positive impact on the environment. Guillitte (1995) studied the effects of bio-colonisation on
the materials and he used a different term, bioreceptivity. This new term in ecology,
bioreceptivity, stands for the ability of materials to be colonised by living organisms. It
comprises the impact of colonisation on the material without being necessary deteriorated. It
also implies the material properties necessary for attachment and further development of
vegetation on material surfaces such as porosity, roughness, moisture and chemical
composition of the surface layer. Guillitte (1995), divided bio-receptivity into three
categories: primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary bioreceptivity refer to initial state of
colonisation when the material properties remain the same or very similar. Over time the
bio-colonisation can enhance the change of material properties and therefore the secondary
bioreceptivity is established. Further modification of secondary characteristic by human
activity, consolidation of particles, surface polishing, is called tertiary bioreceptivity
(Guillitte,1995). This new perception ​of the biological colonisation in civil engineering
establishes a new concept for building and ecology.

In order to be colonised by a living organism such as algae, fungi and lichen, a certain
condition has to be met for receiving living organisms and for their further development.
Important aspects without which the colonisation could not take place are environmental
conditions and chemical and physical properties of the material. Bioreceptivity represents

6
material properties suited for colonisation. However, a degree of bio-colonisation does not
depend only on material properties but also on environmental factors.

The necessity and importance of the environmental conditions such as temperature,

light, water and exposure of materials to these sources were discussed in Miller (2012) studies
of bioactivity of stone material. ​Natural stone material, widely used for monuments, is the
favourite object for colonisation (See Fig. 3). It is clear that it's surface roughness, pore space
structure, permeability are favourable properties for assessing the bioreceptivity of this
material independently on environmental conditions (Miller et al., 2012). Another study
suggests that environmental factors play an even more important role in bio-colonisation,
especially the availability of water and light regime (Bellinzoni, Caneva and Ricci., 2003,
Gorbushina., 2007). Although there are many discussion about the bigger importance of
environmental or material properties, the fact remains that they both are responsible for
biological colonisation. The availability of water depends on surrounding conditions,
however, the ability to capture and retain the water strictly depends on the porosity of the
material and its rough structure (Miller et al., 2012).

Fig. 3. Result of bio-colonisation of stone material (Portugal).

7
 To sum it up, bio-colonisation on the stone material is principally depended on the
environmental condition, microclimatic parameters and bioreceptivity of the material.
There are still further investigations required for fully understanding to what extent the
material properties are affected in certain conditions. However, the ​information about
bioreceptivity of natural stone can supply us with the knowledge needed for studies of other
materials ​susceptibility​ to colonisation such as concrete.

2.4. Bio-active concrete

Concrete is the most widely used building material. In the second half of the 20th century, the
construction industry focuses primarily on the use of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
(Walling and Provis, 2016). With the effort of a more environmentally friendly and
sustainable solution in the construction industry, alternatives to the conventional concrete are
sought. Not only for decreasing the environmental impact by OPC production but as well for
implementing a more greener solution to the city infrastructure.

Accordingly, a new concept of integrating microflora directly on the concrete

structures by improving concrete bioreceptive properties has been developed. In this sense,
the Spanish researchers of Structural Technology Group proposed the solution of plants
integration into the building material by means of designing bilayer concrete. The concrete
consisting of three layers, waterproof layer, the internal biological microstructure and the
porous coating. Each of these three layers works in synthesis in order to encourage and
sustain the biological growth on its surface. Similarly, the BiotA Lab developed the facade
concrete panels, which promote bio-colonisation on their surfaces (See Fig. 4). By using the
novel type of concrete and environmentally driven design, the panels enhance the growth of
microorganisms such as mosses, lichen and algae ​(Richard-beckett.com, 2019).

8
 Fig. 4. Bioreceptive concrete panels-BiotA Lab

Another company, ECOncrete, is focusing on the environmentally friendly solution

for concrete structures in coastal areas and its impact on urban infrastructure. With
bio-enhancing concrete additives, they support marine biodiversity and offer a more
aesthetical solution instead of grey coastal walls. They are as well producers of concrete tiles
for green walls and were the main inspiration for my project (See Fig. 5) ​(ECOncrete, 2019).

Fig. 5. ECOncrete tide pool and wall tile

In all cases, the chemical and physical properties of concrete were altered, namely pH,
porosity and roughness. Traditional concrete has very high initial alkalinity and the low

9
porous structure which are not ideal conditions for bioreceptivity. Its pH reaches value 12​−​13
and the suitable pH value for the growth of microorganisms ranges from 5.5 to 8.5 ​(Iyengar,
S. and Al-Tabbaa, A.,2007​). ​Only after the drop of pH due to the carbonation, the biological
colonisation can take place. There are several options on how to decrease the alkalinity of
concrete. The additives such as silica fume and fly ash can decrease the alkalinity. However,
the value is still fluctuating around 10 and is depending on the amount of cement replacement.
Another solution is decreasing the pH of concrete by adding the acid solution into the
mixture. In this case, acid addition could lead to a negative influence on material properties
(Manso et al., 2014). So the idea of using a different hydraulic binder with naturally low pH
has been developed. These types of cement usually consist of oxides and phosphate acids as
the main compounds and offer an alternative solution to the Ordinary Portland Cement. The
most widely used acid-based cement is Magnesium Phosphate Cement.

Magnesium Phosphate Cement (MPC)

Magnesium phosphate cement is a relatively new type of binder. It was firstly used at the end
of the 19th century as a dental cement and later on used mainly for a repair construction due
to its excellent mechanical properties ​(Feng et al., 2018). Comparing it to the Ordinary
Portland cement it has some advantages such as very quick setting time, high early strength,
low setting and hardening temperature up to −20℃, low drying shrinkage and very high
bonding strength with old concrete. All these properties are essential in repair construction.
That is why the magnesium phosphate cement is mostly used as a mortar for rapid repair of
concrete structures, such as pavement, airport runways, bridge decks, etc. ​(Yang et al., 2000).
The MPC is derived from the reaction between phosphate and metal oxide. ​Three different
types of phosphate salts are generally used: ammonium, potassium and sodium. However, the
ammonium was restricted to the outdoor use due to its release of ammonia during the reaction
(Feng et al., 2018). The reaction between oxide and phosphate in the presence of water is very
quick thus the addition of retarder is needed to slow down and control setting time.

10
Properties of MPC
Mechanical properties, as well as setting time, are depended on the w/c ratio, addition of
retarder and ratio of phosphate and magnesium (P/M) ​(Yang et al., 2014). ​Strength is highly
influenced by the P/M ratio. A decrease in the ratio leads to the increase of the strength (Yang
and Wu, 1999). However, the high amount of magnesium causes very quick hydration and
high released heat, leading to potential damage to the product. Therefore the optimum ratio of
P/M has to be chosen. According to the experimental study of Li, Sun and Chen (2014), the
maximal compressive and flexural strength were reached with the P/M ratio of 0.2−0.25.
Similarly, as in OPC, the w/c ratio is an important parameter. With decreasing w/c ratio the
compressive strength increases (Li and Chen, 2013). The early strength develops very fast
reaching 70 % in 3 hours. The positive effect on this early strength has the very high
hydration heat of MPC (Yang et al., 2000). The additive such as fly ash can be used up to 50
% to improve the properties, adjust the colour and decrease the overall cost (Li and Chen,
2013).

Many research works have been carried out on phosphate cement-based materials,
most of them are mainly centred on chemical compositions and mechanical properties of the
mortar used for repair of concrete. There are only a few papers subjected to the bioreceptivity
of this concrete substratum, which is a very important property for the successful application
for the green walls ​(Manso et al., 2014.) ​Certainly, the biocompatibility would become one of
the most important properties of the material and further studies have been carried out
regarding optimisation of this new cementitious material.

11
 3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The fact remains that the cities are in great need for an innovative green solution.
Incorporation of the green areas directly on the structural surface seems to be a new concept
for plant implementation to the city infrastructure.
The main aim of the thesis is to design and fabricate bio-active concrete tile which will
enhance the growth of vegetation on its surface without additional maintenance.

Thesis objectives:

1) Design and fabricate concrete wall tile as an alternative solution to the existing green walls

2) Combine interdisciplinary processes of design and digital fabrication to create tile form

3) Apply newly developed bio-receptive concrete to stimulate micro-organic growth on the

tile surface

12
 4. MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1. Design of tile

The aim of ​the bio-receptive tiles is to promote micro-organic growth directly on their surface
and thus create the green patina. The tiles are intended to be applied over a range of urban
contexts with a particular opportunity for green walls, building facades and retaining walls.
The main inspiration for tile design is the characteristic shape of nature with its multilayering
and irregularities creating suitable embedding for the growth of microflora (See Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Shapes of nature

The tiles were geometrically designed to ​promote the growth and latching of the
greenery on the material surface. To mimic natural surfaces, the complex 3D structure with
different elevation levels of tile outer face was designed. These risen steps serve as water
retention on the unit surface as well as supporting elements for climbing vegetation. The
range of elevation is between 5−20 mm and steps vary by its length. The tile is designed to be
from two-layered concrete. The first layer is made out of OPC and has a load-bearing
character. The second bioreceptive layer is from acid-based cement and its purpose is to
support the development of microflora and to capture and accumulate water.

13
 In order to maximize the green coverage and biodiversity, I have decided to combine
both before mentioned green walls technologies. A vision to create a wall that will support
climbing plants and at the same time serve as a module for pre-vegetated rich flora led to the
decision of designing two types of tiles, Standard tile and Pocket tile (See Figs. 7 and 8) The
size and shape of the tile units could be modified according to specific requirements of the
area.

Standard tile
The tile represents an elevated 3D design for microflora to be established and proliferates on
its surface. The tile consists of two-layered concrete. The structural layer is 100 mm thick.
while the outer bioreceptive layer with a thickness of 10 mm consists of multileveled steps
ranging from 5⎯20 mm. The parameters of the tile can be seen in Fig. 7.

​Fig. 7. Standard tile parameters

14
Planter tile
The planter tile or so-called pocket tile represents the same elevated 3D design, however, the
pocket for planting is added in order to keep a wide variety of plants and to control the density
of greenery covering the walls. A structural part creates a pocket for seeding with the
thickness 10 mm. The front face layer is designed to be out of the bioreceptive concrete with
the thickness varying from 10⎯30 mm. The volume of the pocket is 3 litres which are suitable
for providing enough soil for a variety of climbing vegetation. At the bottom of the tile two
drainage holes were designed as a precaution for over-watering, as well as for decreasing the
risk of damage from freeze-thaw action. The tile parameters are shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Planter tile parameters

15
Anchoring
There are two ways of attaching tiles to the building structure, adhering and anchoring. Tiles
could be attached directly to the wall structure by wall tiles adhesives. However, due to the
weight of the concrete tiles, the installation would be more complicated and precaution of the
slipping should be in concern.

With mechanical anchoring, the tile would be attached to the wall by a suitable
anchor. The anchor consists of two parts: the anchor and the bolt (See Fig. 9 and 10). Instead
of the drilling a hole to the tile, the anchor would be embedded to the fresh concrete during
the manufacturing of the tile and therefore the possible damage of tile by drilling could be
avoided. The number and size of anchors could vary according to the specific requirements.
The benefits of this system are the faster installation and the easy replacement of tile in a case
of damage. ​The aesthetic of the tile is not compromised by any visible installation
components.

Fig. 9. Keil anchoring system with a support structure

Fig. 10. Keil anchoring system without the support structure

16
4.2. Numerical analysis

Numerical modelling in program SCIA Engineering was used to analyse the behaviour of
planter tile under the load action of soil and water inside the tile. The tile was considered as
fully fix supported on the backside.
The lateral soil and water pressure were applied on the three sides of the tile and the vertical
load on the bottom of the tile.
Considered load cases: Permanent load- self-weight, soil pressure
Variable load- water pressure
Numerical simulation results were obtained for the main stresses at both surfaces of the tile.
Greatest tension strength was 0.3 MPa and 0.9 MPa at compression at the inner surface (See
Fig. 11). For the outer surface, the highest tension was 0.9 MPa and 0.1 MPa at
compression(See Fig. 12). Detailed results on the sections are shown in the Appendix.

Fig. 11. Resulting principal stresses at inner surface of tile.

17
Fig. 12. Resulting principal stresses at outer surface of tile.

18
4.3. Design and manufacturing of tile forms

Planter tile form

The planter tile was made out of flexible silicone rubber after mixing with the catalyst at
normal room temperature. This silicone rubber is suited as a mould for casting of various
materials, in my case for concrete.
Firstly, the envisioned tile model was made out of XPS material (See Fig. 13). The
model was placed in enclosed space and the silicon (Lukopren N1522) was poured into it. The
hardened silicon created a front face and side walls of the tile form (See Fig. 14). The inner
fill for the designed hollow space of the pocket tile was made out of XPS and its surface was
covered with a fluid sealant of Lukopren S3782 as a separation layer. This assembly was
secured with clamps for rigidity and tightness of the form. The mould made out of silicon
benefits from its easy unforming due to its flexible structure. However, the replica model has
to be made very precise in order to obtain an exact shape that we wished for. Special care
should be during the mixing of Lukopren with catalyst, where exact amounts are necessary for
suitable form structure.

​ Fig. 13. Model of Planter tile ​ ​ Fig. 14. Silicon tile form

19
Standard tile form
Regarding the form for Standard tile, I have decided to use digital fabrication for this model.
In a case of digital fabrication, digital data drives manufacturing equipment such as 3D
printers, laser cutters and CNC machines, to form various geometrical shapes.

The first step was creating a virtual model of a tile form using Fusion 360 software
(See Fig. 15). The model served as an input for the fabrication tool, in my case CNC milling
machine. (CNC -Konečný s.r.o) In the machine, the tool-paths were generated to guide the
cutting tool (See Fig. 16). A solid block of XPS polystyrene of thickness 80 mm was used for
the fabricated model. The XPS block was shaped by removing material through cutting,
drilling, boring and grinding (See Fig. 17). The form was cut in the middle into two pieces for
later easier unforming. The finishing layer of silicon sealant, Lukopren S3782, was used as a
separation layer between XPS form and concrete.

Fig. 15. Modelling of 3D form in Fusion Fig. 16. Simulating of tool-path for drilling
360. machine.

20
 Fig. 17. Fabrication of tile model by using CNC milling machine

One of the advantages of using digital fabrication is that it makes more precise shapes
and details for a model which could be easily altered in the future if necessary. Work is more
efficient and previewing and simulating the tool-paths prevents future problems during
manufacturing. On the other hand, the design is limited to the size of the manufacturing
machines and the thickness of the material.

By utilizing novel design and digital fabrication methods, multileveled surface and
elevations were created to improve the facade performance. All of the designed formwork is
repeatable and can be used for further series production.

21
4.4. Developing of low pH concrete

For developing low-pH cementitious materials, Magnesium Phosphate Cement (MPC), was
chosen as a hydraulic binder to improve bioreceptive properties of concrete.

Materials
MPC is prepared by mixing MgO (M) and NH4H2SO4 (P) with retarder in a given
proportion. Dead-burned magnesia (MgO) calcinated in temperature over 1400 ℃ with low
reactivity was used. The content of MgO was at least 89 % with the particle size 0−0,1 mm.
The phosphate source used was dihydrogen ammonium phosphate. For the retarder, 6 % of
Borax was used as a weight of a total cement mix. The reaction of MPC is acid-based
neutralisation and it is strongly exothermic. The main reaction product is Struvite ​(Yang and
Wu, 1999)​(See Fig. 18). ​However, the reaction is still not well understood. A chemical
reaction of magnesium and phosphate is as follow:

MgO + NH​4​H​2​PO​4​+ 5H​2​O → MgNH​4​PO​4 ·​ ​6H​2​O

Samples preparation
In order to obtain the best pH values, the samples of different P/M ratios were tested ranged
from 1:1​−​1:1.75. The detail of all mixes is presented in Tab. 1.
The cement paste was prepared by mixing the solid components first in a dry form and then
together with water to create a cement paste. For the good workability, the optimum w/c ratios
of 0.25 and 0.3 were used for the specimens. The content was then poured into the molds of
circular shape with a diameter of 50 mm. All the samples were demolded around a period of
two hours (See Fig. 18). These samples were then tested for their pH value. The pH of cement
paste was measured by a pH strip. The surface of the samples was cleaned and then the fresh
water was dropped on it with a small plastic squirrel. After the 60 s the pH strip was inserted
into the water on the surface. The colour of the strip was then compared to the colour chart.
The pH was measured after 1 day, 4 days and 28 days.

22
 Tab. 1. pH value for various MPC mixes tested in a range of 28 days.

Sample mix: 60 g of MPC, 18 g / 15 g water, 6 % of retarder

P/M B (%) w/c pH at 1 d pH at 4 d pH at 28 d
1:1 6% 0.25 6-7 7 7

1:1.5 6% 0.3 6-7 8 8

1:1.75 6% 0.3 6-7 8 8-9

​P/M 1:1​ ​P/M 1:1.5 ​ ​P/M 1:1.75

Fig. 18. Samples of different MPC mixes.

Evaluation of pH
After evaluation of pH for different P/M ratios, the best results were obtained for the sample
with the highest amount of phosphate. All results ranged from 6−9 pH over a period of time.

The following observation was made :

The general trend observed is that the pH value increases with the decreasing of P/M ratio. It
was observed that with the time up to 4 days the pH gradually increases reaching a stable
value at the age between 4 and 28 days. The resulting tests indicate that all mixes are suitable
for the targeted pH of 5.5−8.5 with a slightly more alkaline solution for the ratio of 1:1.75.

23
4.5. Alteration of physical properties of concrete

Although microorganisms are good at adapting to their environments, certain conditions and
material properties could be improved to help prompt biological development. The high
surface rugosity with the macropore texture increases the ability of the wall to retain water on
its surface and thus creating a moist environment supporting the floral growth. For these
reasons, the porosity was the main physical property observed in my thesis.

Porosity
The pore structure of concrete is one of the most important characteristics of concrete with a
strong influence on its mechanical properties, most notably the strength, elasticity and creep
strains (Lian, Zhuge and Beecham, 2011). In general, we are trying to avoid pores in the
concrete and create well-compacted concrete with low porous structure. For my purpose, I
have the opposite aim. I want to create a porous structure for the better accumulation and
retention of water on its surface. The porosity of concrete is influenced by several factors such
as water-cement ratio, aggregate size distribution and inadequate compaction of a
cement-based material. The main focus for pore characterisation was on the use of different
aggregate sizes in the concrete mixture.

For my project, I prepared 6 samples with different grading curves (See Tab. 2 and
Fig. 19). A concrete mixture of 1 litre was prepared from 500 g of cement, 1600 g of
aggregates and 0.3 of w/c ratios for all samples. The size of aggregates was taken from 0−0.25
mm up to 3−4 mm. For these samples, I used OPC instead of MPC in order to save material
and money for further manufacturing.

24
 Tab.2. Variation of aggregates for concrete samples made from OPC.

Mixture (1L ) : Cem I 42.5R - 500 g, water - 175 g, Plasticizer - 15 g

Aggregate Size Aggregate Size Aggregate Size
(mm) Weight (g) (mm) Weight (g) (mm) Weight (g)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
3-4 - 3-4 - 3-4 -
2-3 160 2-3 320 2-3 480
1-2 480 1-2 - 1-2 -
0.5-1 480 0.5-1 640 0.5-1 640
0.25-0.5 320 0.25-0.5 400 0.25-0.5 320
0-0.25 160 0-0.25 240 0-0.25 160
Total 1600 Total 1600 Total 1600

Sample 4 Sample 5
3-4 160 3-4 160
2-3 480 2-3 480
1-2 - 1-2 240
0.5-1 480 0.5-1 320
0.25-0.5 320 0.25-0.5 240
0-0.25 160 0-0.25 160
Total 1600 Total 1600

Fig. 19. Aggregate grading curves

25
 Fig. 20. Samples of concrete with different aggregate grading curves

From the sample analysis, it can be seen that the best results were obtained with the
addition of aggregate size 3−4 mm. The highest porosity was reached in sample 4 and 5 with
very similar results (See Fig. 20). After setting the grade curve of sample 4 as the most
favourable option the sample from MPC was prepared.

​Fig. 21. MPC sample ​ ​Fig. 22. OPC sample (sample 4)

From a comparison of OPC and MPC samples with the same aggregate size
distribution, we can say that the behaviour regarding the porosity of MPC concrete is very
similar to the one of OPC concrete (See Fig. 21 and 22).

26
4.6. Concreting of tiles

After setting all necessary values and proportion for concrete mixtures, I could proceed to the
concreting of both tiles.

Standard tile: The first layer of MPC paste was poured. The substance had dry consistency
and was spread across the tile form by hand, not to consolidate it much in order to maximize
the porous structure. For the better bonding connection of two layers, the surface of MPC was
roughened. After that, the second layer of OPC was poured on top of it. The anchor with bolt
was embedded into the fresh concrete (See Fig. 23).

Fig. 23. Concreting procedure of Standard tile

27
Planter tile: ​The tile was concreted in a horizontal position. The first layer of MPC was
placed into the silicon form. Right after, the XPS pocket form was placed and attached in the
form, leaving a free space of 1 mm underneath. The mixture of OPC needed to be very fluid
in order to fill the space beneath the XPS form. The problem became when the concrete was
filling the space under the pocket form and at the same time started to uplift form from its
position. As a result, an alteration of the form was necessary and the four points, for pressing
and holding the form in the right position, were installed. This has created the four holes on
the tile backside. Another problem becomes while unmolding the tile. The inner part of the
tile form was not able to be taken off. Therefore, it was necessary to dig it out (See Fig. 24).

Fig. 24. Concreting and removing of Planter tile form

28
 5. RESULTS

In the end, two types of bi-active concrete tile were fabricated.

​Standard tile

​Planter tile

29
 Both tiles are made out of two-layered concrete. Layers can be distinguished due to
their different colouring. The first layer made out of OPC with the reinforcement of dispersed
PVA fibers has grey colour adjusted by the presence of microsilica. The second, bioreceptive
layer of MPC mixture was successfully designed in order to support microorganism growth
on its surface. The brown colour of the layer is due to the natural colour of MPC. The colour
of tiles could be altered by concrete pigments, or by addition of microsilica.
The final parameters for both mixtures of concrete layers are shown in Tab. 3.

Tab. 3. Mixture proportion of two layers of concrete

1​st​layer g/l 2​nd​layer g/l

OPC 630 MPC 500
M/P 1:1.5
w/c 226 w/c 150
aggregates 880 aggregates 1600
microsilica 60 Borax 6%
limestone 200
PVA fibres 10
Plasticizer 30

Porosity
From Fig. 26 porosity and roughness of the biorecaptive concrete layer can be clearly seen
compared to the non-porous structural layer made out of OPC. The difference in aggregates
composition of both layers is shown in Fig. 25. To achieved a suitable porosity of the outer
concrete layer, the proportions of fine aggregates were modified and aggregates of 2−3 mm
and 3−4 mm were added.

30
 Fig. 25. Comparing aggregate grade curves of OPC and MPC concrete.

Fig. 26. Rough and porous surface of tile.

pH
Evaluating the pH value of concrete tiles resulted in expected values. The P/M ratio of 1:1.5
was used for cement mixture with 6% of Borax addition. The pH of 6−7 was achieved after 1
day and increased to a value of 8−8.5 in 4 days. After that, the pH has remained stable.

31
Discussion of production quality
As a result of complications during the concreting of Planter tile, few imperfections were
detected (See Fig. 27). The OPC mixture did not entirely pass under the inner part of the tile
form, creating a small area with only one layer of magnesium phosphate concrete.

Another unexpected result of concreting is the presence of four holes caused by fixing
of inner form against the uplift. However, these holes could be used for anchoring of the tile
as well for the drainage of water at the bottom of the tile.

Fig. 27. Defects of Planter tile.

To overcome the problems in the future, an alternative solution for tile manufacturing
is suggested (See Fig. 28.). The new inner part of tile form is hollow and made out of wood.
The concreting of the tile will be proceeding in a vertical position for better form fixing and
space controlling around the inner form.

Fig. 28. New form for Planter tile.

32
 The tiles have been installed in the outdoor environment for observation of plant
coverage development as well as to analysed the long-term performance of the tile. Further
investigation would be necessary for evaluating the benefits of the entire wall composed out
of the bio-active concrete tiles.

33
 6. CONCLUSION

This project presents an alternative to the traditional green wall systems by designing and
producing a bio-active concrete tile. The tile is made of two concrete layers, a structural
(load-bearing) layer and a bioreceptive layer. Two types of a tile were designed. One is of the
regular flat shape and the other serves as a plater enabling growth of variety of plants.

An environmentally driven design with a multileveled surface structure creates

suitable niches for plant embedding and at the same time increases the ability of the climbing
plants to adhere to the surface of the wall. Moreover, the combination of various elevated
steps helps to retain and accumulate water necessary for bio-colonisation.

Regarding manufacturing of the tile moulds, the digital fabrication, which utilized
CNC milling for shaping the XPS-based moulds, proved to be very effective and precise
compared to the hand-made silicon forming which required tedious modification due the its
imperfection. A disadvantage of the digital fabrication was its manufacturing dimensional
limitations. The advantage was the precision of CNC milling which ensured desired angling
the sides of the moulds so that the moulds could be reused for further concreting.

In order to produce a low-pH cementitious material, a special type of concrete binder,

Magnesium Phosphate Cement, was used. The P/M ratios within the range used for the
samples satisfied conditions of pH for microorganism growth. It is important to note that a
decrease in P/M ratio leads to an increase in pH value. The P/M ratio of 1:1.75 showed a
slightly higher pH value after 28 days than the rest of the concrete mixes, or mortars.
Accordingly, the P/M ratio of 1:1.5 was selected to be used for the final mixture of the
bioreceptive concrete layer.

An increased surface porosity and roughness was the result of the higher aggregate
size addition, specifically, the aggregates of 2−3 mm and 3−4 mm. The high porosity and the
roughened texture together with the modified chemical composition created an environment
supporting the embedding and development of microflora. By allowing vegetation growth and

34
retention of water on its surface, the tile would be a solution for improving the initial cost and
the maintenance cost of green walls.

As for the future development, the tiles need to be further investigated in order to
assess how much and how fast the bio-colonisation takes place.

35
 REFERENCES

Bellinzoni, A., Caneva, G. and Ricci, S. (2003). Ecological trends in travertine colonisation by pioneer
algae and plant communities. ​International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation​, 51(3), pp.203-210.

Eames, M., Dixon, T., Hunt, M. and Lannon, S. (n.d.). ​Retrofitting cities for tomorrow's world.​p.4.
ECOncrete. (2019). ​About - ECOncrete.​[online] Available at: https://econcretetech.com/about/
[Accessed 20 May 2019].

Feng, H., Chen, G., Gao, D., Zhao, K. and Zhang, C. (2018). Mechanical Properties of Steel
Fiber-Reinforced Magnesium Phosphate Cement Mortar. ​Advances in Civil Engineering​, 2018,
pp.1-11.

GhaffarianHoseini, A., Dahlan, N., Berardi, U., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Makaremi, N. and
GhaffarianHoseini, M. (2013). Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: A review of
current theories, implementations and challenges. ​Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,​25,
pp.1-17.

Gorbushina, A. (2007). Life on the rocks. ​Environmental Microbiology​, 9(7), pp.1613-1631.

Greenroofs.com. (2019). ​Green Walls Becoming More Popular In Singapore Buildings -

Greenroofs.com.​[online] Available at:
https://www.greenroofs.com/2019/05/01/green-walls-becoming-more-popular-in-singapore-buildings/
[Accessed 11 May 2019].

Greenscreen.com. (2019). [online] Available at:

https://greenscreen.com/docs/Education/greenscreen_Introduction%20to%20Green%20Walls.pdf
[Accessed 7 Apr. 2019].

Growinggreenguide.org. (2019). ​Growing Green Guide | The Growing Green Guide for Melbourne
project is investigating the potential to transform Melbourne’s roofs, walls and facades into vegetated,
leafy habitats.​[online] Available at: http://www.growinggreenguide.org/ [Accessed 7 Apr. 2019].

Guillitte, O. (1995). Bioreceptivity: a new concept for building ecology studies. ​Science of The Total
Environment​, 167(1-3), pp.215-220.

Hueck, H. (2001). The biodeterioration of materials—an appraisal. ​International Biodeterioration &

Biodegradation​, 48(1-4), pp.5-11.

Ichihara, K. and Cohen, J. (2010). New York City property values: what is the impact of green roofs
on rental pricing?. ​Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences,​4(1), pp.21-30.

Iyengar, S. and Al-Tabbaa, A. (2007). Developmental Study of a Low-pH Magnesium Phosphate

Cement for Environmental Applications. ​Environmental Technology,​28(12), pp.1387-1401.

36
Li, Y. and Chen, B. (2013). Factors that affect the properties of magnesium phosphate cement.
Construction and Building Materials​, 47, pp.977-983.

Li, Y., Sun, J. and Chen, B. (2014). Experimental study of magnesia and M/P ratio influencing
properties of magnesium phosphate cement. ​Construction and Building Materials​, 65, pp.177-183.

Lian, C., Zhuge, Y. and Beecham, S. (2011). The relationship between porosity and strength for
porous concrete. ​Construction and Building Materials​, 25(11), pp.4294-4298.
Livingwallart.com. (2019). ​The History of Living Walls - Living walls and Vertical Gardens​. [online]
Available at: http://www.livingwallart.com/the-history-of-living-walls/ [Accessed 11 May 2019].

Manso, M. and Castro-Gomes, J. (2015). Green wall systems: A review of their characteristics.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews​, 41, pp.863-871.

Manso, S., De Muynck, W., Segura, I., Aguado, A., Steppe, K., Boon, N. and De Belie, N. (2014).
Bioreceptivity evaluation of cementitious materials designed to stimulate biological growth. ​Science of
The Total Environment​, 481, pp.232-241.

Miller, A., Sanmartín, P., Pereira-Pardo, L., Dionísio, A., Saiz-Jimenez, C., Macedo, M. and Prieto, B.
(2012). Bioreceptivity of building stones: A review. ​Science of The Total Environment,​426, pp.1-12.

Ortega-Morales, B., Narváez-Zapata, J., Schmalenberger, A., Sosa-López, A. and Tebbe, C. (2004).
Biofilms fouling ancient limestone Mayan monuments in Uxmal, Mexico: a cultivation-independent
analysis. ​Biofilms​, 1(2), pp.79-90.

Ottelé, M. (2011). ​The green building envelope.​Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft.

Population.un.org. (2019). [online] Available at:
https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf [Accessed 2 Apr. 2019].

Prosser, H. and Wilson, A. (1986). Development of materials based on acid-base reaction cements.
Materials & Design,​7(5), pp.262-266.

Richard-beckett.com. (2019). ​Bioreceptive Facade Panels​. [online] Available at:

http://www.richard-beckett.com/bioreceptive-facade-panels.html [Accessed 11 May 2019].

Urbanhabitats.org. (2019). ​Urban Habitats -- Green Roofs and Facades: A Habitat Template
Approach​. [online] Available at: http://www.urbanhabitats.org/v04n01/habitat_full.html [Accessed 7
Apr. 2019].

Walling, S. and Provis, J. (2016). Magnesia-Based Cements: A Journey of 150 Years, and Cements for
the Future?. ​Chemical Reviews,​116(7), pp.4170-4204.

Yang, N., Shi, C., Yang, J. and Chang, Y. (2014). Research Progresses in Magnesium Phosphate
Cement-Based Materials. ​Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,​26(10), p.04014071.

37
Yang, Q., Zhu, B., Zhang, S. and Wu, X. (2000). Properties and applications of magnesia–phosphate
cement mortar for rapid repair of concrete. ​Cement and Concrete Research​, 30(11), pp.1807-1813.

Yang, Q. and Wu, X. (1999). Factors influencing properties of phosphate cement-based binder for
rapid repair of concrete 11.This paper was originally submitted to Advanced Cement-Based Materials.
The paper was received at the Editorial Office of Cement and Concrete Research on 19 August 1998
and accepted in final form 2 December 1998. ​Cement and Concrete Research,​29(3), pp.389-396.

38
 APPENDIX

Result: 2D stress/strain, principal stresses on the specific sections, Combination: ULS-Set B

(auto)

Fig. 1. Stress on section 1 at outer face Fig. 2. Stress on section 1 at inner face

Fig. 3. Stress on section 2 at outer face Fig. 4. Stress on section 2 at inner face

39
Bio-receptive ground granulated blast-
furnace slag porous concrete substrate
By
Yasmeen Hitti

Presented to the Department of Bioresource Engineering

In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the Degree of Master of Science

McGill University, Macdonald Campus

Montreal, Québec, Canada
December 4th, 2017

©Yasmeen Hitti, 2017

 ABSTRACT

The focus of this research was to develop porous concrete for plant growth. The factors
required for vegetative application of porous concrete were: the binder material, the water to binder
ratio, the aggregate material, the aggregate size, the void content, the pH, and the electrical
conductivity (EC). The final design of the porous concrete substrate consisted of a blast furnace
slag binder, two proprietary alkali-activators, a water to binder ratio of 0.295, quartz aggregates
with a size of 2.0-3.2 mm, a void content of 30%, a pH of 10 and an EC of 1.32 mS cm-1. Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum), radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) and romaine lettuce (Lactuva sativa)
seeds were seeded planted onto the slag porous concrete for a 28 day germination and growth
experiment. The experimental treatments consisted of different concentrations of nutrient solution
provided to the porous concrete including: Hoagland normal strength (1X), double Hoagland (2X)
and quintuple Hoagland strength (5X). Rockwool with Hoagland’s normal strength was selected
as the control treatment. Statistically, the treatments were the same (P > 0.05) between the dry
mass values of the double Hoagland treatment and the control treatment. The highest fresh mass
of the slag porous concrete treatments was the radish in the double Hoagland treatment at 84.7%
of the control radish fresh mass. The highest dry mass of all treatments investigated was the radish
in the double Hoagland treatment at 125.4% of the control radish dry mass. Increased electrical
conductivity and pH was observed throughout the 28 day experiment. The differences between the
slag porous concrete treatment fresh mass and dry mass values resulted in lower water contents in
the plants with an increase of 40.7% from the radish fresh to dry mass with respect to control in
the double Hoagland. Phosphate deficiencies were observed and mostly seen in tomato plants;
tomato stems had a purple coloration. Nitrogen deficiencies were seen in the Hoagland treatment
for radishes with yellow coloring of the leaves.

Concrete is a highly alkaline material which is used in construction and typically is not
intentionally in contact with plants. To better understand the effects of alkalinity (pH), an
experiment on plant germination in alkali-saline and sodic (Na) environments was conducted. In
the experiment, alkalinity treatments investigated were: ½ buffer pH 8, buffer pH 8, buffer pH 9,
buffer pH 10 and distilled water as the control (~pH 6.5). The sodicity treatments investigated
were: 0.1 mol/L NaCl (low sodicity), and 0.3 mol/L NaCl (high sodicity). Beet (Beta vulgaris),

i
radish, romaine lettuce and tomato plants were sown in rockwool plugs. Plant germination was
hindered for all plants in both sodic and alkali environments when compared to the control. Beets
in the ½ pH 8 buffer treatment showed the highest fresh mass with respect to the water control
treatment representing 32.4% of the control fresh mass. Beets have been reported to have a high
salt tolerance and this result was expected due to the buffer having sodium and potassium (saline
cations). The radish plants were the only plant species to grow in the pH 10 treatment, representing
0.6 % fresh mass of the control radish plants. The tomato plants were the most sensitive to the
alkaline and sodic solutions resulting in only 22.7% of the control tomato fresh mass. The fresh
mass obtained in the diluted pH 8 (½ strength) were higher than the fresh mass obtained in the low
sodic treatment (0.1 mol/L NaCl). Higher concentrations of sodium had a more detrimental effect
on plant germination and growth than alkalinity and completely inhibited growth at a concentration
of 0.3 mol/L NaCl. These results showed that alkalinity and sodicity are not directly linked and
that more research is needed to better understand the effects of the alkali-saline environments.

ii
 RÉSUMÉ
Le but de cette recherche était de développer un substrat horticole à base de béton poreux. Le
matériau liant, le rapport eau / liant, les agrégats, la taille de l'agrégat et la teneur en vides ont étés
spécifiquement choisi pour permettre une bonne capillarité, un pH bas et une conductivité
électrique (EC) acceptable pour la survie des plantes. La recette finale consistait en un liant de
laitier d’acier, deux activateurs alcalins exclusifs, un rapport eau / liant de 0,295, des agrégats de
quartz de 2,0-3,2 mm, une teneur en vides de 30%, un pH de 10 et une EC de 1,32 mS cm-1. Des
graines de tomate (Solanum lycopersicum), de radis (Raphanus raphanistrum) et de laitue romaine
(Lactuva sativa) ont été semées sur le béton poreux pour une durée de 28 jours. Les différentes
concentrations de solution nutritive ont été les traitements expérimentaux: Hoagland (1X), double
Hoagland (2X) et quintuple Hoagland (5X). Le traitement Rockwool était le traitement contrôle et
a reçu une solution nutritive de Hoagland (1X). Des similarités ont été observées (P> 0,05) entre
les valeurs de masse sèche des traitements double Hoagland et contrôle. La masse fraîche la plus
élevée parmis les traitements de béton poreux était le radis dans le traitement de double Hoagland
représentant à 84,7% la masse fraîche de radis du traitement contrôle. La masse sèche la plus
élevée parmis tous les traitements était le radis dans le traitement double Hoagland représentant
125,4% de la masse sèche de radis du traitement contrôle. La conductivité électrique et le pH des
solutions ont été mesurés tout au long des 28 jours. Les différences entre les masses fraîches et
sèches ont indiqué de petites teneurs en eau dans les plantes des traitements avec béton poreux.
Une augmentation de 40,7% a été observée pour le ratio de comparaison de masse par rapport au
traitement contrôle pour le radis du traitement double Hoagland pour les données de masses
fraîches à sèches. Des carences de phosphate ont été observées chez les plants de tomates, les tiges
avaient une coloration pourpre. Des carences d’azote ont été observées dans le traitement de
Hoagland pour les radis, coloration jaune sur les feuilles.

Une expérience sur la germination des plantes dans des environnements alcalins-salins et sodiques
(Na) a été menée pour mieux comprendre l'alcalinité (pH). Les traitements d'alcalinité étudiés
étaient: tampon pH 8 dilué (½ force), tampon pH 8, tampon pH 9, tampon pH 10 et eau distillée
comme traitement de contrôle (~ pH 6,5). Les traitements de sodicité étudiés étaient: 0,1 mol / L
de NaCl (faible sodicité) et 0,3 mol / L de NaCl (forte sodicité). La betterave (Beta vulgaris), le

iii
radis, la laitue romaine et la tomate ont été semés sur des substrats de laine de roche. Les betteraves
dans le traitement tampon de pH 8 (½ force) ont eu une masse fraîche plus élevée représentant
32,4% de la masse fraîche de betterave du traitement contrôle. Les betteraves avaient une tolérance
élevée au sel et ce résultat était anticipé car le tampon contenait des cations salins (potassium et
sodium). Les radis étaient la seule espèce végétale à croître dans le traitement au pH 10,
représentant 0,6% de la masse fraîche des plantes de radis dans le traitement contrôle. Les tomates
étaient les plus sensibles aux solutions alcalines et sodiques, représentant 22,7% de la masse
fraîche de tomates du traitement contrôle. La masse fraîche obtenue dans le pH 8 (½ force) était
plus élevée que la masse fraîche obtenue dans le traitement bas sodique (0,1 mol / L de NaCl). Des
concentrations plus élevées de sodium ont eu de plus grands effets néfastes sur la germination et
la croissance des plantes en comparaison de l'alcalinité. La croissance inhibée a été observé à une
concentration de NaCl de 0,3 mol / L. Ceci suggère que l'alcalinité et la sodicité ne sont pas
entièrement liées et que d’avantage la recherche est nécessaire pour mieux comprendre les effets
des environnements alcalins-salins.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Lefsrud for the amazing opportunity, the encouragements and
keeping my curiosity constantly active. I have much to thank for him, but most of all I respect his
outlook on life. Equally, I would like to thank my parents and sister for hanging in there and
believing in me. They have definitely seen all emotional sides to this Master. I would also like to
thank CEMEX and Innovertec for their financial support. I would personally like to thank the
entire research team at CEMEX for taking me in as their apprentice in the chemistry niche world
of concrete. Also, a big thank you to the Biomass Laboratory people for their craziness and a
special thank you to Julie Jarjour for whom my last experiments would not have been possible.
Lastly, I wish to thank Julien Chapelat and Cyndy A.Iñiguez for their precious patience, knowledge
and guidance throughout my quest to lowering the pH of concrete.

v
 FORMAT OF THESIS
This thesis explores two different topics which involve hydroponic plant growth in alkaline
environments. Both projects have been formatted as articles in the intent of publishing them.
Chapter 4 describes the experiment of plant growth in concrete substrates and is intended for
submission in the journal of Ecological Engineering. Chapter 5 investigates the difference between
alkalinity and salinity in hydroponic germination and is intended for submission in the journal of
Horticultural Technology.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................... i
RÉSUMÉ ..................................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................ v
FORMAT OF THESIS ................................................................................................................................ vi
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS ............................................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Reasoning behind the research topic ............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Research problem.......................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1. Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2. Hypothesis............................................................................................................................. 2
Chapter 2: Review of vegetation in porous concrete................................................................................... 3
2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2.2. Porous concrete design requirements for vegetation ......................................................................... 4
2.2.1. Cementitious material ................................................................................................................. 4
2.2.2. Water to binder ratio ................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.3. Aggregates .................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.4. Void............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3. Applications ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.1. Urban greenery............................................................................................................................ 7
2.3.2. Eco-restoration ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Connecting statement to Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................. 11
Chapter 3: Porous concrete substrate design ............................................................................................. 12
3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2. Design constraints ....................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.1. Binder selection......................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2. Aggregate selection ................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.3. Void content .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Materials and methods .................................................................................................................. 15
3.3.1. Substrate preparation................................................................................................................. 15

vii
 3.3.2. Data collection .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.3. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.3.1. Ion chromatography .................................................................................................................. 17
3.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 18
3.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Connecting statement to Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................. 21
Chapter 4: Plant growth response in porous slag concrete substrates ....................................................... 22
4.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 22
4.2. Materials and methods ..................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1. Porous concrete substrate material ............................................................................................ 23
4.2.2. Pre-germination soaking ........................................................................................................... 23
4.2.3. Experimental plant growth test ................................................................................................. 23
4.2.4. Data collection .......................................................................................................................... 24
4.2.5. Data analysis ............................................................................................................................. 25
4.3. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 25
4.3.1. Germination test results ............................................................................................................ 25
4.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 30
4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 35
Connecting statement to Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................. 36
Chapter 5: Effects of high pH salinity vs. neutral pH sodicity on plant germination in hydroponics ....... 37
5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 37
5.2. Materials and methods ..................................................................................................................... 38
5.2.1. Experimental materials ............................................................................................................. 38
5.2.2. Alkalinity and sodicity germination test ................................................................................... 39
5.2.3. Data collection .......................................................................................................................... 39
5.2.5. Data analysis ............................................................................................................................. 40
5.3. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 40
5.4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 46
5.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 50
Chapter 6: Final summary, contribution to knowledge and future recommendations .............................. 51
6.1. Final Summary ................................................................................................................................. 51
6.2. Contribution to knowledge............................................................................................................... 52
6.3. Future recommendations .................................................................................................................. 52

viii
References ................................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................. 70
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................. 72
Pilot test .............................................................................................................................................. 73
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................. 78

ix
 CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS
For this thesis the contribution of authors are such as: (1) Yasmeen Hitti – designed and
optimized the porous concrete substrate, planned and conducted experiments, data collection,
processing and explanation of results; (2) Dr. Mark Lefsrud - supervised experimental design,
guidance, knowledge and reviewed thesis; (3) Dr. Marie-Josée Dumont - co-supervised the topics
investigated in Chapter 5, guidance and reviewed thesis. (4) Dr. Julien Chapelat – provided
technical concrete expertise, optimized design mixes and helped experimental set up in
Switzerland.

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Chemical and physical properties of the final slag porous concrete substrate. ................................. 17
Table 3.2 Ion chromatography (IC) for the still cold, cold pressure and hot pressure washes conducted on
porous slag concrete. .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 4.1 Nutrient salts in the Hoagland, double Hoagland and quintuple Hoagland treatments with their
respective concentrations. .................................................................................................................................. 24
Table 4.2 Average fresh mass and ratio in comparison to rockwool fresh mass for Hoagland, double Hoagland
and quintuple Hoagland treatments.................................................................................................................... 29
Table 4.3 Average dry mass and ratio in comparison to rockwool for Hoagland, double Hoagland and
quintuple Hoagland treatments........................................................................................................................... 30
Table 5.1 Ingredients for all treatments investigated: pH 8, pH 9 and pH 10.................................................... 38
Table 5.2 Sodium concentrations for all sodic or alkaline treatments investigated ........................................... 38
Table 5.3 Average fresh mass per plant for all alkaline and sodic treatments. .................................................. 44
Table B.1 Hoagland ingredients for treatments with nutrients in pilot test ........................................................ 74
Table B.2 Average fresh mass and ratio comparison to rockwool for pilot experiment ..................................... 74
Table B.3 Average dry mass and ratio comparison to rockwool for pilot experiment ....................................... 74
Table B.4 Pilot experiment raw data over 28 day period ................................................................................... 74
Table B.1 Chapter 4 experiment raw data over 28 day period .......................................................................... 74
Table C.1 Chapter 5 experiment (a) data per treatment..................................................................................... 78
Table C.2 Chapter 5 experiment (b) data for each treatment ............................................................................. 79

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Different slag porous concrete samples with variating ranges of alkali activators used.. ............... 19
Figure 4.1 Average EC response of the Hoagland, double Hoagalnd, quintuple Hoagalnd and rockwool
treatments over a period of 28 days .................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 4.2 Average pH response of the Hoagland, double Hoagalnd, quintuple Hoagalnd and rockwool
treatments over a period of 28 days. ................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 4.3 Average plant viability of the Hoagland, double Hoagalnd, quintuple Hoagalnd and rockwool
treatments over a period of 28 days .................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 4.4 Pictures of all plant species harvested for every treatment investigated.. ........................................ 41
Figure 5.1 EC values for the all treatments investigated in the experiment. ...................................................... 41
Figure 5.2 All pH values for the all treatments investigated in the experiment.................................................. 41
Figure 5.3 Plant viability for the all treatments investigated in the experiment................................................. 41
Figure 5.4 The fresh mass of beet with respect to Na+ concentration fo alklaine and sodic treatments. ........... 41
Figure 5.5 The fresh mass of radish with respect to Na+ concentration fo alklaine and sodic treatments. ....... 41
Figure 6.1 Different aggregate slag porous concrete substrates. ...................................................................... 53
Figure 6.2 Multi aggregate size porous concrete substrate design .................................................................... 53
Figure 6.3 Grass experiment at CEMEX ............................................................................................................ 54
Figure A.1 slag binder testing with different concentrations of activators ........................................................ 70
Figure A.2 Unreacted aluminosilicates for the initial recipe of slag porous concrete ....................................... 70
Figure A.3 Diameter measures taken with the software provided with the high resolution microscope............ 71
Figure A.4 Pore area calculations with software from the high resolution microscope .................................... 71
Figure B.1 Root networking with root diameter measurements ......................................................................... 72
Figure B.2 root in the slag porous substrate with root hairs.............................................................................. 72

xii
 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Reasoning behind the research topic
As metropolitan areas are becoming more densely populated, new sustainable technologies are
required in order to ensure a stable food supply. In 2014, it was estimated that 50% of the world’s
population was found in cities and this number is expected to increase (Eigenbrod and Gruda,
2015). Due to the low accessibility of fresh local food in growing urban environments, urban
agriculture has the potential to become a major source of urban food production. In the last 30
years urban agriculture has had a 30% growth in the United States (Lin et al., 2015). Urban
agriculture can be practiced through different forms such as: green roofs, green walls, vertical
farming, urban greenhouses, community gardens and edible landscapes (Mok et al., 2014; Lin et
al., 2017). The majority of urban agricultural infrastructure requires hydroponic technologies to
ensure plant growth (Thomaier et al., 2015). Hydroponics enable plants to grow in water based
nutrient solution with a rooting media to help anchor plant roots (Jensen and Collins, 1985).

One of the most common challenges in hydroponic systems is selecting a proper rooting
substrate that will provide support, water access and elemental nutrients. The industry standard
rooting substrate is rockwool (Grodan A-OK Starter Plugs, The ROCKWOOL Group) for
commercial hydroponic systems (Jones Jr., 2016). However, this product has disposal issues, is
non-biodegradable and can be used at most for two rounds of germination (Inden and Torres,
2001). From a mechanical stability standpoint, rockwool is inadequate for exterior applications
and its lifespan is too short for outdoor applications. A higher strength and durable material is
necessary for exterior urban agricultural systems requiring rooting substrates. There is a strong
demand for a more flexible and feasible material that can promote growth in all types of
environments (Bougoul et al., 2005). Interest is shifting towards utilizing a material that is common
to all types of construction and potentially be integrated with existing roads, buildings and more.
Concrete is an extensively used building material, and with the development of novel concrete
technologies a refined agricultural rooting substrate could be created. Porous concrete has a strong
physical structure which allows for water and air permeability, which are critical elements
necessary for successful rooting substrates (Obla and Sabnis, 2009).
1.2. Research problem
The research problem for this thesis is the development of a porous concrete based substrate
to be used for plant growth.

1.2.1. Goals
The goal is to design a porous concrete substrate that will allow for a healthy plant growth,
equivalent to plants grown using rockwool in controlled environments. The sub-objectives to prove
this technology are:

 Determine plant growth under high pH conditions similar to concrete.

 Grow plants in sodic and saline-alkali environments to demonstrate the differences of the
effects on plant growth.
 Select binder materials and aggregate materials that would create suitable conditions to
promote plant growth.
 Perform germination and short duration growth trials on porous concrete substrates to
determine plant growth response.

1.2.2. Hypothesis
Healthy plant growth on porous concrete can be achieved with the right nutrient solution and
the correct binder material. The combination of these two criteria would allow for the availability
of all essential ions to the plant. The sub-hypotheses to prove this hypothesis are:

 Plant growth may not be hindered in higher pH material depending on the available ions
and salinity.
 Concrete can have different types of binders which can allow for a lower pH of the material.
 Plant growth in concrete can allow for different ion absorption and can vary by plant
species and cultivar.

2
 Chapter 2: Review of vegetation in porous concrete
2.1. Introduction
Porous concrete is known for its ability to transport water and air through its matrix (Kim and
Park, 2016). The interconnected pores and high void content of porous concrete allow for the water
and air to circulate (Obla and Sabnis, 2009). The gaseous and liquid substances in the pores create
a pressure gradient which ensures the permeability of the porous concrete (Castro et al., 2011).
Porous concrete ingredients consist of a cementitious material, aggregates, water and admixtures
(Tennis et al., 2004). Once the ingredients are mixed together, the aggregates are sporadically
assembled with a thin coat of binder material creating assemblages between particles (Ghafoori
and Dutta, 1995). Porous concrete is referred to as no-fines concrete due to the specific usage of
coarse aggregates in its mixtures, other names include: pervious concrete and permeable concrete
(Dhir and Dyer, 1996).

Porous concrete became popular in the 1980s for its drainage properties and consequently
became a specialized material for parking lots and other paved surfaces (Han et al., 2017).
Nowadays, this concrete technology is essential for urban surface runoff management as a result
of its rapid removal of excess surface water and its ability to refill ground-water (Ghafoori and
Dutta, 1995). Paved porous concrete surfaces include: highways, streets, sidewalks, pool decks
and parking lots (Chen et al., 2013). Through these applications, water is filtered through the
porous concrete and can remove phosphor and nitrogen found in storm water (Drake et al., 2014;
Park and Tia, 2004). Sediment capture at the surface of the porous concrete lessens the chances of
pollutants to reach larger bodies of water such as ponds, rivers, lakes and the ocean (Sabnis, 2011).
In Japan, porous concrete is considered an environmentally friendly material because of its
hydrological benefits (Bhutta et al., 2012). Noticeable growth improvements for urban vegetation
has been observed as an outcome to porous concrete infrastructures which reduce soil compaction,
increase nutrient availability and improved water accessibility (Craul, 1985). Plant growth on
concrete has been seen in eco-restoration and slope protection projects (Dhir and Dyer, 1996).
Unlike impervious concrete, porous concrete has the potential to provide a structural environment
that can promote and sustain plant life (Wen-jie et al., 2012). Porous concrete has the capacity to
change concrete landscapes and structures with vegetated surfaces.

3
 Concrete is an inevitable material in the world of construction and its effects on the
environment and ecosystem have been in some cases detrimental (production of carbon dioxide,
urban heat, runoff and etc.) (Dhir and Dyer, 1996). Porous concrete has the capability to correct
this ecological damage and provide a plant growth system to further improve urban vegetation.
The goal of this thesis is to assess the relationship between concrete and vegetation, more precisely
overview porous concrete used for plant growth and its applications.

2.2. Porous concrete design requirements for vegetation

Any rooting matrix for plants requires the ability to move water, nutrients and air through
its medium (Raviv, 2007). The chemical composition of the concrete can interact with the essential
nutrients required for plant growth, and modify the pH of the solution in contact with the concrete.
Fluctuations of the pH reduce certain nutrient availabilities and directly impact plant growth
(Lemaire, 1994). The pH of the rooting matrix for plant growth has to be maintained below 10 and
is recommended below 9 to adequately enable plant growth (Wu et al., 2013). The essential
physical design requirements for porous concrete substrates are a large enough pore size for the
roots to network and material capillarity for water, nutrient and oxygen accessibility (Lemaire,
1994).

2.2.1. Cementitious material

Cementitious material in a concrete mix plays an adhesive role by binding the solid
particles together (Hewlett, 2003). The most common blends of cementitious materials used in the
making of porous concrete are: Portland cement, natural pozzolans (volcanic ashes) and siliceous
by-products (slag and fly ash) (Papadakis and Tsimas, 2002). By definition, concrete binders are
alkaline and can have fixating and adsorbing properties that are material dependent (Saricimen et
al., 2003). The varying chemical compositions and properties of each binding material can cause
specific chemical reactions when in contact with growing vegetation and the plant nutrients,
especially nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus (Bernal et al., 2011). The binder material needs to
ensure the availability of nutrients, consequently the pH of the binder material has to remain around
9 and have a low ion exchange capacity (Peterson, 1982). Ion interactions between the porous
concrete binder and the nutrient solution can unbalance nutrient accessibility and as a consequence,
increase electrical conductivity and form precipitates (Wiser and Blom, 2016). Under these
conditions, the osmotic pressure around the roots becomes considerably higher than the osmotic

4
pressure inside the plant, and therefore the water absorption capacity is hindered (Smarakoon et
al., 2006).

Portland cement
The most common binder in concrete is Portland cement since its creation in 1824
(Hewlett, 2003). Portland cement is an extremely alkaline binder with a pH of 13. The high pH of
Portland cement is due to its chemical composition that consists of 61-67% calcium oxide (CaO)
and 17-25% silicon dioxide (SiO2) (Glasser, 1997). Through different hydrating phases, Portland
cement forms calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) that has a pH of 12.5 and can precipitate calcium
carbonate (CaCO3) when in the presence of carbon dioxide (CO2) (Matschei et al., 2007). When in
contact with water, the cement dust releases aluminum and calcium hydroxide into the surrounding
environment, resulting in a higher pH and higher electrical conductivity. Similarly, the alkaline
pH of the substrate directly impacts plant growth by decreasing the nutrient availability to the roots
(Steffes, 1999; Ramesh et al., 2014).

Pozzolans
Pozzolans are aluminous and siliceous materials that are binding agents in cement
(Hewlett, 2003). Pozzolanic materials are used in binder mixes for their ability to react with
Ca(OH)2 which enhances the durability of the material (Payà et al., 2003). Typically, pozzolanic
materials are blended with Portland cement and can be produced naturally or artificially. Natural
pozzolans come from volcanic ashes and calcined earths such as clay (Sabir et al., 2001). Artificial
pozzolans originate from different industries and undergo chemical modifications in high
temperature procedures (Hewlett, 2003). The majority of artificial pozzolanic materials emerge
from industries such as: coal, copper, iron and steel (Hamdulay and John). Pozzolanic materials
are of interest for vegetation applications in concrete since they bind free lime (calcium oxide)
when in contact with water and consequently reduce the pH of the binder (Tarnai et al., 2013).

Alkali activated geopolymers

Alkali activated geopolymers are alumina silicate materials that require alkalis in order to
react (Davidovits, 2013). Unlike traditional Portland cement, hydration is not sufficient to create
the chemical bonds to harden the geopolymers. These geopolymers are produced through a
reaction between aluminosilicates and alkalis that results in amorphous three dimensional
networks (Tho-in et al., 2012). The most common geopolymer materials used are fly ash, slag,

5
metakaolin and silica fume. These materials are either by-products from existing industries or
pozzolanic materials and can be referred to as cements for eco-concrete (McLellan et al., 2011).
These types of binders can supplement Portland cement and represent a higher fraction of the dry
materials used in the creation of concrete. The most common mixtures consist of Portland cement
with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) or fly ash (Hamdulay and John, 2015).
Geopolymers can be used as the sole binder ingredient with alkali activators; however the
concentration of alkalis will increase, resulting in a higher pH (Duxson et al., 2007). Porous
concrete with lower content of alkali-activators have a lower pH which results in lower
compressive strength (Oh et al., 2014). Porous concrete as a plant substrate have included binders
that consist of a large amounts of geopolymers in order to reduce the alkalinity of the concrete.
For example, with a percentage by mass of 80-88% crushed steel slag and 10-19.5% Portland
cement for the binder, a pH between 8 and 10 was obtained (Liu et al., 2009). Blast-furnace slag
with a sodium silicate activator that was designed for vegetative blocks had a final pH of 9-10 (Oh
et al., 2014).

2.2.2. Water to binder ratio

The mix proportions of the water to binder ratio for any type of concrete are important
since it is a controlling agent for the durability of the concrete (Zain et al., 2000). As the water to
binder ratio increases, the strength and durability of the concrete increases (Aïtcin, 2000). For
porous concrete structures, the water to binder ratio is most common from 0.27 to 0.43
(Sriravindrarajah et al., 2012). Several porous concrete designs set a water/binder ratio to 0.30 as
it ensures a good strength and permeability (Yahia and Kabagire, 2014).

2.2.3. Aggregates
Porous concrete consists of a mixture without fine aggregates and only uses coarse
aggregates (Dhir and Dyer, 1996). The interconnected voids and pore dimensions are governed by
the size of the aggregates (Neithalath et al., 2010). Consequently, these factors will determine the
amount of binder paste necessary to use in order to ensure contact between aggregates (Marolf et
al., 2004). A variety of aggregate materials have been used in the production of porous vegetative
concrete blocks, such as: geopolymer materials, recycled aggregate materials, gravel stone, clay
stone and quartz (Hewlett, 2003; Hu and Guo, 2009). The size of the coarse particles used in
vegetated porous concrete can vary and studies have shown that particles can range from 2-4 mm
6
and from 5-13 mm (Dhir and Dyer, 1996; Bhutta et al., 2012). A study reported the production of
porous vegetative concrete blocks which utilized aggregates with a diameter of 25 mm (Oh et al.,
2014). However, the minimum pore size that enables plant roots to network through porous
concrete has not been defined.

2.2.4. Void
Porous concrete, designed for promoting vegetation, needs a high void content to achieve
continuous pores for root formation and water access (Kim and Park, 2016). According to the
performance standard of the Korea Ministry of Environment Mark Certification, the void content
in permeable concrete for vegetation should be no less than 25 % (Kim et al., 2016). Similarly,
Japan law states that porous concrete used for plant growth must have porosity within a range of
18-30 % (Tarnai et al., 2013).

2.3. Applications
Porous concrete can be useful in a wide variety of applications either rural or urban. Porous
concrete for bio-receptive applications can dramatically change landscapes for aesthetics and
environmental issues. Moreover, the benefits of vegetated porous concrete can benefit urban
scenery and ecosystems by increasing the range of plants in urban centers.

2.3.1. Urban greenery

With an increase in urban population and urban sprawl, the demand for urban greenery has
escalated. Greenery can be found in parks, buildings, private properties and on the streets (Wong
and Chen, 2010). The development of greening systems in urban centers has initiated the
investigation of different substrates and materials to support plant life. Selection of materials can
be difficult when considering all requirements to support vegetative systems. Notably, urban
greenery can be seen on buildings, supporting city trees and in noise barriers (Tennis et al., 2004;
Wong et al., 2010). The applications of urban greenery can benefit mental states, carbon dioxide
concentrations and have local cooling effects (Wong et al., 2010).

Building greenery
Many modern buildings have been developed with green roofs and green facades. A variety
of systems have proven effective to accomplishing the task. However, the technologies behind
vegetating exterior vertical and horizontal surfaces have many difficulties and require different
materials. Greening systems include: green roofs, green walls, green facades and living walls
7
(Manso and Castro-Gomes, 2015). The structures are classified as continuous or modular and
consequently limit the type of plants that can be included in the respective designs because they
provide distinct types of support to the plants (McDonough et al., 2003). The modular
arrangements can bear a wider selection of green spaces and typically include rooting matrices
used in hydroponic settings. The substrates allow the development of the roots and are typically
utilized in controlled environments, making them less suitable to exterior factors. The longevity
of materials used for building greenery is typically inferior to those used for construction purposes
but this highlights the need to develop green materials that may have better structural and
endurance properties.

Porous concrete is a material which is used as a drainage system in green roof systems.
Porous concrete is used to channel excess water off the building (Quand, 2012). Total void content
and aggregate size can vary with respect to the different design requirements and layering of the
green roof system. The applications of porous concrete on green roofs have begun to grow plants
directly in the concrete (Oh et al., 2014). The cement paste utilized for the porous concrete in such
applications typically include: fly ash, metakaolin, or slag (Hongzhu, 2016). Experiments have
been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of porous concrete as the planting foundation for
green roof systems. Different types of binder mixtures and void contents are found in building
greening porous concrete. For example, a porous concrete binder mixture consisting of 60%
Portland cement and 40% fly ash type F with a continuous void ratio of 30% has been used (Quan,
2012). Other types of binders such as pozzolana cement and sulfoaluminate cements have been
tested in China and have proven to lower pH close to 9. Pozzolan-blended binders have been used
in green vegetation concrete found on roofs, balconies and building facades (Rui, 2014).

Urban trees
City trees represent a significant part of urban vegetation and grow under and around
concrete structures (Tennis et al., 2004). Research has been reported on significant soil compaction
and harsh conditions for tree roots under impervious concrete, where circulation of water and
oxygen are lacking (Mullaney et al., 2015). Porous concrete has been investigated in order to
ameliorate this condition and have resulted in better water and air circulation (Ferguson 2005).
Porous concrete around trees allow for better storm water management and benefits the roots that
can reuse the drained runoff water (Bhutta et al., 2012). Growth observations have been conducted

8
under experiments comparing Platanus orientalis tree growth in non-porous and porous concrete.
Results indicate notable improvements in height and root biomass. After 18 months, the trees were
28 % taller and the root biomass was greater than the plants grown in non-porous concrete
(Mullaney et al., 2015).

Noise absorption
Studies have shown that porous concrete and plants can individually be used in
metropolitan areas as sound barriers. Existing installations of vertical greenery on concrete walls
have exhibited noticeable noise reduction (Wong et al., 2010). According to literature, no tests
have been conducted on vegetated porous concrete blocks; however both plants and porous
concrete are used independently for this specific application (Wong et al., 2010). Noise barriers
have a large range of applications and can be found on building facades, near railways, on
expressways and elevated roads (Tarnai et al., 2013).

2.3.2. Eco-restoration
With the development of metropolitan areas, notably the construction of highways, lands
surrounding cities have been subject to hydrological, topographical and environmental changes.
Impervious concrete has been used to rehabilitate slopes and rivers that have been damaged by
construction projects (Flatt et al., 2012). However, the impervious concrete does not always correct
soil erosion and match microclimates typically found in these environments (Chen et al., 2013).
Porous concrete is able to improve the functionality of the environmentally sensitive area by
reducing erosion and increasing microbial activity of the soil. Often referred to as eco-concrete,
the permeable concrete insures water and air circulation to the soil on the slopes (Wu et al., 2009).
Equally vegetated porous concrete structures are used in rivers to prevent riverbeds from settling
unevenly. The large pores in the concrete enable the roots to network through and anchor
themselves in the riverbed, connecting the porous concrete to the bottom of the river (Wu et al.,
2009).

Nearly all bio-receptive concretes used in slope restoration projects contain a binder,
aggregates, reinforcement material, rooting media, seeds and fertilizer. The rooting media acts as
filler within the porous concrete network (Yuan et al., 2010). Filling the continuous voids with a
rooting media enables the plants to access the essential nutrients and reduces the alkalinity. The
plant promoting substances include a rooting media with water-absorbent polymers and slow

9
release fertilizers. The most common rooting media used for eco-concrete are pond scum, peat,
sawdust and soil (Hu and Guo 2009).

2.4. Conclusion
Important design factors when making porous concrete for vegetative purposes are: binder,
water to binder ratio, aggregate material, aggregate size, void content, pH and conductivity. The
most utilized binder material for this type of porous concrete has cementitious properties, a lower
pH and originates from waste industries. Earlier studies report that the water to binder ratio used
in such applications is of 0.3 (Yahia and Kabagire, 2014). Current studies have confirmed that
permeable concrete is a promising construction material that can support vegetation either in
restoration projects or urban greenery. Vegetative porous concrete have been most utilized in eco-
restoration projects and to accommodate city trees. The bio-receptive porous concrete technology
is still under development and research is still required to ensure a healthy environment for plants.

10
 Connecting statement to Chapter 3
In Chapter 3 different materials were investigated as porous concrete binders in order to
produce a porous concrete substrate prototype. The recipe was developed in collaboration with
CEMEX CRG (Biel, Switzerland). The following chapter describes the decisions and design
properties that were pursued in order to achieve a substrate that could allow for plant germination
and growth. The design parameters that were taken into account were: binder material, aggregate
material, aggregate size, water to binder ratio, and admixture selection.

11
 Chapter 3: Porous concrete substrate design
3.1. Introduction
In soilless growing cultures, substrates are essential components in hydroponic systems
since they provide a structural base for roots to anchor themselves and allow for constant water
and oxygen uptake. Germination substrates may come in loose form or as a porous matrix and can
be made out of mineral, organic or synthetic materials (Raviv, 2007). Rooting substrates are known
as germination substrates, hydroponic substrates and growing media (Savvas, 2003). The most
frequently used substrate in horticultural vegetable production in northern Europe and North
America is rockwool (The ROCKWOOL Group) (Allaire et al., 2005). In comparison to other
available substrates, rockwool is preferred by growers because of its high yield of biomass (Van
Os, 1982). Despite the growing advantages, rockwool is an expensive product and is confronted
with disposal problems making it non-environmentally friendly (Urrestarazu et al., 2008). Equally,
rockwool is not suitable for all technologies requiring hydroponic systems, in non-controlled
environments such as: exterior urban agriculture, green walls, green roofs and vegetative
restoration projects. Currently, no plant substrate is versatile enough to allow for indoor and
outdoor plant growth (Jones, 2016).

The main elements in concrete consist of water, a binder and aggregates. When changing
the ratios of the main ingredients, the final product results in different forms of concrete such as
porous concrete (Tennis et al., 2004). Notably, this type of concrete is labelled as non-traditional
and allows the passage of water and gas through its pores (Kim and Park, 2016). Porous concrete
has been utilized for pavement purposes in North America and the United Kingdom for the past
40 years (Chindaprasirt et al., 2008). However, the application of porous concrete has not been
limited to pavements and has been used in a diverse set of applications such as: vegetation beds,
noise absorbance barriers, drainage systems and restoration projects (Chindaprasirt et al., 2008).
A considerable amount of urban terrain is covered in concrete which gives an advantage to a porous
concrete substrate for installation purposes. The goal for this substrate design was to tailor the
porous concrete to allow for a healthy plant growth, by selecting the appropriate binder, aggregate
and void content.

12
3.2. Design constraints
In collaboration with CEMEX (Biel, Switzerland), different materials were tested and
investigated in order to develop a substrate that could support plant germination and growth.
Certain requirements were necessary in order to promote plant growth through a rooting media.
The first set of substrates were designed following a set of physical and chemical properties such
as: compressive strength, air content, void size, water holding capacity, capillarity, pH and
electrical conductivity (EC) (Lemaire, 1994).

3.2.1. Binder selection

The main concern in developing porous concrete was selecting a binder material that could
allow for growing conditions without significantly impacting plant growth and the nutrient
solution. Substrate materials used in horticultural industries are pH neutral and non-conductive
(Lemaire, 1994). Traditional cement has a high pH which undergoes an alkali silica reaction over
time (Taylor, 1997). When Portland cement and water come in contact, the resulting byproduct of
the hydration are calcium silicate hydrates (CSH) which consequently produce a large amount of
calcium hydroxide (Schiopu et al., 2009). The curing of concrete occurs through a hydration
reaction, leachates (calcium hydroxide) cause fixation issues when in contact with salts from the
nutrient solutions (Lemaire, 1994). An alternate solution to Portland cement are geopolymers, a
binder material containing aluminosilicates. Most geopolymers are byproducts from existing
industries such as; copper, steel and coal (Hamdulay, 2015). The debris produced by these
industries are fly ash, metakaolin, silica fume and slag (also referred to as ground granulated burnt
furnace slag (GGBFS)).

Vegetative blocks have been made out of slag binders where the pH values ranged from 9
to 10 (Oh et al., 2014). The root zone pH is one of the critical factors necessary for a healthy plant,
it is for this reason slag was chosen as the binder for the substrate mix design. The challenge arising
from selecting a geopolymer as a binder was the usage of alkali-activators. The activation of the
aluminous and siliceous elements of a geopolymer only occurs with a strong alkali. This type of
chemically bonded cement typically requires a combination of sodium hydroxide and sodium
silicate as activators (Brough and Atkinson, 2002). To minimize damage to the plant health, the
amount of activators needs to be kept as low as possible to have the entirety of the binder react to
reduce free surface ions and reduce the alkalinity of the material. A complete reaction (or
approaching complete) is required to reduce the amount of unreacted surface ions and sodium in
13
the mix. The surface cations affect the cation exchange capacity of the substrate and impact the
availability of nutrients available to the plant (Sonneveld and Voogt, 2009). The slag used for the
recipe originated from a steel manufacturing company in Dortmund, Germany.

3.2.2. Aggregate selection

Porous concrete mixtures only contain coarse aggregates in order to create interconnected
void spaces (Dhir and Dyer, 1996). The pore size of the porous concrete and the amount of
necessary binders is determined by the dimensions of the chosen aggregate (Neithalath et al., 2010;
Marolf et al., 2004). Different aggregate materials (expanded glass, expanded clay and quartz)
were tested in prototypes. The expanded clay and glass were difficult aggregate materials to handle
due to their high water absorbance capacity and low densities ranging from 200 to 600 kg/m3
(Ducman et al., 2002; Bogas et al., 2012). Quartz was an easy material to handle and has neutral
chemical properties with a very low water absorbance (Mecchia et al., 2014). When producing
porous concrete mixes, the quartz resulted in a more uniform mix than the other aggregates tested.
The design of the porous concrete substrate block in this study will focus on the quartz material as
the aggregate.

The design recipe needed to take into account the minimal pore size for the roots to network
in the porous concrete. Continuous voids were required in order to allow the passage of the roots.
Literature states that granular media with small sized particles can cause pressures that inhibit root
growth (Abdalla and Hettiaratchi, 1969). The pore size varies for all hydroponic media and range
between 0.2 mm to 5 mm (Ramsey and Ungerleider, 2008). Within this range, the available sizes
for Bernasconi quartz aggregates were 0.3 mm to 0.9 mm or 2 mm to 3.2 mm. The larger aggregate
sizes (2 mm to 3.2 mm) were selected to minimize root pressure.

The design recipe also took into account the dry rodded density to better understand how
much void there was in an occupied volume. The ASTM C29 norm was followed to understand
the mass to volume relationship with respect to the chosen aggregate (ASTM C29/ C29M-17a,
2017).

3.2.3. Void content

The minimum void required as required by the Korea Ministry of Environment Mark
Certification is 25% (Kim et al., 2016). Comparably, Japan laws stipulate that the porosity of
permeable concrete should range between 18% and 30% when designed to promote plant growth
14
(Dhir and Dyer, 1996). Following these ranges, the void content was set at 30% on the mix design
tool provided by CEMEX.

3.3 Materials and methods

3.3.1. Substrate preparation
The voids (set to 30%), the dry rodded density of the quartz aggregates (1555 kg/m3), and
the water to binder ratio (0.295) were the main values required to compute the necessary amounts
of other ingredients. As a result, the amount of aggregate mass, binder mass, water volume, and
activator volume were calculated. The proprietary CEMEX activators ISO 950 and ISO 930 were
respectively recommended at 3.67% and 5.4% of the paste (water and slag). All dry ingredients,
slag and quartz, were mixed in small portable concrete mixer (5L bucket). The dry ingredients
were mixed to reach a homogenous consistency and the water mixed with the activators was
poured slowly over the rotating dry material. The fresh porous concrete was mixed until it reached
a uniform texture and was poured into molds with dimensions of 4 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm. The molds
were placed in a steam curing chamber at 40 °C for 8 hours. Following the steam curing period
the molds were transferred to the curing chamber room at 98.4% relative humidity at a temperature
of 22 °C for 72 hours

3.3.2. Data collection

Chemical properties of the slag porous concrete substrate were defined with electrical
conductivity (EC), pH and ion chromatography (IC) measurements of the water in contact with
the substrates. Physical properties of the slag porous concrete substrate were defined with
compressive strength, mass, volume, water saturation and water holding capacity measurements.

EC
Porous concrete samples were individually placed in 200 mL of water and a hand held
probe was used to collect EC measurements. The hydroponic EC probe (DiST 6
EC/TDS/Temperature Tester, Hanna Instruments, RI, US) was placed directly into 200 mL water
solutions. The measures taken with the probe were expressed in millisiemens per centimeter
(mS/cm). The EC test had 5 replicates and 3 measurements were taken for each replicate and were
averaged.

15
pH
Porous concrete samples were individually placed in 200 mL of water and a hand held
probe was used to collect pH measurements. The pH probe (Accumet AB15, Fischer Scientific,
MA, US) was placed directly into the 200 mL water solutions. The pH test had 5 replicates and 3
measurements were taken for each replicate and were averaged.

Ion Chromatography
Three different rinses were conducted in the IC (Dionex ICS- 5000 +, Fischer Scientific,
MA, US) test: cold still, cold pressure and hot pressure. The cold still rinse consisted of a 24 hour
soak of the substrate in water at 21.00 ± 0.05 °C. The cold pressure and hot pressure wash lasted
60 seconds at a pressure of 50 pounds per square inch (~344 KPa) and were at temperatures of
21.0 ± 0.1 °C and 56.0 ± 0.1 °C. The IC tests indicated the levels of lithium, sodium, ammonium,
potassium, magnesium and calcium concentrations found in the rinsing waters. The test was
performed on the substrate to determine the most effective means to remove surface ions.

Compressive strength
The compressive strength values of the porous concrete substrate samples were measured
using a universal testing machine (3882 Floor Model Universal Testing System, Instron, MA, US).
A total of 5 different porous concrete samples were tested individually to calculate an average
compressive strength.

Mass
Porous concrete sample masses were measured individually on a balance (Sartorius™
Entris™ 90mm Analytical Balance, Sartorius). A total of 5 different samples were weighed in
order to calculate an average mass.

Bulk volume
Porous concrete samples height, length and width were measured for all individual
samples. The bulk volume of the porous concrete substrate was interpreted in cm3. A total of 5
different samples were measured in order to calculate an average bulk volume.

Water retention
The water saturation test was determined by submerging the porous concrete substrates in
water for 24 hours, to remove all air bubbles. The wet cube was measured on a scale less than 5

16
seconds after removal from the water. A total of 5 samples were measured in order to calculate the
average water retention.

Water holding
Following the water saturation test, the porous concrete substrates were placed on a
perforated surface until dripping stopped (> 1 drip per 5 sec). The substrates were weighed to
measure the amount of water volume the substrate can hold and testing was inspired by Fonteno
and Nelson’s experiment for water holding capacity (Drzal et al., 1997).

3.3. Results
All chemical and physical properties of the slag porous concrete substrates are found in
Table 3.1. The water in which the porous concrete substrates soaked for 24 hours had an average
EC value of 1.32 ± 0.11 mS/cm and a pH of 9.58 ± 0.34. The average mass per porous concrete
substrate was of 91.19 ± 2.97 g. The average water saturation mass was of 14.17± 2.06 g at 15.6
% of the average dry mass of the porous substrate. The average water holding mass was of 6.76 ±
1.09 g represented 7.41 % of the average dry mass of the porous concrete substrate. The average
volume of the porous concrete substrates was of 51.11 ± 0.79 cm3. The blocks volume and mass
varied slightly due to minor fractures that were caused in the demolding process of the porous
concrete substrates. The average compressive strength of the porous concrete substrate was of 4.38
± 0.66 MPa.

Table 3.1 Chemical and physical properties of the final slag porous concrete substrate.

Property Value
EC (mS/cm) 1.32 ± 0.11
Chemical
pH 9.58 ± 0.34
Compressive strength (MPa) 4.38 ± 0.66
Mass (g) 91.19 ± 2. 97
Physical Bulk volume (cm³) 51.11 ± 0.79
Water saturation (g) 14.18 ± 2. 06
Water holding (g) 6.76 ± 1.09

3.3.1. Ion chromatography

The IC tests measured the presence of surface ions that were present in the water soaking
solutions. Sodium, potassium and calcium were present in all water solutions investigated: still
cold, cold pressure and hot pressure. In Table 3.2, it was observed that cold pressure had the highest

17
amount of sodium (955.31 ppm), potassium (44.17 ppm) and calcium (1.87 ppm). The still cold
pressure had the lowest values of sodium (177.79 ppm), potassium (8.37 ppm) and calcium
(traces). The hot pressure treatment had values between the cold pressure and still cold treatments
for sodium (611.34 ppm), potassium (14.75 ppm) and calcium (1.26 ppm). The pressure treatments
removed higher quantities of surface ions in comparison to still water. The elevated temperature
in the hot pressure treatment did not increase the amount of removed surface ions from the porous
concrete substrates.

Table 3.2 Ion chromatography (IC) for the still cold, cold pressure and hot pressure washes conducted on porous slag
concrete.

Lithium Sodium Ammonium Potassium Magnesium Calcium

Rinse (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

Still cold - 177.79 - 8.37 - traces(*)

Cold pressure traces (*) 955.31 - 44.17 - 1.87
Hot pressure - 611.34 - 14.75 traces(*) 1.26

3.4. Discussion
Following the mixing of the wet and dry ingredients, the curing process started in the
custom steam curing chamber at CEMEX. Not all of the slag raw binder material had reacted fully
and resulted in excess slag powder on the substrates. The surplus of unreacted aluminosilicates
was not desirable since they result in a higher quantity of surface ions and consequently would
increase the pH and EC of the media and the water (Duxson et al., 2007). The pH and EC of the
slag substrates were low, due to the amount of time the substrates were in contact with the water
and the volume of water in which they were soaked (Table 4.1). The average EC value was 1.32
± 0.11 mS/cm and the average pH value was of 9.6 ± 0.3. The EC and pH of a substrate play a
significant role in nutrient availability and can negatively affect the plants ability to absorb
nutrients (Sonneveld and Voogt, 1999). The lowest amount of unreacted slag powder was desired
in order to minimize the raw powder contact to the plant roots and nutrient solution. This issue
was solved by tweaking the ratio of both alkali activators used in the production of the slag porous
concrete substrates. The GGBS geopolymer cement turns blue green after hydration due to the
sulfide content in the material (Lang, 2002). The full reaction of the slag powder resulted in fewer
surface ions and consequently improves plant growth on the substrate. As seen in Figure 4.1, a
more successful hydration of the slag powder is observable form left to right. The original quantity

18
of activators represented respectively 3.7% and 5.4% of the cement and water mass for ISO 950
and ISO 930. After trial and error, the most successful quantity of ISO 950 and ISO 930 interpreted
as percentages of slag and water mass were 3.74% and 5.19%. The water to binder ratio remained
the same through the activator modifications.

Figure 3.1 Different slag porous concrete samples with variating ranges of alkali activators used. The substrate on
the left has the concentrations of 3. 67% for ISO 950 and 5.4 % for ISO 930. The substrate in the middle has
concentrations of 3.70% for ISO 950 and 5.3 % for ISO 930. The substrate on the right has the final concentrations
of alkali activators with 3.74% ISO 950 and 5.19% ISO 930.

The IC tests measured the presence of surface ions. Sodium ions were the dominant ion in
the wash water followed by potassium and calcium (Table 3.2). The highest measured ion
concentration was using cold pressure. The cold pressure water wash is assumed to be the most
effective washing method tested due to the substrate being in the water for a longer period of time
and having a higher flow rate. The hot pressure wash did not release as many surface ions
indicating the solubility of sodium, potassium and calcium was lower at higher temperatures. Past
literature states that amorphous unreacted silica is soluble in water at a temperature of 25°C
(Marshall and Warakomski, 1980).

The average water saturation mass was of 14.2 ± 2.1 g at 15.6 % of the average mass of
the porous substrate (91.2 ± 2.97 g). The average water holding mass was of 6.76 ± 1.09 g
represented 7.41 % of the average mass (91.2 ± 2.97 g) of the porous concrete substrate. This
substrate in comparison to rockwool substrates has very low water retention and holding capacity;
the water saturation and holding capacity of rockwool are of 97% and 86% (Böhme, 1994). The
substrate’s ability to lock in water into its matrix is low and can have negative effects to the plant
roots (Lemaire, 1994). The compressive strength of 4.38 ± 0.66 MPa was very low and would not
cause any harm to the roots networking through the substrate. The average compressive strength
of the porous concrete substrate was of 4.38 ± 0.66 MPa which was lower than the reported

19
strength of porous concrete (22-39 MPa) having a similar void ratio (15-20%) (Chindaprasirt et
al., 2008). The porous concrete substrate were not designed as structural entities, however other
structural designs are possible by increasing the paste content.

3.5. Conclusion
The final porous concrete substrate was a combination based on published reports and the
Pervia tool mix design. The materials chosen were ground granulated burnt furnace slag for the
binder, quartz for the aggregate and proprietary alkali activators (ISO 950 and ISO 930). The void
content was set at 30% and the water to binder ratio was of 0.295. When the porous concrete
substrates were in water, the amount of unreacted slag powder and alkali activators impacted the
amount of precipate formed, the EC and pH of the water soaking solution. Cold pressure wash
removed the largest amount of surface ions for the slag porous concrete substrates and increased
the surface ion solubility. Further investigations are needed in order to pre-treat the substrate for
germination applications.

20
 Connecting statement to Chapter 4
The following chapter investigates plant growth on the substrate with the chosen
ingredients from Chapter 3. A preliminary 28 day growth test was conducted in Switzerland at the
research and development laboratories of CEMEX. The chapter below only analyses the data
collected from the germination tests conducted at the Macdonald campus of McGill University. In
this chapter, the germination took place for 28 days and the plants grown were: tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum), radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) and romaine lettuce (Lactuva sativa). The porous
concrete substrates used in Chapter 4 followed the recipe developed in Chapter 3. The substrate
used in Chapter 4 had a pilot growth test conducted before the growth test conducted in Chapter
4. Results from the pilot test are found in Appendix B.

21
Chapter 4: Plant growth response in porous slag concrete
substrates
4.1. Introduction
In 2050, it is predicted that 66% of the total world population will be living in metropolitan
areas (de Zeeuw et al., 2015). In 1999, cities only represented a total 2% of the planet’s surface
area and yet consumed around 75% of its resources (food, energy and water) (Thomaier et al.,
2015). With an increasing population growing at a faster rate than the actual expansion of urban
areas, local food production has become of great interest (Saha and Eckelman, 2017). Urban food
production systems can be found on the ground, on buildings or on rooftops and include gardens,
vertical gardens and green roofs (Salas et al., 2009). Soilless food production technologies are of
great relevance in cities since the available soils are mainly in poor condition, contaminated, or are
not advantageous for growing systems that are attached on building surfaces (Jenkins et al., 2015).
The majority of soilless agriculture is practiced indoors and consequently it becomes more
challenging to find a suitable substrate for outdoor hydroponic systems that can endure all types
of environmental conditions (Jones Jr, 2016).

Porous concrete is a concrete technology that allows for water and air circulation through
its matrix (Kim and Park, 2016). Porous concrete has been used extensively since the 1980s for
drainage applications and has recently been implemented in eco-restoration projects for greening
purposes (Han et al., 2017). The first plant improvements in contact with porous concrete have
been urban tree; studies have reported lower soil compaction and amelioration of root health
(Mullaney et al., 2015). Root networking in porous concrete is enabled through the interconnected
pores of the concrete matrix and allows for water and nutrients to circulate (Lemaire, 1994; Kim
and Park, 2016). Typically, the porous concrete designed as a substrate for plant growth includes
a combination of an existing rooting media to fill the voids, such as soil or fibrous organic material
(Yuan et al., 2010).

Literature on porous concrete for vegetative purposes is limited and has not been explored
independently without the help of an additional growing media. This study aims to investigate
hydroponic plant growth on porous concrete in a controlled environment. The objective was to
compare porous concrete substrates to rockwool substrate.

22
4.2. Materials and methods
4.2.1. Porous concrete substrate material
The porous concrete substrates used in this experiment were designed collaboratively with
and industrial partner, CEMEX CRG (Biel, Switzerland). The porous concrete substrates were
carefully designed for bio-receptivity with the help of experts in the fields of plant sciences and
material sciences. Certain restraints were defined to enable plant growth through the media,
restraints were as such: low pH binder, void content high enough to allow for root networking,
water to binder ratio (strength), water and air flow, pore size to enable capillarity and neutral
aggregate. The raw ingredients in the porous concrete substrate were ground granulate burnt
furnace slag and 2 - 3.2 mm quartz aggregates. The wet ingredients were water with a water to
binder ratio of 0.295 and proprietary alkali activators: ISO 950 at 3.74% and ISO 930 at 5.19%.

4.2.2. Pre-germination soaking

The porous concrete substrates in this experiment were reused from the pilot germination
test that was conducted prior to this germination experiment. Therefore, the substrates had been in
contact with water and hydroponic solutions before its initial soaking period for the germination
experiment of this chapter. The duration of the pilot germination test was of 28 days. Only the slag
porous concrete substrates were reused and 1.5 in. rockwool substrates (Grodan A-OK Starter
Plugs, The ROCKWOOL Group) were untouched before the germination experiment. After
completion of the pilot growth experiment, the porous concrete substrates were baked in the oven
at 60 °C for 24 hours.

Three treatments were investigated among porous concrete substrates. The treatments
differed in strength of Hoagland nutrient solution (Hoagland and Arnon, 1950). The three
treatment solutions consisted of: the original Hoagland nutrient solution (1X), the double strength
Hoagland solution (2X) and the quintuple strength (5X) Hoagland solution (Table 4.1). Before the
germination test, the porous concrete substrates were placed in their respective solutions for a
soaking period of 7 days.

4.2.3. Experimental plant growth test

A total of four treatments were explored in this experiment; three porous concrete substrate
treatments and a control rockwool treatment. Each treatment had 27 individual substrates and were

23
seeded with 9 seeds of each species: S. lycopersicum (tomato), R. raphanistrum (radish) and L.
sativa (romaine lettuce). All plants for all treatments were grown using a growth chamber (TC30,
Conviron, Canada) with pre-set conditions: temperature of 25 °C, relative humidity of 50% and a
photoperiod of 16 h, 6:00HR to 22:00HR. The lighting in the growth chamber was fluorescent
lights and the intensity was measured at the base of the plants and was recorded at 150 µmol m-2s-
1
. The 28 day germination was spatially replicated three times. The porous concrete treatments
were in contact with their respective solutions as of day zero of the experiment. The rockwool was
soaked and given straight water for the first seven days after the first leaves appeared and then
switched to normal strength Hoagland solution for the remaining 21 days of the experiment.

Table 4.1 Nutrient salts in the Hoagland, double Hoagland and quintuple Hoagland treatments with their respective
concentrations. This recipe originates from the recipe developed by Hoagland and Arnon in 1950.

Nutrient salts Hoagland (mol/L) Double Hoagland (mol/L) Quintuple Hoagland (mol/L)

𝑲𝑵𝑶𝟑 0.005 0.010 0.025

𝑪𝒂(𝑵𝑶𝟑 )𝟐 × 𝟒𝑯𝟐 𝑶 0.005 0.010 0.025
𝑴𝒈𝑺𝑶𝟒 × 𝟕𝑯𝟐 𝑶 0.002 0.004 0.010
𝑲𝑯𝟐 𝑷𝑶𝟒 0.001 0.002 0.005
𝑯𝟑 𝑩𝑶𝟑 2.544 × 10-5 5.088 × 10-5 1.220 × 10-4
𝑴𝒏𝑪𝒍𝟐 × 𝟒𝑯𝟐 𝑶 3.256 × 10-6 6.512 × 10-6 1.628× 10-5
𝒁𝒏𝑺𝑶𝟒 × 𝟕𝑯𝟐 𝑶 3.290 × 10-8 6.580 × 10-8 1.645 × 10-7
𝑪𝒖𝑺𝑶𝟒 × 𝟓𝑯𝟐 𝑶 5.030 × 10-9 1.006 × 10-8 2.515 × 10-8
𝑵𝒂𝟐 𝑴𝒐𝑶𝟒 × 𝟐𝑯𝟐 𝑶 1.293 × 10-8 2.586 × 10-8 6.465 × 10-8
𝑵𝒂𝑬𝑫𝑻𝑨 1.458 × 10-5 2.916 × 10-5 7.290 × 10-5
𝑭𝒆𝑺𝑶𝟒 × 𝟕𝑯𝟐 𝑶 8.571 × 10-6 1.714 × 10-5 4.286× 10-5

4.2.4. Data collection

Electrical conductivity
The electrical conductivity (EC) was measured for each treatment every 2 days for the
duration of the experiment (28 days). The hydroponic EC probe (DiST 6 EC/TDS/Temperature
Tester, Hanna Instruments, RI, US) was placed directly into the solution of their respective
growing trays. The measures taken with the probe were expressed in millisiemens per centimeter

24
(mS/cm). The EC probe was placed in three random locations in the tray and the average value
was calculated.

pH
The pH was measured for each treatment every 2 days for the duration of the experiment
(28 days). The pH probe (Accumet AB15, Fischer Scientific, MA, US) was placed directly into
the solution of their respective growing trays. The pH probe was placed in three random locations
in the tray and the average value was calculated.

Plant viability
Plant viability was defined as a ratio between the successful germinated seeds over the total
number of planted seeds. Plant viability is interpreted as a percentage; some values are subject to
decreasing due to plant death during the experiment. Plant viability was measure every 2 days for
the total experiment period of 28 days.

Fresh and dry mass

Fresh plant biomass was weighed at the end of the 28 day germination period. Once
harvested and weighed with a balance (APX-153, Denver Instruments, NY, US), the plants were
dried at 60 °C for 24 hours and dry mass was recorded. The fresh and dry masses were measured
for every individual plant. All fresh and dry masses per plant were divided by mass values obtained
in the rockwool treatment, and the ratio was interpreted in percentages with respect to rockwool.

4.2.5. Data analysis

A one-way ANOVA was computed to compare the dry shoot mass between treatments.
The statistical analysis was conducted with an open source statistical programming language –
Rstudio: Integrated Development Environment for R (Boston, MA, USA). The post-hoc analysis
was completed using Tukey Honest Significant Difference (Tukey HSD) at a 95% confidence
interval.

4.3. Results
4.3.1. Germination test results
EC
In Figure 4.1, the average EC values are shown over the 28 day germination period. The
rockwool treatment had the lowest EC throughout the 28 day period with an initial EC of 0.07
mS/cm that increased to a final EC of 3.13 mS/cm. The lowest EC among porous concrete
25
treatments investigated was with the Hoagland treatment with an initial EC of 2.06 mS/cm that
increased to a final EC of 5.78 mS/cm. The double strength Hoagland treatment had an initial EC
of 3.37 mS/cm that increased to a final EC of 10.97 mS/cm. The quintuple Hoagland treatment
had an initial EC of 6.47 mS/cm that increased to a final EC of 17.02 mS/cm.

Figure 4.1 Average EC response of the Hoagland, double Hoagland, quintuple Hoagland and rockwool treatments
over a period of 28 days. The EC was measured every 2 days for the duration of the experiment for all treatments
investigated. The Hoagland, double Hoagland and quintuple Hoagland treatments were tested with porous slag
concrete.

pH
In Figure 4.2, the average pH values for every treatment are shown over the 28 day
germination period. The rockwool treatment had the lowest pH throughout the experiment and
oscillated between 6.4 and 8.2. The highest fluctuations occurred in the porous concrete substrate
treatments. The lowest pH values amid porous concrete treatments were found in the quintuple
strength Hoagland treatment, with values that oscillated between 4.6 and 9.1. The double strength
Hoagland treatment pH oscillated between 5.9 and 9.2 and the Hoagland treatment pH varied
between 7.7 and 10.

26
Figure 4.2 Average pH response of the Hoagland, double Hoagland, quintuple Hoagland and rockwool treatments
over a period of 28 days. The pH was measured every 2 days for the duration of the experiment for all treatments
investigated. The Hoagland, double Hoagland and quintuple Hoagland treatments were tested with porous slag
concrete.

Plant viability
The highest germination rate was found in the double strength Hoagland treatment (Figure
4.3). From day 0 to 4, a higher germination rate occurred with the rockwool treatment when
compared to the porous concrete treatments. From day 4 to 28, the highest plant viability was in
the double Hoagland treatment which surpassed rockwool and all other porous concrete substrate
treatments. At day 14, the double Hoagland treatment reached 100% germination and reduced to
98.8% at day 28 due to 1 plant death. From day 4 to 28, the Hoagland and rockwool treatments
had similar plant viabilities however, the Hoagland treatment had higher values. At day 14, the
Hoagland treatment reached its maximal plant viability of 97.53% that reduced to 96.29 % at day
28 due to 1 plant death. At day 9 the rockwool treatment reached its maximal plant viability of
95.1% and remained constant until day 28. The quintuple Hoagland treatment had the lowest plant
viability among all treatments investigated. At day 16, the quintuple Hoagland treatment reached
its maximal plant viability of 75.31 %, which reduced to 69.14% at day 28 due to 5 plant deaths.

27
Figure 4.3 Average plant viability of the Hoagland, double Hoagland, quintuple Hoagland and rockwool treatments
over a period of 28 days. The plant viability was measured every 2 days for the duration of the experiment for all
treatments investigated. The Hoagland, double Hoagland and quintuple Hoagland treatments were tested with porous
slag concrete.

Fresh mass
The highest yielding treatment for the average fresh mass was the rockwool treatment for
all plant species (Table 4.2). The highest yielding average fresh mass for radish and romaine using
porous slag concrete substrate treatments was in the double Hoagland treatment with 84.7% of
rockwool fresh radish mass and 29.6% of rockwool fresh romaine mass. The highest yielding
average fresh mass for tomato was in the Hoagland treatment with 48.4% of rockwool fresh tomato
mass. The highest yielding average fresh mass for all plant species was radish in the double
treatment at 84.7% fresh mass of rockwool. The lowest yielding average fresh mass for all plant
species was romaine at 3.9% fresh mass of rockwool. Stunted growth is seen for the radish,
romaine lettuce and tomato plants in the quintuple Hoagland treatment (Figure 4.4). Among slag
porous concrete substrate treatments, the double Hoagland appeared healthier for the radish and
romaine lettuce plants, the tomato was more successful in the Hoagland treatment.

28
Table 4.2 Average fresh mass and ratio in comparison to rockwool fresh mass for Hoagland, double Hoagland and
quintuple Hoagland treatments. The fresh mass and ratio was calculated for all plant species: radish, romaine lettuce
and tomato.

Average fresh mass (g/plant) Comparison to rockwool (%)

Radish Romaine Tomato Radish Romaine Tomato

Hoagland 1.13 ± 1.40 0.86 ± 0.52 1.43 ± 0.81 61.2 27.6 48.4
Double 1.56 ± 1.57 0.95 ± 0.71 1.07 ± 0.67 84.7 29.6 36.5
Quintuple 0.29 ± 0.29 0.12 ± 0.08 0.11 ± 0.15 15.7 3.90 3.60
Rockwool 1.85 ± 1.61 3.13 ± 1.23 2.95 ± 0.91 100.0 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.4 Pictures of all plant species harvested for every treatment investigated: quintuple, double, Hoagland and
rockwool. (a) shows the radish plants for all treatments, (b) shows the romaine lettuce plants for all treatments and
(c) shows the tomato plants for all treatments.

29
Dry mass
The highest yielding treatment for the average dry mass was the rockwool treatment for
romaine and tomato plants (Table 4.3). The highest yielding treatment for the average dry mass of
radish was the double Hoagland treatment with a 125.4% dry mass of rockwool. Among porous
concrete substrate treatments, the double Hoagland treatment had the highest romaine average dry
mass average at 61.2% average dry mass of rockwool and the Hoagland treatment had the highest
average dry mass of tomato at 71.4% average dry mass of rockwool. A significant difference (P <
0.05) was found among the dry mass of the plant species in the treatments investigated. Following
a post-hoc analysis (Tukey HSD), similarities (P > 0.05) were found among some of treatments
investigated. Differences (P < 0.05) were found between all treatments in comparison to the
quintuple Hoagland treatment and a difference was found in between for treatments A and
treatments B. However, it is important to note that the double Hogaland treatment was part of A
and B and similar to both treatments.

Table 4.3 Average dry mass and ratio in comparison to rockwool for Hoagland, double Hoagland and quintuple
Hoagland treatments.

Average dry mass (g/plant) Comparison to rockwool (%)

Radish Romaine Tomato Radish Romaine Tomato

Hoagland 0.09 ± 0.12b 0.07 ± 0.04b 0.13 ± 0.07b 74.6 49.7 71.4
Double 0.15 ± 0.15ab 0.09 ± 0.06ab 0.12 ± 0.07ab 125.4 61.2 63.2
Quintuple 0.02 ± 0.04c 0.02 ± 0.01c 0.02 ± 0.02c 19.5 13.6 8.2
Rockwool 0.12 ± 0.11a 0.15 ± 0.06a 0.18 ± 0.07a 100.0 100.0 100.0

4.4. Discussion
Most substrates are soaked before they are sown for germination in hydroponic systems
(Shinohara et al., 1997). The slag porous concrete substrates in this experiment were reused from
earlier germination tests and as a result, the porous concrete substrates in this experiment had been
in contact with water and salts for a longer amount of time. Nutrient solutions are considered a
dynamic chemical system in which reactions can occur in forward or reverse form and can result
in complexation, dissociation and precipitation (Stumm and Morgan, 2012). Each treatment
investigated had a different concentration of dissolved salts which could have interacted and
enabled different types of reactions with the existing surface ions of the slag porous concrete
substrates (Lemaire, 1994). In all slag porous concrete treatments, precipitates formed throughout
30
the length of the soaking period and partly during the growth period due to the constant addition
of fresh Hoagland solution. As a result of the multiple precipitates, the EC of the different
treatments investigated remained fairly constant for the duration of the experiment. Exceptionally,
the quintuple Hoagland treatment did vary throughout the experiment; the treatment experienced
drops and increases in EC during the experiment. The fluctuations followed the days at which fresh
quintuple Hoagland solution was added to the treatment. Ion excess and water stress are possible
repercussions due to high nutrient solution concentrations (Marcelis and Van Hooijonk, 1999). In
hydroponic systems, the recommended EC of the nutrient solutions varies from 0.8 mS/cm to 3.7
mS/cm (Savvas and Adamidis, 1999). The average EC values for all slag porous concrete
treatments had EC values which surpassed the recommended EC range (Figure 4.1). The Hoagland
treatment initially started with an EC value of 2.06 mS/cm and ended with a value of 5.78 mS/cm.
Similarly, the double Hoagland treatment started with an EC value of 3.13 mS/cm and ended with
an EC of 10.97 mS/cm, which represents approximately 3 times the maximum EC range for
hydroponics. The quintuple Hoagland treatment had EC values that surpassed the desired EC range
for the length of the experiment and ended with a very high EC of 17.02 mS/cm. The lowest EC
was in the control rockwool treatment for the duration of the experiment. The overall best plant
viability and mass ratio among the slag porous concrete treatments were found in the double
Hoagland treatment which had EC values that were higher than the standard recommended range.
The fundamental elemental composition of the slag porous concrete substrates consists of a
structural over-charge-balanced of calcium aluminosilicates (Ca-Al-Mg) (Li et al., 2010). The slag
porous concrete had a small amount of unreacted particles and resulted in surface cations that
reacted with the nutrient solution in the soaking and germination periods. The interaction between
the substrate and the material not only changed the EC but noticeable effects were observed in the
pH of the slag porous concrete treatments.

The low alkalinity of the aqueous solution was expected due to composition of the slag
binder, the surface calcium and magnesium cations located on the surface of the slag porous
concrete, and the remaining alkali activators used during the production of the substrates. The
variations in pH (Figure 4.2) were due to the addition of new nutrient solutions every 7 days during
the experiment. The nutrient solution (Hoagland 1X) used in the experiment is slightly acidic (6.5
pH) and resulted in a decrease in pH (Hoagland and Arnon, 1950). The pH of the Hoagland
treatment varied between 7.7 and 10, the double Hoagland varied between 5.9 and 9.2, and the
31
quintuple Hoagland varied between 4.6 and 9.1. Earlier research defined the ideal pH range for
hydroponic plant growth between 5.5 and 5.8 (Bugbee, 2004). The pH of all treatments
investigated, including rockwool (pH varied from 6.5 to 8), were all higher than the recommended
pH range. At higher pH levels, precipitates have been known to form when concrete and nutrient
solutions are put in contact with each other (Rakocy, 2007). It was observed that the formation of
precipitates decreased over time and was theorized to occur when the quantity of surface ions of
the porous concrete substrates had formed complexes with the free ions found in the nutrient
solutions.

Earlier research has reported that the uptake of metals decreases at high pH levels (Pulford
and Watson, 2003). High concentrations of salts are known to hinder or delay growth and may
lead to toxicity or salt-induced nutrient deficiencies (Grattan and Grieve, 1999). Phosphate
deficiencies were observed with the tomato plants and nitrogen in the radish plants (Hoagland
treatment). The plant viability rates for plants grown in the slag porous concrete treatments (Figure
4.3) were successful for the normal strength Hoagland and the double strength Hoagland. The
quintuple strength Hoagland had lower viability rate and produced smaller plants (Figure 4.4). In
the quintuple Hoagland treatment, the concentration of nutrient salts may have enabled
deficiencies or toxicities. The plant viability indicated no sign of delayed growth for the Hoagland
and double Hoagland treatments, however toxicities or inhibitory nutrient thresholds were unique
to each plant species and were seen when plants were harvested at day 28. According to literature,
high concentrations of salt can cause osmosis and result in lower water absorption by the plant
(Smarakoon et al., 2006). The fresh and dry mass data indicates the lower absorption of water by
plants grown in the slag porous concrete substrates.

When comparing the mass ratios with respect to the control treatment, all slag porous
concrete treatments ratios increased from fresh mass (Table 4.2) to dry mass (Table 4.3) suggesting
that the water content of the plants grown in these treatments was lower than those grown in the
control treatment. The biggest increase from fresh mass ratio to dry mass ratio with respect to the
control treatment was observed for radish in the double Hoagland treatment. An increase of 40.7%
was observed from fresh (84.7% of fresh control mass of radish) to dry mass (125.4% of dry
control mass of radish). The substantial increase indicates that the radish plant may have been

32
absorbing more nutrients and less water since its dry mass surpassed the dry mass of the control
treatment.

The smallest fresh mass, stunted and delayed growth for all plant species were observed in
the quintuple Hoagland treatment (Figure 4.4). Stunted growth was equally observed for the
romaine lettuce plants in the Hoagland and double Hoagland treatments (Figure 4.4 (b)). The
romaine lettuces appeared dwarfed, denser and a darker green. The romaine lettuce leaves in the
Hoagland and double Hoagland treatments had a different morphology than the romaine lettuce in
the control treatment. The darker shade of green could be due to a lack or excess of nutrients in
the plant. Literature states that nitrogen excess or potassium, calcium and boron deficiencies could
lead to crinkled leaves and darker green (Van Eysinga and Smilde, 1981).

For the tomatoes grown in the slag porous concrete treatments (Figure 4.4 (c)), Hoagland
treatment yielded the highest fresh mass. The double Hoagland yielded tomatoes with darker green
leaves, purple stems and smaller leaves than the tomatoes grown in the Hoagland treatment. The
higher amount of fresh mass tomatoes in the Hoagland treatment suggests that tomato’s nutrient
up taking capacity may be lower than radish’ and romaine’s (Greger, 2004). Moreover, nutrient
uptake is plant dependent and certain ions act as nutrient regulators for the plants (Marschner,
2011).

As mentioned previously, few visual deficiencies were observed on the plants grown in the
slag porous concrete with the exception of phosphorus and nitrogen. Phosphate deficiencies were
most visible in the tomato plants, as seen in Figure 4.4 (c). The stem of the tomato plants had a
purple coloration which indicated a phosphate deficiency. The purple coloration is produced by
purple acid phosphatases in the extracellular areas of the plant and occurs when tomatoes have
insufficient phosphate (Tran et al., 2010). Literature reports that phosphate is easily bound to blast
furnace slag, which is the binder of the porous concrete used in this experiment (Agyei et al.,
2000). This phosphate adsorbing property is pH dependent; as the pH increases, the rate of
adsorption of phosphate decreases (Xue, 2009). As a result, when fresh Hoagland solution was
added to the treatments, the phosphate adsorption increased. The nitrogen deficiency was observed
in the radish plants grown in the slag porous concrete Hoagland treatment, as seen in Figure 4.4
33
(a), the leaves of the radish plant had a yellow coloration which indicated nitrogen deficiency
(Ingestad, 1977). This further indicates that the ideal concentration of nutrients for plants growing
in the slag porous concrete substrates is not at normal strength Hoagland but at slightly higher
concentrations and can vary for different plants as seen for tomatoes in this experiment.

The necessary nutrient supply is tailored for every plant species and thus the effects
observed on the development of the plants grown in this experiment are a combination of effects
from several salts or elements of the slag porous concrete. Moreover, nutrient uptake is plant
dependent and is controlled through certain elements such as calcium (Marschner, 2011). Calcium
is a key element in the slag binder material of the porous concrete substrates as seen in Chapter 3
with the ion chromatography results. With the results of this growth experiment, it is hypothesized
the ideal concentration may find itself between the Hoagland and double treatments
concentrations. Equally, it is theorized that the calcium altered the plant physiology and dry mass
which resulted in a positive effect in the case of the radish which absorbed more nutrients than in
the control rockwool treatment. It is known that calcium cations are crucial in maintaining the
membrane structure and permeability (Epstein, 1972). The elevated presence of calcium found in
the slag porous concrete treatments may have alleviated the symptoms of certain ion toxicities by
decreasing the peroxidation of lipids in cell membranes and enabling antioxidant enzyme activity
(Nasir Khan et al., 2010). In the case of radish plants, increased calcium concentrations are proven
to enhance plant physiology, health and biochemical properties (Siddiqui et al., 2013). Ion toxicity
protection was observed for radishes grown in the double Hoagland treatment; the high levels of
boron in the presence of high levels of calcium has been proven to enhance growth however
without the calcium, the boron may have led to chlorosis or more harmful effects (Siddiqui et al.,
2013). The stress tolerance of a plant can be modified in the presence of calcium due to its
protecting function of the membrane (Hepler, 2005). Moreover, with respect to the plants grown
in this experiment, the calcium presence may have been beneficial to the radish and romaine
lettuce. In the case of the tomato plant, the Hoagland treatment may have been more successful
due to its lower concentration of nutrients. As observed through the different plants grown in this
experiment, the harmful effects of certain nutrients are specific to the species grown and the
outcome from the presence of certain ions may have distinct impacts on the plants.

34
 Nutritional tests of the plants and ion chromatography of the aqueous solutions could better
indicate the absorption of nutrients and understanding of the interactions between the slag porous
concrete substrate and the nutrient solutions. Further testing is needed to understand the
relationship between the plant and the substrate.

5.5 Conclusion
The double Hoagland slag porous concrete treatment had similar dry mass values as the
rockwool treatment. The radish in the double Hoagland treatment yielded a lower fresh mass with
respect to rockwool (84.7%) but a higher dry mass than rockwool (125.4%). The nutrient
absorption in the slag porous concrete treatments was observed to be different than the nutrient
absorption in the control rockwool treatment. The elevated EC and pH in the slag porous concrete
treatments did not hinder the rate of germination and produced plants with lower water contents.
The slag porous concrete proved phosphate adsorption and did create noticeable phosphorus
deficiencies among tomato plants grown. Similarly, nitrogen deficiencies were seen in radish
plants in the Hoagland treatment. It is suggested that plant nutrient uptake is dependent per plant
species and the ideal range of nutrient concentrations could have been located between the normal
and double strength Hoagland.

35
 Connecting statement to Chapter 5
This experiment on the effects of alkalinity and sodicity were conducted in order to better
understand the effects of alkalinity on plant growth. The experiment explored pH from 8 to 10
with chemical buffers to control the ions in the aqueous solution during testing. Sodic solutions
with comparable concentrations of sodium were compared to the alkaline solutions in order to
investigate their effects on plants and how they may differ. In this chapter, the plants grown were:
tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), romaine lettuce
(Lactuva.sativa) and beet (Beta vulgaris).

36
 Chapter 5: Effects of high pH salinity vs. neutral pH
sodicity on plant germination in hydroponics
5.1. Introduction
Salinity is the ratio of dissolved salts in a solution and alkalinity is a term which represents
the degree of basicity of a solution (Läuchli and Epstein, 1990). The most common cations that
are defined as saline are Na+, Ca2+, K+ and Mg2+. These cations are most frequently paired with
HCO3-, Cl- and SO42- for neutral salts (Yadav et al., 2011). These cations can not only interact
with the anions mentioned above, cations are exchangeable and when in aqueous suspension can
pair with hydroxides (Champman, 1965). Saline cations can also be paired with anions and
together form an alkali salt; anions such as OH- and CO3-(Zhang and Mu, 2009).

The effects of salinity on plant growth can have inhibitory effects and delay plant growth
(Bernstein, 1975). Most salt stresses are focused on the effects of NaCl on plant growth which is
also referred to as sodicity. Limited literature exists on the effects of alkalinity on plant growth
since most alkaline environments will contain salts (Shi and Sheng, 2005). Therefore, the impact
of alkalinity and salinity on plant growth have repeatedly been described as resembling ionic
repercussions on plant growth effects (Li et al., 2010; Javid et al., 2012). However, limited
research has investigated the differences between neutral salts and alkali-salts on plant growth (Li
et al., 2010). The difficulty in measuring the direct impacts of alkalinity are the simultaneous
exposure a plant can have to alkaline and saline conditions since both normally occur together
(Radi et al., 2012).

Some studies state that the available concentrations of ions in water or soil will control the
saline or alkaline effects on plant growth (Bernstein, 1975). A common statement in literature is
the obstruction of nutrient availabilities in higher pH solutions or media (Roosta, 2011). Generally,
plants are best known to grow in a pH range of 6.5 to 7.5 (Marschner, 2011). The effects of pH
are hard to study since plant nutrients consist of an intricate ion equilibrium which makes it equally
challenging to study the direct effect of hydrogen and hydroxyl groups on plant growth (Islam et
al., 1980). The consequences of salts in alkali environments have never been studied separately
as an adverse effect on plant life.

37
 Although the effects of certain elements and salts have been studied, there is a lack of
information on all saline and alkaline anions and cations. Various experiments vary the
concentrations of major macronutrients in plants to validate the adverse effects (Islam et al., 1980).
This study aims to show the difference between the effects of sodium and hydroxide on plant
growth. This study will attempt to separate and explain the impact of alkalinity and sodicity on
plant growth.

5.2. Materials and methods

5.2.1. Experimental materials
Buffer solutions were used to provide a constant pH throughout the growth experiments.
The pH 8 and pH 10 buffers were manufactured by Fisher Scientific (NH, USA) and the pH 9
buffer was manufactured by Ricca Chemical Company (TX, USA). The ingredients of the buffers
are listed in Table 5.1. Other treatments investigated consisted of two sodic treatments that
consisted of two different concentrations of sodium chloride (NaCl), 0.1 mol/L and 0.3 mol/L.

Table 5.1 Ingredients for all treatments investigated: pH 8, pH 9 and pH 10.

Buffer Recipe
pH 8 KH2PO4, NaOH
pH 9 H2O, KCl, H2BO3, NaOH, preservative
pH 10 H2O, K2CO3, BK3O3, KOH, C10H14N2Na2O8·2H2O

The objective of this experiment is to observe the different effects between a sodic solution
with NaCl and alkali solution containing NaOH. The solutions containing sodium paired with a
hydroxide were: the pH 8 buffer with a 1:2 ratio with water and a 1:4 ratio with water, pH 9 buffer
with a 1:2 ratio with water and the pH 10 with a 1:2 ratio. The sodium concentration of each
treatment investigated was known as the sodicity treatments concentrations were chosen. The
alkaline treatments concentrations were given by the chemical manufacturers (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Sodium concentrations for all sodic or alkaline treatments investigated
38
 ½ pH 8 pH 8 pH 9 Low sodicity High sodicity
Na+ sources
[Na+] (g/L) [Na+] (g/L) [Na+] (g/L) [Na+] (g/L) [Na+] (g/L)

NaOH 0.72 1.43 2.87 0.00 0.00

NaCl 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.30 6.89

5.2.2. Alkalinity and sodicity germination test

A total of 7 treatments were explored in this germination experiment. The control treatment
was in distilled water and the 6 other treatments were: ½ pH 8, pH 8, pH 9, pH 10, low sodicity
(0.1 mol/L NaCl) and high sodicity (0.3 mol/L NaCl). Each treatment had 32 individual 4 cm
rockwool substrates (Grodan A-OK Starter Plugs, The ROCKWOOL Group) which were seeded
with 8 seeds of each plant species: S. lycopersicum (tomato), R. raphanistrum (radish) and L. sativa
(romaine lettuce). The experiment was repeated 3 times and lasted 14 days. All plants for all
treatments were grown using a growth chamber (TC30, Conviron, Canada) with pre-set
conditions: temperature of 25 °C, relative humidity of 50% and a photoperiod of 16 h, 6:00HR to
22:00HR. The lighting in the growth chamber was fluorescent lights and the intensity was
measured at the base of the plants and was recorded at 150 µmol m-2s-1. The 14 day germination
was spatially replicated three times. All treatments were in contact with their respective solutions
starting day zero of the experiment.

5.2.3. Data collection

Data collected for all treatments investigated included: pH, electrical conductivity (EC),
plant viability and fresh mass.

pH
The pH of the treatments was recorded every 2 days for the duration of the experiment.
The pH probe (Accumet AB15, Fischer Scientific, MA, US) was placed in three random locations
in the tray and the average value was calculated.

EC
The EC was measured every 2 days for the duration of the experiments. The hand held EC probe
(DiST 6 EC/TDS/Temperature Tester, Hanna Instruments, RI, US) was placed in three random
locations in the tray and the average value was calculated.

39
Plant viability
Plants were observed every 2 days and plant viability was defined as the ratio between the
successful germinated seeds over the total number of planted seeds. Some viability ratios
decreased over time due to plants dying after initially germinating.

Fresh mass
The fresh shoot biomass was measured at day 14 for all of the plants using a scale (APX-
153, Denver Instruments, NY, US). No dry mass was recorded as the plants were too small after
drying.

5.2.5. Data analysis

A one-way ANOVA was used to compare fresh mass between treatments using Rstudio:
Integrated Development Environment for R (Boston, MA, USA). A post-hoc analysis, Tukey
Honest Significant Difference (Tukey HSD), was used to compare between treatments at a 95%
confidence interval.

5.3. Results
EC
All EC values were recorded every 2 days and the EC for all treatments remained relatively
constant for the duration of the experiment (Figure 5.1). The two sodic treatments had the highest
EC in comparison to all other treatments investigated. The high sodicity treatment had a value ≥17
mS/cm throughout the experiment. These values in the high sodicity treatment were equal or
greater to the maximal range the EC sensor could measure. The low sodicity treatment had an EC
of 8.2 ms/cm at day 0 and reached a final EC of 12.7 ms/cm by day 14. The EC for the alkaline
treatments experienced a slight drop from day 0 to 2 and remained constant from day 2 until the
end of the experiment at day 14. The pH 10 treatment had the highest EC of the alkaline treatments
investigated, its EC value was ~ 8.5 mS/cm after day 2. The pH 8 treatment EC was slightly higher
than the pH 9 treatment but both were ~ 5 mS/cm. The lowest EC of the alkaline treatments was
observed in the ½ pH 8 treatment which started with an EC value of 2.2 mS/cm at day 0 and
increased over time to a final EC value of 3.5 mS/cm. The control treatment had the lowest EC
and remained at ~ 0.09 mS/cm for the length of the experiment. Both buffer treatments of pH 8
and ½ pH 8 had higher pH and lower EC values in comparison to the sodic treatments.

40
Figure 5.1 EC values for the all treatments investigated in the experiment. Data was recorded during the 14 days of
experiment. The EC was measured every 2 days. The sodic treatments had higher conductivity than the alkaline
treatments in the experiment.

pH
All pH values were collected every 2 days for all treatments and remained fairly constant
for the duration of the experiment (Figure 5.2). The pH of all buffer treatments was constant and
matched their respective buffer pH values. The pH 8 and ½ pH 8 treatments had the same pH
throughout the duration of the experiment. The control treatment had a pH value of 6 at day 0 and
increased to a pH value of 7 at day 14. The low and high sodicity treatments had pH values that
were measured between pH 6 and pH 7. For the first 5 days, the high sodicity treatment had a pH
greater than the low sodicity treatment. At day 6 the pHs of the low and high sodicity treatments
were similar until the end of the germination period at day 14.

41
Figure 5.2 All pH values for the alkalinity and sodicity treatments in the experiment. Experiment was performed for
14 days and pH was measured every 2 days. The sodic treatments had lower pH values than all buffer alkaline
treatments investigated.

Plant viability
All plant viability values were computed every 2 days for all treatments for the duration of
the experiment (Figure 5.3). For the majority of the experiment, the ½ pH 8 treatment had the
highest plant viability. On day 3, the ½ pH 8 treatment plant viability surpassed the control
treatment plant viability for the remainder of the experiment. Their final plant viability rates were
similar and were of ~90.0%. Following the control and ½ pH 8 was the pH 8 treatment with a final
plant viability of 85.0%. Plant growth delays were observed between these 2 most successful
treatments with respect to all other alkaline treatments (pH 8, pH 9 and pH 10) and sodic treatments
(low and high sodicity). The low sodicity treatment had its highest plant viability at day 12 with a
plant viability of 47%. The pH 9 treatment had its highest plant viability of 40.8% at day 14 of the
experiment. The pH 10 and high sodicity treatments showed inhibitory effects of plant growth; the
pH 10 had a final plant viability of 1.7% and the high salinity had no seed germination.

42
Figure 5.3 Plant viability for all treatments, alkaline and saline, throughout the germination period of 14 days. The
average plant viability was measured every 2 days.

Fresh mass
The fresh mass of all treatments for all plant species was collected on day 14 which
corresponded to the end of the germination experiment (Table 5.3). The highest fresh mass was in
the control treatment for all plant species. The ½ pH 8 treatment had the second highest fresh mass
for all plant species. The beet mass control and ½ pH 8 buffer treatments were similar (~0.028 g),
all other plant species resulted in the control with the highest fresh mass. The pH 8 treatment fresh
mass values of all plant species were approximately half of the fresh mass that was measured for
the ½ pH 8 buffer treatment. The ½ pH 8 buffer, pH 8 and pH 9 treatments surpassed the fresh
mass values in the low sodicity treatments with the exception of beet which in the low sodicity
was of 0.023 g, which was higher than beet in the pH 8 and pH 9 treatments (0.009 g and 0.007 g,
respectively). In the low and high sodicity treatments, the tomato plants did not germinate. In the
pH 9 treatment, all plant species grew except tomato plants. In the pH 10 treatment, only radish
plants germinated. Following the one-way ANOVA, significant differences (P<0.05) were found.
As seen in Table 5.3, differences (P<0.05) were observed.

43
 Table 5.3 Average fresh mass per plant for all alkaline and sodic treatments. The average mass (g/plant) is measured
for the beet, radish, romaine lettuce and tomato plants. Note values without number are seeds that did not germinate.

Average Average (mS/cm) Average fresh mass (g/plant)

Treatment pH EC Beet Radish Romaine Tomato

Control 7.0 0.08 0.028 ± 0.025a 0.337± 0.098a 0.050 ± 0.014a 0.066 ± 0.025a
pH 8 8.0 4.89 0.009 ± 0.008c 0.035 ± 0.025c 0.009 ± 0.004c 0.015 ± 0.006c
pH 9 9.0 4.57 0.007 ± 0.013cd 0.022 ± 0.025cd 0.005 ± 0.004cd -
pH 10 10.0 8.81 - 0.002 ± 0.005d - -
½ pH 8 buffer 8.0 2.79 0.029 ± 0.018b 0.067 ± 0.047b 0.016 ± 0.006b 0.037 ± 0.018b
Low sodicity 6.3 10.21 0.023 ± 0.012cd 0.008 ± 0.018cd 0.006 ± 0.005cd -
High sodicity 6.4 17.00 - - - -

Sodium effect on biomass yield

The fresh mass of the beet and radish were the most successful in all treatments
investigated in the experiment. The Na+ concentration as a function of fresh mass for all alkaline
treatments as well as the low sodicity treatment were plotted for both plants and are indicated as
alkaline and sodic (Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5). The fresh mass of beet and radish as a function of
the treatment’s pH was equally plotted for both plants on the same graphs.

For the beet plants, it is observed that for alkaline treatments, as the concentration of Na+
decreases, the fresh mass of the beet increases. It is also observed that two different concentrations
of Na+ may have the same pH (pH of 8). For the low sodicity treatment, the Na+ was higher than
most alkali values and yielded a higher fresh mass for the beet. Higher fresh mass was produced
in the low sodicity treatment with a high concentration of Na+ and a low pH value of 6.4, higher
than those obtained in the alkaline treatments.

44
Figure 5.4 The fresh mass of beet with respect to Na+ concentration for alkaline and sodic treatments. The second
vertical axis demonstrates the fresh mass of beet with respect to the pH of the alkaline and sodic treatments.

For the radish plants, it is observed that the sodic environment had negative effects on the
radish plant in comparison to similar concentrations of Na+ in alkaline environments. Higher
concentrations of Na+ were found in some alkaline treatments and as seen in Figure 5.5, the radish
obtained a higher amount of fresh mass. The pH values for the high concentrations of Na+ in the
alkaline treatments (pH 8 and pH 9) were lower in comparison to the sodic treatment (pH 6.4).

Figure 5.5 The fresh mass of radish with respect to Na + concentration for alkaline and sodic treatments. The second
vertical axis demonstrates the fresh mass of radish with respect to EC for alkaline and sodic treatments.

45
5.4. Discussion
When comparing alkalinity and sodicity treatments, the EC values obtained in the sodicity
treatments for the low and high sodicity treatments were higher than the control, pH 8, pH 9 and
pH 10 treatments (Figure 5.1). Treatments with higher EC yielded smaller quantities of fresh mass
per plant for all species with the exception of beets in the low sodicity treatment. In hydroponic
systems, the recommended EC of the nutrient solutions varied from 0.8 to 3.7 mS/cm (Savvas and
Adamidis, 1999). In this experiment, only the control and ½ pH 8 buffer treatments were within
the recommended EC range, all other treatments (sodic and alkaline) surpasses the EC values. The
dissociated anions and cations originating from the acid, base or salt molecules in the investigated
treatments were responsible for the high EC values obtained. A solution with an elevated EC
implies that the system is ion rich and indicates ion mobility (Walton, 1989). In these conditions,
the amount of free water available to the plants is reduced and can cause significant stress to the
plants (Chrétien et al., 2000). An elevated EC of a solution can be found in neutral and alkaline
environments, the nature of the salt can determine if it will impact the overall pH of the solution
(Bernstein, 1975).

The pH values of the alkalinity treatments were higher than the pH values obtained in the
sodicity treatments (Figure 5.2). In the alkalinity treatments, the treatments with higher pH values
also had a higher EC (Figure 5.1) except for the ½ pH 8 buffer treatment and the pH 8 buffer
treatment which had identical pH values with different EC values. In the sodicity treatments, lower
pH values were found in the high sodicity treatment which had a higher EC. The plants ability to
uptake nutrients and grow have repeatedly been linked to the pH regulation of the nutrient solutions
in hydroponics (Lea-Cox et al., 1999). In this case, the plants performed better in alkaline buffer
conditions in comparison to sodic conditions with similar concentrations of sodium.

The alkaline treatments investigated had higher plant viability rates than the sodic
treatments. Plant viability of ½ pH 8 buffer surpassed the control plant viability rate and had a pH
of 8 which surpasses the recommended range in hydroponics systems. The pH range that allows
for the availability of all nutrients in hydroponic systems is between a 5.5 and 5.8 (Bugbee, 2004).
Past studies have equally stated that increases in pH reduces plant growth (Atiyeh et al., 2000). It
is important to note that the pH 10 treatment had radish seeds germinate and the high sodicity
46
treatment had a pH of ~6.4 and no plants germinated. The sodicity treatments had lower plant
viability than the alkaline treatments. The control and ½ pH 8 buffer treatments had the highest
plant viability throughout the 14 day period and ended with plant viability rates of 90%. The rate
of germination of the pH 8 treatment was slower and its final plant viability was of 85%. The sodic
treatment with the best plant viability was the low sodicity treatment (0.1 mol/L NaCl), at day 14
the plant viability was of 45%. The high sodicity treatment (0.3 mol/L NaCl) had a plant viability
of 0%, with no germination for all plant species. In both alkaline and sodic treatments a delay in
germination was observed as well as a reduction in plant viability.

The fresh mass values obtained in the alkaline treatments were greater than the fresh mass
values obtained in the sodic treatments with the exception of the beet plants. The beet fresh mass
in the low sodicity treatment surpassed the fresh mass of beets in the pH 8, pH 9 and pH 10
treatment, but not for the ½ pH 8 buffer treatment. Beet plants are known to be highly resistant to
salts however, most other plants are sensitive to the salts during their germination period which
explains the low amount of fresh mass produced (Bernstein, 1975; Nieman, 1962). The fresh mass
of the harvested plants for all treatments investigated for alkaline and sodic solutions demonstrated
the inhibitory effects of the high pH and salinity on the growth and development of the plants. The
control treatment produced the highest amount of fresh mass for the beet, romaine lettuce, radish
and tomato plants. The fresh mass of the alkaline treatments were much lower in comparison to
the fresh mass obtained in the control treatment. Differences (P<0.05) were seen among fresh mass
yield between the ½ pH 8 buffer treatment and the pH 8 treatment even though the pH was identical
for both treatments. The treatments differed in EC and sodium concentration. The tomato plant
was the most sensitive to the alkaline and sodic treatments. The tomato plant grew in the control,
½ pH 8 buffer and pH 8 treatments and had no germination in any sodic treatment. Radish was the
most resilient to alkaline treatments investigated; fresh radish mass of pH 10 represented 0.60%
of the control radish fresh mass.

The fresh mass values obtained for beets with respect to sodium concentrations (Figure
5.4, Table 5.2) demonstrated that beet growth can be successful in neutral and alkaline
environments. The beets in this experiment produced more biomass in conditions with higher
sodium concentrations than alkaline conditions. However, beet fresh mass was greater in alkaline
47
conditions than sodic conditions when the concentrations of sodium reduced. It is important to
note that the radish plant produced more biomass in alkali conditions rather than sodic conditions.
The fresh mass values obtained for radishes with respect to sodium concentrations (Figure 5.4)
demonstrated that plant growth was limited when in sodic conditions. The pH 9 treatment had a
sodium concentration (2.87 g/L) higher than the low sodicity treatment (2.30 g/L) yet produced
more fresh mass (Figure 5.5). The pH 8 and ½ buffer pH 8 treatments produced more radish
biomass than the low sodicity treatment which had a lower pH.

Literature states that saline environments lead to reduced water availability, ion excess and
loss in absorption of essential nutrients (Greenway, 1962; Li et al., 2010). Literature also states
that ion absorption is diminished in alkaline high pH environments. Ambiguity occurs when
discussing the hydroxyl ion concentration and its direct effects on plant growth (Arnon and
Johnson, 1942). In most cases where there are salts, the environment will be saline and alkaline
and their combined effects remain unclear. The investigation on the effects of neutral and alkali
salts on plant germination is problematic since the buffer solutions of pH 8, pH 9, and pH 10 are
a combination of alkali and neutral salts however, the sodic treatments had only neutral salts.
Problematic nutrient uptake can be caused due to ionic concentration and pH of the environment,
consequently it can impact the growth and development of the plants. This types of effects were
seen both in sodic and alkaline treatments investigated.

Signs of nitrogen deficiencies, through chlorosis, were seen in the higher alkaline
treatments (pH 9 and pH 10). In the pH 9 treatment, beet leaves were bright pink and romaine
lettuce and radish leaves were yellow. In the pH 10 treatment, only radish grew and leaves were
similar in color to the pH 9 treatment. Chlorosis normally is one of the most obvious signs of high
alkalinity (Roosta, 2011). Under the sodicity treatments, no apparent changes in color were
observed in the treatments investigated however, inhibitory effects were observed in the high
sodicity treatment. No physiological signs were observed under sodic treatments however, the
saline treatments grew in a neutral pH environments and yielded lower quantities of biomass. Thus,
we theorize that new nutrient solutions are possible and their development is essential since plant
growth can be achieved in alkaline environments.

48
 The different coloration, slow development and lower fresh mass are effects that could be
due to the elements found in the buffer recipes (Table 5.1) and the salt concentrations at which the
plants were exposed. Potassium is an ingredient found in all buffers used and is absorbed by the
plant roots as K+ cation (Resh, 2012). Other elements found in more than one of the buffer recipes
are sodium and boron. Sodium is found in the pH 8 and pH 9 buffers and in the low and high
sodicity treatments, sodium is absorbed by the plant roots as Na+ (Resh, 2012). Boron is found in
the pH 9 and pH 10 buffers and is absorbed by the plant roots as BO32- anion (Resh, 2012). Sodium
and potassium are alkali metals which can form neutral and alkali salts depending on which anion
they react with. Past literature suggests that alkaline and neutral salts stresses are two separate
types of stress (Shi, 1993). Sodium in pH 8 and pH 9 buffer recipes is paired with a hydroxide
(NaOH); this salt is defined as an alkali and its repercussions on plant growth are associated to
alkali stress according to past literature (Shi and Sheng, 2005). In the sodic treatments, sodium is
paired with a chloride anion (NaCl) and is referred to as a neutral salt. Potassium comes from
different forms in the buffer solutions: KH2PO4 in pH 8, KCl in pH 9 and KOH in pH 10. As seen
with sodium, the relationship between an alkali metal with a different anion may act differently.
As potassium may act as a neutral, alkali and alkaline-saline salt its effect and relationship to
sodium in this experiment still remain unclear.

The ratio of sodium to potassium cations can impact the turgor pressure of the plant cells
and results in osmosis (Valdez-Aguilar and Reed, 2010). In a healthy plant the saline cations are
found in the cytoplasm in low concentrations of Na+ and high amounts of K+ (Li et al., 2010). The
EC increased as the alkalinity of the buffer treatments increased; as the EC increases the
concentration of salts increase and result in elevated osmotic potential (Sonneveld and Voogt,
2009). Alkalinity effects can be counteracted with the addition of specific ions; some ions can
prevent the harmful effect of high salinity and alkalinity of such environments (Valdez-Aguilar
and Reed, 2010). The impact of salts can be more detrimental as seen in Table 5.2 for solutions
with higher concentrations of salts rather than solutions with a higher alkalinity and lower salinity.
The similarities between the low sodicity treatment and the pH 8, pH 9 treatments indicates that
alkali-saline conditions at lower concentrations can resemble harmful effects of higher
concentrations of neutral sodic conditions (Shi and Sheng, 2005). The data contradicts the common

49
statement that low uptake of nutrients and disadvantageous plant development are attributed to
high pH in plant germination experiments (Pulford and Watson, 2003; Atiyeh et al., 2000).

5.5. Conclusion
Plant growth was hindered under higher pH solution and under elevated EC and high
concentration of sodium. Radish plants grew in all alkaline treatments and in the low sodicity
treatment. The tomato plants were sensitive to the pH buffer solutions and to sodic conditions and
showed limitations in pH 9 and pH 10 solutions. Romaine lettuce was very sensitive to both the
pH buffer and sodicity. In the sodicity treatments, the higher concentrations of Na+ with neutral
pH caused more harmful effects on plant germination than the pH 8 buffer solution. Beet growth
was more successful under sodic conditions when comparing to pH 8 and pH 10. However fresh
mass was surpassed at lower concentrations of pH 8 buffer solution (1/2 pH 8 buffer treatment)
with an alkaline pH. These results showed that alkalinity and sodicity are not directly linked and
different results in plant growth occurs and need to be considered as different effects. More
research is needed to understand the impact that different salts ions and alkali ions have in a
hydroponic environments.

50
 Chapter 6: Final summary, contribution to knowledge
and future recommendations
6.1. Final Summary
It has been concluded that the utilization of porous concrete for vegetation purposes is still
in exploratory state. The applications of porous concrete as a hydroponic substrate could
effectively change urban landscapes such as: green roofs, building facades, urban trees, noise
absorption and slope restoration. The porous concrete substrate was designed with taking into
consideration necessary plant growth conditions (chemical and physical). The final design of the
porous concrete substrate was not chemically neutral and still remained alkaline (EC of 1.32
mS/cm and a pH ~ 9.6). Colder rinses proved a more effective way to remove surface ions such
as: sodium, potassium and calcium. The water saturation and holding capacity were of 15.6% and
7.41%. Tomato, radish and romaine lettuce plants grew successfully in three slag porous concrete
treatments: Hoagland normal strength (1X), double Hoagland (2X) and quintuple Hoagland
strength (5X). Statistically, the dry mass between the double Hoagland and the control treatments
were the same (P > 0.05). The highest fresh mass of the slag porous concrete treatments was the
radish in the double Hoagland treatment at 84.7% of the control radish fresh mass. The highest dry
mass of all treatments investigated was the radish in the double Hoagland treatment at 125.4% of
the control radish dry mass. Lower amounts of water were absorbed by the plants grown in porous
concrete treatments. The different nutrient solution concentrations may be plant dependent as
tomato did not yield higher quantities of biomass in the double strength Hoagland treatment.
Deficiencies were seen among tomato plants, purple stem coloration indicated phosphate
deficiencies. The slag binder proved to adsorb phosphate ions to the surface of the binder and led
to deficiencies in the tomato plants. The substrate in the various concentrations of nutrient solution
caused all treatments to grow in alkaline conditions. In Chapter 5, plants were germinated in
alkaline conditions to better understand the nutrient availabilities and effects on plant germination.
Plant growth was seen in pH 8, pH 9 and pH 10, only radish plants grew in pH 10. Since all buffers
contained ions that could be in alkali or saline form, a germination test was conducted in sodic
environments (0.1mol/L NaCl and 0.3mol/L NaCl) It was concluded that plant growth in alkaline
environments was better than plants grown in sodic environments. The tomato plants were the
most sensitive to the alkaline and sodic solutions resulting in only 22.7% of the control tomato

51
fresh mass. The fresh mass obtained in alkaline buffer solutions (diluted pH 8 ¼ and ½
concentration) were higher than the fresh mass obtained in the low sodic treatments (0.1 mol/L
NaCl). Sodium had a more detrimental effect on plant germination than alkalinity and completely
inhibited growth at a concentration of 0.3 mol/L NaCl.

The aquatic chemistry of the ions needed for plant growth is a complex state of equilibrium
that can undergo many different reactions simultaneously. Depending on the alkaline ions
available and the material properties, salinity could be avoided at high pH and the nutrients could
have a safe passage to the plant.

6.2. Contribution to knowledge

 It was found that depending on the anions and cations found in the dynamic aqueous
solutions, nutrient availability was available at higher pH in comparison to past knowledge.
 Cold temperatures remove more ions than hot temperatures
 Cementitious binders can have lower pH than stipulated.
 Plant growth is possible in porous concrete materials and needs further investigation.
 Salinity, sodicity and alkalinity have different effects on plant germination and sodic
conditions can be worse than alkali-saline conditions.

6.3. Future recommendations

 Reducing the pH of the slag porous concrete by carbonating the materials through carbon
dioxide bubbling (Bakharev et al., 2001).
 Reducing the pH by using an acidic activator instead of an alkali activator. Phosphoric
acid activation has been achieved with metakaolin and other materials having high
amounts of aluminosilicates (Perera et al., 2008).
 Reducing the pH by adding soil mixture, cellulose fibers or other materials.
 Creating a binder that is soil based.
 Measure the elements absorbed and released by the substrate to understand the nutrient
requirements of the plants grown in porous concrete.
 Nutrient solution variability and impact of pH variability needs to be monitored to
understand the interaction between the substrate and the nutrient solution.

52
  Testing different aggregates to improve capillarity action and reduce the mass of the
substrate.

Figure 6.1 Different aggregate slag porous concrete substrates. From right to left, the aggregates used are: expanded
clay, quartz and expanded glass.

 Capillarity action activity could be improved by adding hydrogels that could store water
and nutrients for a longer period of time. The hydrogels have the capability to bind
excessive ions to improve plant growth.
 Potential capillarity and water holding optimization could occur using different aggregate
sizes in one block. Making a smaller cube with finer aggregates and pouring an additional
layer with thicker aggregates to allow for root networking (Figure 6.2.). The first cube on
the left of Figure 6.2 is the bottom view and the cube on the right is the front view.

Figure 6.2 Multi aggregate size porous concrete substrate design

53
 Investigation of growth of other plants in porous concrete. In Figure 6.3, grass was grown
for a period of 4 weeks and demonstrated a lot of potential. Grass growth on porous
concrete could significantly change the turf grass, green roofs and architectural industries.

Figure 6.3 Grass experiment at CEMEX

54
 References

Abdalla, A.M., Hettiaratchi, D.R.P. and Reece, A.R., 1969. The mechanics of root growth in
granular media. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 14(3), pp.236-248.

Allaire, S.E., Caron, J., Ménard, C. and Dorais, M., 2005. Potential replacements for rockwool as
growing substrate for greenhouse tomato. Canadian Journal of soil science, 85(1), pp.67-74.

Agyei, N.M., Strydom, C.A. and Potgieter, J.H., 2000. An investigation of phosphate ion
adsorption from aqueous solution by fly ash and slag. Cement and concrete research, 30(5),
pp.823-826.

Aı̈ tcin, P.C., 2000. Cements of yesterday and today: concrete of tomorrow. Cement and Concrete
research, 30(9), pp.1349-1359.

Arnon, D.I. and Johnson, C.M., 1942. Influence of hydrogen ion concentration on the growth of
higher plants under controlled conditions. Plant Physiology, 17(4), p.525.

ASTM C29 / C29M-17a, 2017. Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids
in Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Atiyeh, R.M., Subler, S., Edwards, C.A., Bachman, G., Metzger, J.D. and Shuster, W., 2000.
Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and
soil. Pedobiologia, 44(5), pp.579-590.

Bakharev, T., Sanjayan, J.G. and Cheng, Y.B., 2001. Resistance of alkali-activated slag concrete
to carbonation. Cement and Concrete Research, 31(9), pp.1277-1283.

Bernal, S.A., de Gutiérrez, R.M., Pedraza, A.L., Provis, J.L., Rodriguez, E.D. and Delvasto, S.,
2011. Effect of binder content on the performance of alkali-activated slag concretes. Cement and
Concrete Research, 41(1), pp.1-8.

55
Bernal, S.A., Provis, J.L., Rose, V. and De Gutierrez, R.M., 2011. Evolution of binder structure in
sodium silicate-activated slag-metakaolin blends. Cement and Concrete Composites, 33(1), pp.46-
54.

Bernstein, L., 1975. Effects of salinity and sodicity on plant growth. Annual review of
phytopathology, 13(1), pp.295-312.

Bhutta, M.A.R., Tsuruta, K. and Mirza, J., 2012. Evaluation of high-performance porous concrete
properties. Construction and Building Materials, 31, pp.67-73.

Bougoul, S., Ruy, S., De Groot, F. and Boulard, T., 2005. Hydraulic and physical properties of
stonewool substrates in horticulture. Scientia Horticulturae, 104(4), pp.391-405.

Brough, A.R. and Atkinson, A., 2002. Sodium silicate-based, alkali-activated slag mortars: Part I.
Strength, hydration and microstructure. Cement and Concrete Research, 32(6), pp.865-879.

Bugbee, B., 2004. Nutrient Management in Recirculating Hydroponic Culture. Acta Horticulturae,
648, pp. 99-112.

Camacho‐Cristóbal, J.J., Rexach, J. and González‐Fontes, A., 2008. Boron in plants: deficiency
and toxicity. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 50(10), pp.1247-1255.

Castro, J., Bentz, D. and Weiss, J., 2011. Effect of sample conditioning on the water absorption of
concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 33(8), pp.805-813.

Chapman, H.D., 1965. Cation-exchange capacity. Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and
microbiological properties, (methodsofsoilanb), pp.891-901.

Chen, W., Cui, P., Sun, H., Guo, W., Yang, C., Jin, H., Fang, B. and Shi, D., 2009. Comparative
effects of salt and alkali stresses on organic acid accumulation and ionic balance of seabuckthorn
(Hippophae rhamnoides L.). Industrial Crops and Products, 30(3), pp.351-358.

56
Chen, F., Xu, Y., Wang, C. and Mao, J., 2013. Effects of concrete content on seed germination
and seedling establishment in vegetation concrete matrix in slope restoration. Ecological
Engineering, 58, pp.99-104.

Chindaprasirt, P., Hatanaka, S., Chareerat, T., Mishima, N. and Yuasa, Y., 2008. Cement paste
characteristics and porous concrete properties. Construction and Building Materials, 22(5),
pp.894-901.

Chrétien, S., Gosselin, A. and Dorais, M., 2000. High electrical conductivity and radiation-based
water management improve fruit quality of greenhouse tomatoes grown in
rockwool. HortScience, 35(4), pp.627-631.

Collins, F. and Sanjayan, J.G., 1999. Effects of ultra-fine materials on workability and strength of
concrete containing alkali-activated slag as the binder. Cement and concrete research, 29(3),
pp.459-462.

Cramer, G.R., Epstein, E. and Läuchli, A., 1990. Effects of sodium, potassium and calcium on
salt‐stressed barley. I. Growth analysis. Physiologia Plantarum, 80(1), pp.83-88.

Craul, P.J., 1985. A description of urban soils and their desired characteristics. Journal of
Arboriculture, 11(11), pp.330-339.

De Vries, S., van Dillen, S.M., Groenewegen, P.P. and Spreeuwenberg, P., 2013. Streetscape
greenery and health: stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science &
Medicine, 94, pp.26-33.

De Zeeuw, H. and Drechsel, P. eds., 2015. Cities and agriculture: developing resilient urban food
systems. Routledge.

Dhir, R. and Dyer, T., 1996. A Study on Ecological Concrete with Continuous Voids Concrete in
the Service of Mankind: Concrete for environment protection and enhancement, CRC Press, pp.
173-182.

57
Drake, J., Bradford, A. and Van Seters, T., 2014. Stormwater quality of spring–summer-fall
effluent from three partial-infiltration permeable pavement systems and conventional asphalt
pavement. Journal of environmental management, 139, pp.69-79.

Drizo, A., Frost, C.A., Grace, J. and Smith, K.A., 1999. Physico-chemical screening of phosphate-
removing substrates for use in constructed wetland systems. Water Research, 33(17), pp.3595-
3602.

Ducman, V., Mladenovič, A. and Šuput, J.S., 2002. Lightweight aggregate based on waste glass
and its alkali–silica reactivity. Cement and Concrete Research, 32(2), pp.223-226.

Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J.L., Lukey, G.C., Palomo, A. and Van Deventer,
J.S.J., 2007. Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. Journal of Materials
Science, 42(9), pp.2917-2933.

Drzal, M.S., Keith Cassel, D. and Fonteno, W.C., 1997, May. Pore fraction analysis: A new tool
for substrate testing. In International Symposium on Growing Media and Hydroponics 481 (pp.
43-54).

Eigenbrod, C. and Gruda, N., 2015. Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A
review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(2), pp.483-498.

Epstein, E., 1972. Mineral nutrition of plants: principles and perspectives.

Ferguson, B.K., 2005. Porous pavements. CRC Press.

Flatt, R.J., Roussel, N. and Cheeseman, C.R., 2012. Concrete: an eco-material that needs to be
improved. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 32(11), pp.2787-2798.

Ghafoori, N. and Dutta, S., 1995. Building and nonpavement applications of no-fines
concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 7(4), pp.286-289.

Ghafoori, N. and Dutta, S., 1995. Development of no-fines concrete pavement

applications. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 121(3), pp.283-288.

58
Glasser, F.P., 1997. Fundamental aspects of cement solidification and stabilisation. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 52(2-3), pp.151-170.

Grattan, S.R. and Grieve, C.M., 1999. Mineral nutrient acquisition and response by plants grown
in saline environments. Handbook of plant and crop stress, 9, pp.203-229.

Greenway, H., 1962. Plant response to saline substrates 1. Growth and ion uptake of several
varieties of Hordeum during and after sodium chloride treatment. Australian Journal of Biological
Sciences, 15(1), pp.16-38.

Gregor, M., 2004. Metal availability, uptake, transport and accumulation in plants. Heavy metal
stress in plants-from biomolecules to ecosystems. Spinger-verlag, Berlin, pp.1-27

Hamdulay, H.N. and John, R.J., 2015. Pervious concrete: step towards green concreting.
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 6(12)

Han, B., Zhang, L. and Ou, J., 2017. Smart and Multifunctional Concrete Towards Sustainable
Infrastructures.

Hepler, P.K., 2005. Calcium: a central regulator of plant growth and development. The Plant
Cell, 17(8), pp.2142-2155.

Hewlett, P., 2003. Lea's chemistry of cement and concrete. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I., 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without
soil. Circular. California Agricultural Experiment Station, 347(2nd edit).

Hongzhu, Q., 2016. Porous ecological concrete culture medium structural layer and light roof
greening system. CN105594435

Hu,Y., Guo Q., 2009. Plant-growing concrete plant growing-suitable materials and use thereof.
CN101381267A

59
Huang, X., Wang, Z., Liu, Y., Hu, W. and Ni, W., 2016. On the use of blast furnace slag and steel
slag in the preparation of green artificial reef concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 112,
pp.241-246.

Inden, H. and Torres, A. 2001. Comparison of four substrates on the growth and quality of
tomatoes. In International Symposium on Growing Media and Hydroponics, 644: 205-210.

Ingestad, T., 1977. Nitrogen and plant growth; maximum efficiency of nitrogen fertilizers. Ambio,
pp.146-151.

Islam, A.K., Edwards, D.G. and Asher, C.J., 1980. pH optima for crop growth. Plant and
soil, 54(3), pp.339-357.

Javid, M., Ford, R. and Nicolas, M.E., 2012. Tolerance responses of Brassica juncea to salinity,
alkalinity and alkaline salinity. Functional Plant Biology, 39(8), pp.699-707.

Jenkins, A., Keefe, G. and Hall, N., 2015. Planning Urban Food Production into Today's
Cities. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 3(1), pp.35-47.

Jensen, M.H. and Collins, W.L., 1985. Hydroponic vegetable production. Horticultural Reviews,
Volume 7, pp.483-558.

Jones Jr, J.B., 2016. Hydroponics: a practical guide for the soilless grower. CRC press.

Jones Jr, J.B., 1982. Hydroponics: its history and use in plant nutrition studies. Journal of plant
Nutrition, 5(8), pp.1003-1030.

Kim, H.H., Kim, C.S., Jeon, J.H. and Park, C.G., 2016. Effects on the Physical and Mechanical
Properties of Porous Concrete for Plant Growth of Blast Furnace Slag, Natural Jute Fiber, and
Styrene Butadiene Latex Using a Dry Mixing Manufacturing Process. Materials, 9(2), p.84.

Kim, H.H. and Park, C.G., 2016. Performance Evaluation and Field Application of Porous
Vegetation Concrete Made with By-Product Materials for Ecological Restoration
Projects. Sustainability, 8(4), p.294.

60
Lang, E., 2002. Blast furnace cements. Structure and Performance of Cements, 2nd ed., Spon,
London, pp.310-323.

Läuchli, A. and Epstein, E., 1990. Plant responses to saline and sodic conditions. Agricultural
Salinity Assessment and Management, 71, pp.113-137.

Lea-Cox, J.D., Stutte, G.W., Berry, W.L. and Wheeler, R.M., 1999. Nutrient dynamics and
pH/charge-balance relationships in hydroponic solutions. Acta Horticulturae, 481, pp.241-250.

Lemaire, F., 1995. Physical, chemical and biological properties of growing medium. Hydroponics
and Transplant Production 396, pp.273-284.

Li, C., Sun, H. and Li, L., 2010. A review: The comparison between alkali-activated slag (Si+ Ca)
and metakaolin (Si+ Al) cements. Cement and Concrete Research, 40(9), pp.1341-1349.

Li, R., Shi, F., Fukuda, K. and Yang, Y., 2010. Effects of salt and alkali stresses on germination,
growth, photosynthesis and ion accumulation in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Soil Science & Plant
Nutrition, 56(5), pp.725-733.

Li, R., Shi, F. and Fukuda, K., 2010. Interactive effects of various salt and alkali stresses on growth,
organic solutes, and cation accumulation in a halophyte Spartina alterniflora
(Poaceae). Environmental and Experimental Botany, 68(1), pp.66-74.

Lin, B.B., Philpott, S.M. and Jha, S., 2015. The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity-
ecosystem services: challenges and next steps. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(3), pp.189-201.

Lin, B.B., Philpott, S.M., Jha, S. and Liere, H., 2017. Urban Agriculture as a Productive Green
Infrastructure for Environmental and Social Well-Being. In Greening Cities, pp. 155-179.
Springer Singapore.

Liu, Y. et al., 2009. Steel slag plant-growing concrete and preparation method thereof.
CN101456711A

61
Manso, M. and Castro-Gomes, J., 2015. Green wall systems: A review of their
characteristics. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, pp.863-871.

Marcelis, L.F.M. and Van Hooijdonk, J., 1999. Effect of salinity on growth, water use and nutrient
use in radish (Raphanus sativus L.). Plant and Soil, 215(1), pp.57-64.

Marolf, A., Neithalath, N., Sell, E., Wegner, K., Weiss, J. and Olek, J., 2004. Influence of
aggregate size and gradation on acoustic absorption of enhanced porosity concrete. ACI Materials
Journal-American Concrete Institute, 101(1), pp.82-91.

Marschner, H., 2011. Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic press.

Matschei, T., Lothenbach, B. and Glasser, F.P., 2007. The role of calcium carbonate in cement
hydration. Cement and Concrete Research, 37(4), pp.551-558.

McDonough, W., Braungart, M. and Clark, P.J., Ford Motor Land Development Corporation,
Mcdonough and Braungart Design Chemistry, 2003. Modular roof covering system. US6606823
B1

McLellan, B.C., Williams, R.P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A. and Corder, G.D., 2011. Costs and carbon
emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 19(9), pp.1080-1090.

Mecchia, M., Sauro, F., Piccini, L., De Waele, J., Sanna, L., Tisato, N., Lira, J. and Vergara, F.,
2014. Geochemistry of surface and subsurface waters in quartz-sandstones: significance for the
geomorphic evolution of tepui table mountains (Gran Sabana, Venezuela). Journal of
Hydrology, 511, pp.117-138.

Mok, H.F., Williamson, V.G., Grove, J.R., Burry, K., Barker, S.F. and Hamilton, A.J., 2014.
Strawberry fields forever? Urban agriculture in developed countries: a review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 34(1), pp.21-43.

Mullaney, J., Lucke, T. and Trueman, S.J., 2015. A review of benefits and challenges in growing
street trees in paved urban environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, pp.157-166.

62
Nasir Khan, M., Siddiqui, M.H., Mohammad, F., Naeem, M. and Khan, M.M.A., 2010. Calcium
chloride and gibberellic acid protect linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) from NaCl stress by
inducing antioxidative defence system and osmoprotectant accumulation. Acta Physiologiae
Plantarum, 32(1), pp.121-132.

Neithalath, N., Sumanasooriya, M.S. and Deo, O., 2010. Characterizing pore volume, sizes, and
connectivity in pervious concretes for permeability prediction. Materials Characterization, 61(8),
pp.802-813.

Nieman, R.H., 1962. Some effects of sodium chloride on growth, photosynthesis, and respiration
of twelve crop plants. Botanical Gazette, 123(4), pp.279-285.

Obla, K. and Sabnis, G., 2009. Pervious Concrete for Sustainable Development. CRC press.

Oh, R.O., Cha, S.S., Park, S.Y., Lee, H.J., Park, S.W. and Park, C.G., 2014. Mechanical properties
and water purification characteristics of natural jute fiber-reinforced non-cement alkali-activated
porous vegetation blocks. Paddy and water environment, 12(1), pp.149-156.

Papadakis, V.G. and Tsimas, S., 2002. Supplementary cementing materials in concrete: Part I:
efficiency and design. Cement and Concrete Research, 32(10), pp.1525-1532.

Payá, J., Monzó, J., Borrachero, M.V. and Velázquez, S., 2003. Evaluation of the pozzolanic
activity of fluid catalytic cracking catalyst residue (FC3R). Thermogravimetric analysis studies on
FC3R-Portland cement pastes. Cement and concrete research, 33(4), pp.603-609.

Perera, D.S., Hanna, J.V., Davis, J., Blackford, M.G., Latella, B.A., Sasaki, Y. and Vance, E.R.,
2008. Relative strengths of phosphoric acid-reacted and alkali-reacted metakaolin
materials. Journal of materials science, 43(19), pp.6562-6566.

Peterson, J.C., 1982. Effects of pH upon nutrient availability in a commercial soilless root medium
utilized for floral crop production. Ohio State University and Ohio Research and Development
Center. Cir, 268, pp.16-19.

63
Pulford, I.D. and Watson, C., 2003. Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated land by
trees—a review. Environment international, 29(4), pp.529-540. Quan, H.Z., 2012. Green Roofs
System with Porous Ecological Concrete. In Applied Mechanics and Materials (Vol. 174, pp. 966-
969). Trans Tech Publications.

Radi, A.A., Abdel-Wahab, D.A. and Hamada, A.M., 2012. Evaluation of some bean lines tolerance
to alkaline soil. Journal of Biology and Earth Sciences, 2(1), pp.18-27.b

Rakocy, J., 2007. Ten guidelines for aquaponic systems. Aquaponics Journal, 46, pp.14-17.

Ramesh, V., Ahmed John, S. and Koperuncholan, M., 2014. Impact of cement industries dust on
selective green plants: A case study in Ariyalur industrial zone. International Journal of
Pharmaceutical, Chemical and Biological Sciences, 4, pp.152-158.

Ramsey, W. and Ungerleider, A., 2008. Hybrid composite hydroponic susbtrate system.
US20080034563 A1

Raviv, M., 2007. Soilless Culture: Theory and Practice.

Resh, H.M., 2012. Hydroponic food production: a definitive guidebook for the advanced home
gardener and the commercial hydroponic grower. CRC Press.

Roosta, H.R., 2011. Interaction between water alkalinity and nutrient solution pH on the vegetative
growth, chlorophyll fluorescence and leaf magnesium, iron, manganese, and zinc concentrations
in lettuce. Journal of plant nutrition, 34(5), pp.717-731.

Rui, Y., 2014. The research of Green and Eco-friendly concrete’s mixing and application.
In Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 584, pp. 1039-1045. Trans Tech Publications.

Sabir, B.B., Wild, S. and Bai, J., 2001. Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete: a
review. Cement and Concrete Composites, 23(6), pp.441-454.

Sabnis, G., 2011. Pervious Concrete for Sustainable Development. Green Building with Concrete:
Sustainable Design and Construction, pp.151-174 CRC Press

64
Salas, M.C., Montero, J.L. and Moral, J.A., 2009, June. Hydroponic system for growing ground
cover plants on vertical surface. In II International Conference on Landscape and Urban
Horticulture 881 (pp. 421-423).

Samarakoon, U.C., Weerasinghe, P.A. and Weerakkody, W.A.P., 2006. Effect of electrical
conductivity [EC] of the nutrient solution on nutrient uptake, growth and yield of leaf lettuce
(Lactuca sativa L.) in stationary culture. Tropical Agricultural Research, 18, p.13.

Sand, E., The effects of surface permeability and constructed structural soil on the growth of linden
trees in Gothenburg, Sweden.

Saricimen, H., Shameem, M., Barry, M.S., Ibrahim, M. and Abbasi, T.A., 2003. Durability of
proprietary cementitious materials for use in wastewater transport systems. Cement and Concrete
Composites, 25(4), pp.421-427.

Savvas, D., 2003. Hydroponics: A modern technology supporting the application of integrated
crop management in greenhouse. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 1, pp.80-86.

Savvas, D. and Adamidis, K., 1999. Automated management of nutrient solutions based on target
electrical conductivity, pH, and nutrient concentration ratios. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 22(9),
pp.1415-1432.

Schaefer, V.R., Suleiman, M.T., Wang, K., Kevern, J.T. and Wiegand, P., 2006. An overview of
pervious concrete applications in stormwater management and pavement systems. Civil,
Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011.

Schiopu, N., Tiruta-Barna, L., Jayr, E., Méhu, J. and Moszkowicz, P., 2009. Modelling and
simulation of concrete leaching under outdoor exposure conditions. Science of The Total
Environment, 407(5), pp.1613-1630.

Shi, D.C., 1993. Difference between salt (NaCl) and alkaline (Na2CO3) stresses on Puccinellia
tenuiflora (Griseb.) Scribn. et Merr. plants. Acta bot. Sin., 35, pp.144-149.

65
Shi, D. and Sheng, Y., 2005. Effect of various salt–alkaline mixed stress conditions on sunflower
seedlings and analysis of their stress factors. Environmental and experimental Botany, 54(1), pp.8-
21.

Shinohara, Y., Hata, T., Maruo, T., Hohjo, M. and Ito, T., 1997, May. Chemical and physical
properties of the coconut-fiber substrate and the growth and productivity of tomato (Lycopercicon
esculentum Mill.) plants. International Symposium on Growing Media and Hydroponics, 48, pp.
145-150.

Shukla, J., Pandey, V., Singh, S.N., Yunus, M., Singh, N. and Ahmad, K.J., 1990. Effect of cement
dust on the growth and yield of Brassica campestris L. Environmental Pollution, 66(1), pp.81-88.

Siddiqui, M.H., Al-Whaibi, M.H., Sakran, A.M., Ali, H.M., Basalah, M.O., Faisal, M., Alatar, A.
and Al-Amri, A.A., 2013. Calcium-induced amelioration of boron toxicity in radish. Journal of
Plant Growth Regulation, pp.1-11.

Sonneveld, C. and Voogt, W., 2009. Nutrient solutions for soilless cultures. In Plant Nutrition of
Greenhouse Crops (pp. 257-275). Springer Netherlands.

Sonneveld, C. and Voogt, W., 2009. Substrates: Chemical characteristics and preparation. In Plant
Nutrition of Greenhouse Crops (pp. 227-256). Springer Netherlands.

Sriravindrarajah, R., Wang, N.D.H. and Ervin, L.J.W., 2012. Mix design for pervious recycled
aggregate concrete. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 6(4), pp.239-246.

Steffes, R., 1999. Laboratory study of the leachate from crushed Portland cement concrete base
material, No. MLR-96-4.

Stumm, W. and Morgan, J.J., 2012. Aquatic chemistry: chemical equilibria and rates in natural
waters, Vol. 126.

Tarnai, M., Mizuguchi, H., Hatanaka, S., Katahira, H., Nakazawa, T., Yanagibashi, K. and
Kunieda, M., 2013, August. Design, construction and recent applications of porous concrete in
Japan. In 28th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures, Singapore, Vol. 22, p. 28.

66
Taylor, H.F., 1997. Cement Chemistry. Thomas Telford.

Tennis, P.D., Leming, M.L. and Akers, D.J., 2004. Pervious Concrete Pavements (No. PCA Serial
No. 2828). Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association.

Tho-in, T., Sata, V., Chindaprasirt, P. and Jaturapitakkul, C., 2012. Pervious high-calcium fly ash
geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 30, pp.366-371.

Thomaier, S., Specht, K., Henckel, D., Dierich, A., Siebert, R., Freisinger, U.B. and Sawicka, M.,
2015. Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-Acreage
Farming (ZFarming). Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 30(1), pp.43-54.

Tran, H.T., Hurley, B.A. and Plaxton, W.C., 2010. Feeding hungry plants: the role of purple acid
phosphatases in phosphate nutrition. Plant Science, 179(1), pp.14-27.

Urrestarazu, M., Guillén, C., Mazuela, P.C. and Carrasco, G., 2008. Wetting agent effect on
physical properties of new and reused rockwool and coconut coir waste. Scientia
Horticulturae, 116(1), pp.104-108.

Valdez-Aguilar, L.A. and Reed, D.W., 2010. Growth and nutrition of young bean plants under
high alkalinity as affected by mixtures of ammonium, potassium, and sodium. Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 33(10), pp.1472-1488.

Van Eysinga, J.R. and Smilde, K.W., 1981. Nutritional disorders in glasshouse tomatoes,
cucumbers and lettuce. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.

Van Os, E.A., 1982. Dutch developments in soilless culture. Outlook on Agriculture, 11(4),
pp.165-171.

Walton, N.R.G., 1989. Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids—What is their precise
relationship? Desalination, 72(3), pp.275-292.

67
Wang, K., Schaefer, V.R., Kevern, J.T. and Suleiman, M.T., 2006, May. Development of mix
proportion for functional and durable pervious concrete. In NRMCA Concrete Technology Forum:
Focus on Pervious Concrete, pp. 24-25.

Wiser, L. and Blom, T.J., 2016. The Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Ratios and Electrical
Conductivity on Plant Growth. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 7(12), p.1590.

Wong, N.H. and Chen, Y., 2010. The role of urban greenery in high-density cities. Designing high-
density cities for social and environmental sustainability, pp.227-262.

Wong, N.H., Tan, A.Y.K., Tan, P.Y., Chiang, K. and Wong, N.C., 2010. Acoustics evaluation of
vertical greenery systems for building walls. Building and Environment, 45(2), pp.411-420.

Wong, N.H., Tan, A.Y.K., Chen, Y., Sekar, K., Tan, P.Y., Chan, D., Chiang, K. and Wong, N.C.,
2010. Thermal evaluation of vertical greenery systems for building walls. Building and
Environment, 45(3), pp.663-672.

Wu, B., Xia, Z.Y., Zhao, J., Zhao, Z.C., Yang, Y.S. and Xu, W.N., 2013. The Response of pH in
substrate of vegetation-growing concrete with cement content. Applied Mechanics and Materials,
Vol. 361, pp. 1067-1070.

Wu, Z., Yang, C. and Wu, Z., 2009. Cast-in-situ invert type pervious ecological concrete and
method for constructing slope protection thereof. CN101486555A

Xue, Y., Hou, H. and Zhu, S., 2009. Characteristics and mechanisms of phosphate adsorption onto
basic oxygen furnace slag. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 162(2), pp.973-980.

Yadav, S., Irfan, M., Ahmad, A. and Hayat, S., 2011. Causes of salinity and plant manifestations
to salt stress: a review. Journal of Environmental Biology, 32(5), p.667.

Yahia, A. and Kabagire, K.D., 2014. New approach to proportion pervious concrete. Construction
and Building Materials, 62, pp.38-46.

68
Yamada, H., Kayama, M., Saito, K. and Hara, M., 1986. A fundamental research on phosphate
removal by using slag. Water research, 20(5), pp.547-557.

Yermiyahu, U., Ben-Gal, A., Keren, R. and Reid, R.J., 2008. Combined effect of salinity and
excess boron on plant growth and yield. Plant and Soil, 304(1), pp.73-87.

Yip, C.K., Lukey, G.C. and Van Deventer, J.S.J., 2005. The coexistence of geopolymeric gel and
calcium silicate hydrate at the early stage of alkaline activation. Cement and Concrete
Research, 35(9), pp.1688-1697.

Yuan, B., Wu, J., Li, H. and Xue, C., 2010. Preparation and construction method of BSC (Bio-
substrate concrete) biological matrix fine aggregate plant-growing concrete. CN102337744A

Zain, M.F.M., Safiuddin, M.D. and Mahmud, H., 2000. Development of high performance
concrete using silica fume at relatively high water–binder ratios. Cement and Concrete
research, 30(9), pp.1501-1505.

Zhang, J.T. and Mu, C.S., 2009. Effects of saline and alkaline stresses on the germination, growth,
photosynthesis, ionic balance and anti‐oxidant system in an alkali‐tolerant leguminous forage
Lathyrus quinquenervius. Soil Science & Plant Nutrition, 55(5), pp.685-697.

69
 Appendix A
Below are pictures taken during the experimental design of the porous concrete substrate
with a high resolution microscope described in Chapter 3.

Figure A.0.1 slag binder testing with different concentrations of activators

In Figure A.2, a photograph of an early mix of the slag porous concrete. The white colored
part at the top of the block is unreacted aluminosilicates.

Figure A.0.2 Unreacted aluminosilicates for the initial recipe of slag porous concrete

In Figure A.3 and Figure A.4 are examples of measure types that could be extracted from
the software using a high resolution microscope.

70
Figure A.3 Diameter measures taken with the software provided with the high resolution microscope

Figure A.4 Pore area calculations with software from the high resolution microscope

71
 Appendix B
Below are pictures taken from the experiment in Chapter 4. A high resolution microscope
was used in order to see the root networking through the slag substrates used. Equally, Appendix
B also covers the raw data from the pilot experiment conducted prior to Chapter 4.

Figure B.1 Root networking with root diameter measurements

Figure B.2 root in the slag porous substrate with root hairs

72
Pilot test
Prior to the experiment on plant germination growth in porous concrete substrates with
various concentrations of Hoagland solutions, a pilot germination test was conducted. The pilot
test consisted of a 7 day soak and 28 day germination of plants. The ground granulated burnt
furnace slag porous concrete substrates were soaked for a 7 day period in their respective solutions:
water, Hoagland solution and modified Hoagland solution with a higher molarity of KH 2PO4.
Three porous concrete treatments were investigated in order to compare plant growth in
comparison to 1.5 in. rockwool substrates (Grodan A-OK Starter Plugs, The ROCKWOOL
Group). With rockwool, a total of 4 treatments were carried out in the pilot experiment. Each
treatment had 27 individual substrates and were seeded with 9 seeds of each species. The plant
types were chosen from different families, S. lycopersicum (tomato), R. raphanistrum (radish) and
L. sativa (romaine lettuce). All tests took place in a growth chamber (TC30, Conviron) with pre-
set conditions: temperature of 25°C, relative humidity of 50% and a photoperiod of 16 h, 6:00HR
to 22:00HR. The lighting in the growth chamber was fluorescent lights and the intensity was
measured at the base of the plants and was recorded at 150 µmol m-2s-1. The pilot test had 3
replicates of 28 days. Throughout the 28 days the rockwool treatment had the lowest pH and
electrical conductivity (EC). The pH range of all treatments with concrete substrates fluctuated
between 7 and 10. The pH drops occurred on days where their respective solutions were added to
the treatments. Amongst slag based treatments, the water treatment obtained the lowest EC and
the modified Hoagland solution with increased KH2PO4 treatment had the highest EC throughout
the germination period. The higher EC in the Hoagland solution with increased KH2PO4 was
caused by adsorption of phosphate by the GGBFS binder (Yamada et al., 1986). The Hoagland
treatment had the fastest germination rate in comparison to all other porous concrete treatments.
The Hoagland treatment’s germination rate came close to rockwool’s which had the fastest growth
rate and highest plant viability among all treatments. At day 28 the Hoagland treatment
germination was of 91.36% and 96.30% for rockwool. Rockwool had the highest mass of fresh
produce for all different plant species grown in the pilot experiment and among slag based
substrate treatments, the highest yielding fresh mass was found in different treatments for every
plant. The highest yielding fresh mass for radish was found in the Hoagland treatment, for romaine
in the KH2PO4 treatment and for tomato in the water treatment. The total dry mass ratios in
comparison to rockwool for all plants and treatments were calculated. The highest yielding average

73
dry mass for all plant species was radish in the Hoagland treatment at 81.90% dry mass of
rockwool. All other results had dry mass ratio values lower than 33% dry mass of rockwool. An
ANOVA test was conducted with respect to dry mass in the pilot test and a significant difference
(P < 0.05) was observed among treatments. After conducting a post-hoc analysis (Tukey HSD),
similitudes were found solely between slag substrate treatments (P >0.05). The highest similarity
was found between the water and KH2PO4 treatments.

Table B.1 Hoagland ingredients for treatments with nutrients in pilot test

Component Original (mol/L) KH2PO4 (mol/L)

𝑲𝑵𝑶𝟑 0.005 0.005

𝑪𝒂(𝑵𝑶𝟑 ) × 𝟒𝑯𝟐 𝑶 0.005 0.005

𝑴𝒈𝑺𝑶𝟒 × 𝟕𝑯𝟐 𝑶 0.002 0.002

𝑲𝑯𝟐 𝑷𝑶𝟒 0.001 1.100 × 10-4

𝑯𝟑 𝑩𝑶𝟑 2.544 × 10-5 2.544 × 10-5

𝑴𝒏𝑪𝒍𝟐 × 𝟒𝑯𝟐 𝑶 3.256 × 10-6 3.256 × 10-6

𝒁𝒏𝑺𝑶𝟒 × 𝟕𝑯𝟐 𝑶 3.290 × 10-8 3.290 × 10-8

𝑪𝒖𝑺𝑶𝟒 × 𝟓𝑯𝟐 𝑶 5.030 × 10-9 5.030 × 10-9

𝑵𝒂𝟐 𝑴𝒐𝑶𝟒 × 𝟐𝑯𝟐 𝑶 1.293 × 10-8 1.293 × 10-8

𝑵𝒂𝑬𝑫𝑻𝑨 1.458 × 10-5 1.458 × 10-5

𝑭𝒆𝑺𝑶𝟒 × 𝟕𝑯𝟐 𝑶 8.571 × 10-6 8.571 × 10-6

Table B.2 Average fresh mass and ratio in comparison to rockwool for pilot experiment

Average fresh mass (g/plant) Comparison to rockwool (%)

Radish Romaine Tomato Radish Romaine Tomato

Hoagland 0.771 ± 0.620 0.093± 0.029 0.351 ± 0.184 64.68 3.82 9.70

KH2P04 0.260 ± 0.209 0.110 ± 0.047 0.208 ± 0.109 21.81 4.52 5.75
Pilot test
Water 0.152 ± 0.092 0.083 ± 0.047 0.353 ± 0.221 12.75 3.41 9.75

Rockwool 1.192 ± 1.491 2.432 ± 0.863 3.619 ± 1.352 100.00 100.00 100.00

74
 Table B.3 Average dry mass and ratio in comparison to rockwool for pilot experiment

Average dry mass (g/plant) Comparison to rockwool (%)

Radish Romaine Tomato Radish Romaine Tomato
Hoagland 0.086 ± 0.079 0.031 ± 0.010 0.066 ± 0.037 81.90 19.62 23.66
KH2P04 0.034 ± 0.041 0.039 ± 0.017 0.055 ± 0.026 32.38 24.68 19.71
Pilot test
Water 0.021 ± 0.017 0.028 ± 0.010 0.062 ± 0.033 20.00 17.72 22.22
Rockwool 0.105 ± 0.146 0.158 ± 0.058 0.279 ± 0.103 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table B.4 Pilot experiment raw data over 28 day period

DAY TREATMENT PH EC TOMATO ROMAINE RADISH TOTAL

0 WATER 11.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 WATER 10.30 0.83 0.00 5.00 2.00 25.93
5 WATER 10.30 0.70 0.00 6.67 4.00 39.51
7 WATER 6.67 1.00 1.67 8.00 5.00 54.32
10 WATER 8.80 1.23 9.00 8.33 5.67 85.19
12 WATER 7.67 1.37 9.00 8.00 5.67 83.95
14 WATER 9.23 1.82 9.00 9.00 7.67 95.06
17 WATER 7.20 1.72 9.00 9.00 6.67 91.36
19 WATER 8.80 2.20 9.00 9.00 7.00 92.59
21 WATER 7.27 1.82 9.00 9.00 7.00 92.59
24 WATER 8.73 2.13 9.00 9.00 6.67 91.36
26 WATER 8.57 2.50 9.00 9.00 6.33 90.12
28 WATER 8.93 3.20 9.00 9.00 6.33 90.12
0 KH2PO4 8.43 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 KH2PO4 9.83 1.89 0.00 8.00 1.67 35.80
5 KH2PO4 9.70 1.85 0.00 8.33 5.00 49.38
7 KH2PO4 8.30 1.88 5.67 8.33 6.33 75.31
10 KH2PO4 9.50 2.29 8.67 8.67 6.67 88.89
12 KH2PO4 8.40 2.45 8.67 8.67 6.67 88.89
14 KH2PO4 9.57 2.43 8.67 8.67 7.33 91.36
17 KH2PO4 8.03 2.53 8.67 8.33 6.67 87.65
19 KH2PO4 9.87 2.77 8.67 8.33 6.67 87.65
21 KH2PO4 9.10 2.59 8.67 8.33 6.67 87.65
24 KH2PO4 10.00 2.77 8.67 8.33 6.33 86.42
26 KH2PO4 9.70 2.75 8.67 8.33 6.33 86.42
28 KH2PO4 9.80 2.40 8.67 8.67 5.67 85.19
0 HOAGLAND 8.80 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 HOAGLAND 9.83 1.74 0.00 7.33 4.67 44.44
5 HOAGLAND 9.60 1.70 0.00 8.00 7.00 55.56
7 HOAGLAND 8.27 1.61 6.67 9.00 8.33 88.89

75
 10 HOAGLAND 9.27 2.01 8.67 9.00 8.33 96.30
12 HOAGLAND 7.77 1.86 8.33 9.00 8.33 95.06
14 HOAGLAND 9.40 2.20 8.33 9.00 9.00 97.53
17 HOAGLAND 8.07 2.20 8.33 9.00 8.33 95.06
19 HOAGLAND 9.17 2.24 8.33 9.00 8.33 95.06
21 HOAGLAND 8.77 2.27 8.33 9.00 8.33 95.06
24 HOAGLAND 9.57 2.39 8.33 9.00 8.67 96.30
26 HOAGLAND 9.30 2.40 9.00 9.00 7.33 93.83
28 HOAGLAND 9.27 2.20 8.33 9.00 7.33 91.36
0 ROCKWOOL 8.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 ROCKWOOL 7.97 0.07 0.00 8.33 4.67 48.15
5 ROCKWOOL 7.87 0.04 0.00 9.00 7.67 61.73
7 ROCKWOOL 5.43 0.90 8.33 9.00 8.00 93.83
10 ROCKWOOL 6.30 0.72 9.00 9.00 8.33 97.53
12 ROCKWOOL 6.20 0.92 9.00 9.00 8.33 97.53
14 ROCKWOOL 6.70 1.12 9.00 9.00 8.33 97.53
17 ROCKWOOL 6.67 1.18 9.00 9.00 8.33 97.53
19 ROCKWOOL 7.37 1.22 9.00 8.67 8.50 97.53
21 ROCKWOOL 7.30 1.24 9.00 9.00 8.33 97.53
24 ROCKWOOL 7.63 1.60 9.00 9.00 8.00 96.30
26 ROCKWOOL 8.10 1.32 9.00 9.00 8.00 96.30
28 ROCKWOOL 7.87 2.36 9.00 9.00 8.33 96.30

Table B.5 Chapter 4 experiment raw data over 28 day period

TOMATO ROMAINE RADISH TOTAL

TREATMENT PH EC GERMINATION GERMINATION GERMINATION GERMINATION
HOAGLAND 6.8 2.062 0 0 0 0
HOAGLAND 8.5 2.378 0 0 0 0
HOAGLAND 8.1 2.636 0.66 8.33 6.66 58.02
HOAGLAND 8.8 2.819 8.33 8.66 8 92.59
HOAGLAND 9.1 3.365 9 8.66 8.33 96.29
HOAGLAND 8.0 3.166 9 9 7.66 95.06
HOAGLAND 9.4 3.725 9 9 8.33 97.53
HOAGLAND 9.7 4.295 9 9 8.33 97.53
HOAGLAND 7.6 3.725 9 9 8 96.29
HOAGLAND 9.4 4.206 9 9 8 96.29
HOAGLAND 9.5 3.921 9 9 8 96.29
HOAGLAND 8.9 5.070 9 9 8 96.29
HOAGLAND 8.4 5.784 9 9 8 96.29
DOUBLE 5.9 3.365 0 0 0 0

76
DOUBLE 7.4 4.366 0 0 0 0
DOUBLE 7.0 4.789 0 9 7.66 61.72
DOUBLE 8.5 5.419 8.66 9 8.66 97.53
DOUBLE 8.8 6.576 9 9 8.66 98.76
DOUBLE 7.4 5.819 9 9 8.66 98.76
DOUBLE 9.1 7.004 9 9 9 100
DOUBLE 9.2 7.666 9 9 9 100
DOUBLE 7.0 7.530 9 9 8.66 98.76
DOUBLE 9.1 8.373 9 9 9 100
DOUBLE 9.0 8.172 9 9 9 100
DOUBLE 8.4 9.922 9 9 8.66 98.76
DOUBLE 8.1 10.974 9 9 8.66 98.76
QUINTUPLE 4.6 6.473 0 0 0 0
QUINTUPLE 7.4 9.558 0 0 0 0
QUINTUPLE 6.5 10.548 0 6 3.33 34.56
QUINTUPLE 8.1 12.520 1 7.33 6 53.08
QUINTUPLE 8.4 13.390 3.33 7.33 6 61.72
QUINTUPLE 6.8 12.050 4 7.33 5 60.49
QUINTUPLE 8.7 14.749 6.33 7.33 6 72.84
QUINTUPLE 9.1 15.795 6.66 7.66 6 75.30
QUINTUPLE 6.1 14.287 6.66 7.66 5.33 72.84
QUINTUPLE 8.5 16.237 6.66 7.66 5.33 72.84
QUINTUPLE 8.7 16.724 6.66 7.66 5.33 72.84
QUINTUPLE 8.6 17.022 6.33 7.66 5 70.37
QUINTUPLE 8.6 17.022 6.33 7.666 4.66 69.13
ROCKWOOL 8.2 0.074 0 0 0 0
ROCKWOOL 6.5 0.050 0 2 3.66 20.98
ROCKWOOL 8.0 0.050 0 8.33 8 60.49
ROCKWOOL 7.7 0.074 8 9 8 92.59
ROCKWOOL 6.8 0.974 8.66 9 8 95.06
ROCKWOOL 6.4 1.419 8.66 9 8 95.06
ROCKWOOL 7.0 1.648 8.66 9 8 95.06
ROCKWOOL 7.4 1.855 8.66 9 8 95.06
ROCKWOOL 6.9 2.118 8.66 9 8 95.06
ROCKWOOL 7.5 2.359 8.66 9 8 95.06
ROCKWOOL 8.2 2.248 8.66 9 8 95.06
ROCKWOOL 7.5 2.801 8.66 9 8 95.06
ROCKWOOL 7.1 3.129 8.66 9 8 95.06

77
 Appendix C
Below are tables representing the raw data for the experiment described in chapter 5.

Table C.1 Chapter 5 experiment (a) data per treatment

GERMINATION
TIME TREATMENT EC PH (%)
0 water 0.00 6.00 0.00
2 water 0.04 6.80 4.17
4 water 0.06 7.13 51.67
6 water 0.04 7.27 76.67
8 water 0.05 7.40 84.17
10 water 0.05 7.13 87.50
12 water 0.05 7.27 90.00
14 water 0.05 6.97 90.83
0 pH 8 3.02 8.10 0.00
2 pH 8 2.47 8.03 2.50
4 pH 8 2.49 8.00 36.67
6 pH 8 2.48 8.00 55.00
8 pH 8 2.51 7.93 73.33
10 pH 8 2.61 7.97 78.33
12 pH 8 2.66 8.00 83.33
14 pH 8 2.72 8.00 85.00
0 pH 9 3.01 9.10 0.00
2 pH 9 2.28 8.97 1.67
4 pH 9 2.24 8.90 18.33
6 pH 9 2.26 8.87 27.50
8 pH 9 2.34 8.77 32.50
10 pH 9 2.37 8.77 34.17
12 pH 9 2.47 8.77 37.50
14 pH 9 2.53 8.80 40.83
0 pH 10 5.97 10.13 0.00
2 pH 10 4.83 10.07 0.83
4 pH 10 4.64 9.90 0.83
6 pH 10 4.64 9.87 1.67
8 pH 10 4.64 9.70 1.67
10 pH 10 4.80 9.67 1.67
12 pH 10 4.90 9.60 1.67
14 pH 10 4.92 9.60 1.67

78
 Table C.2 Chapter 5 experiment (b) data for each treatment

GERMINATION
TIME TREATMENT EC (ppt) PH (%)
0 quarter buffer 1.18 8.0 0.00
2 quarter buffer 1.15 8.0 0.00
4 quarter buffer 1.40 7.9 56.94
6 quarter buffer 1.48 8.0 77.78
8 quarter buffer 1.53 7.9 90.28
10 quarter buffer 1.50 8.0 90.28
12 quarter buffer 1.44 8.0 93.06
14 quarter buffer 1.86 8.0 90.28
0 half buffer 2.48 8.0 0.00
2 half buffer 2.19 8.0 0.00
4 half buffer 1.56 8.0 34.72
6 half buffer 2.87 8.1 51.39
8 half buffer 2.90 8.0 58.33
10 half buffer 3.08 8.0 69.44
12 half buffer 3.25 8.0 77.78
14 half buffer 3.76 8.1 73.61
0 low salinity 4.59 6.1 0.00
2 low salinity 4.78 5.9 0.00
4 low salinity 5.36 6.2 12.50
6 low salinity 5.73 6.5 38.89
8 low salinity 5.84 6.5 40.28
10 low salinity 6.02 6.5 44.44
12 low salinity 6.48 6.5 47.22
14 low salinity 7.29 6.6 45.83
0 high salinity 10.00 6.3 0.00
2 high salinity 10.00 6.2 0.00
4 high salinity 10.00 6.6 0.00
6 high salinity 10.00 6.4 0.00
8 high salinity 10.00 6.4 0.00
10 high salinity 10.00 6.5 0.00
12 high salinity 10.00 6.3 0.00
14 high salinity 10.00 6.4 0.00

79