Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biogeotechnics
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/biogeotechnics/

Mitigation of soil liquefaction using microbial technology: An overview

Kangda Wang1, Shifan Wu2, Jian Chu
⁎,3 ]]
]]]]]]
]]

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Soil liquefaction is a major geo-hazard. As liquefaction could occur anywhere in a sand layer and result in large-
Microbial geotechnology scale lateral spreading, treatment for liquefaction needs to be carried out over a large extent. The cost-effec­
Liquefaction mitigation tiveness of the treatment then becomes a major consideration. With the development of microbial geotechnol­
Bio-cementation ogies, some new approaches for liquefaction mitigation have been developed. Some of the methods offer more
Biogas desaturation
advantages over the existing methods. This paper gives an overview of the recent progress in bio related soil
liquefaction mitigation methods. These include both bio-cementation and biogas desaturation. The mechanisms
of bio-cementation and biogas desaturation are discussed. Recent up-scaled model tests and field trials are also
reviewed. The studies so far have demonstrated that there is a great potential for some of liquefaction mitigation
methods to be adopted in practice, although there are still challenges that need to be studied further. These
include treatment efficiency, long-term sustainability, and biosafety. A brief introduction to some emerging
technologies for liquefaction mitigation such as bio-gelation and use of fungi are also introduced.

1. Introduction
Liquefaction is a major geo-hazard occurring mainly during earth­
quakes. It manifests as a sudden drop of shear resistance due to the loss
of effective stresses caused by a build-up of excess pore water pressures
in sand layers. Liquefaction is assumed to occur under undrained con­
ditions and could be triggered by either monotonic or cyclic load [1].
Static liquefaction is often observed in load-controlled tests under un­
drained conditions. In general, the collapse mode of sand is termed
instability which is defined as an inability of soil to sustain a given load.
As pointed out by Chu and Leong [2], the mechanisms for static li­
quefaction and instability are essentially the same, although the term of
instability is more broader. Cyclic liquefaction is a phenomenon that a
saturated soil loses its original strength and transforms into a liquid-like
state under cyclic load [1]. If the pore pressure increases to a value as
high as the total stress, the effective stress in the soil will approach zero
and the sand will lose it shear resistance completely. In this case, the
sand is said to be liquefied. The commonly used failure criterion for
liquefaction is either the double amplitude shear strain of a soil sample
in triaxial cyclic test reaches 5% or the excess pore pressure reaches
effective confining stress [3]. The corresponding failure cyclic number
Nf can thus be determined experimentally. Liquefaction could occur for
both fully and partially saturated soil. However, the liquefaction re­
sistance of unsaturated soil is more higher [4–6].
In the past decades, several methods have been adopted for the
remediation of liquefaction. These include dynamic or vibro compac­
tion [7], stone columns or ram piers [8], drainage [9,10] or cement or
chemical grouting [11,12]. Compaction is the most commonly used
method because of its clear principle and feasibility to be implemented
in the field. Stone columns or ram piers may strengthen the ground
using columns formed by stones while the drainage method is to en­
hance the dissipation of pore water pressure by install drains in soil.
Cement or chemical grouting provide cementation in sand and thus
increase the liquefaction resistance [13]. A summary of different li­
quefaction mitigation countermeasures has been provided in the past
by Mitchell [14] and Chu et al. [10] in Table 1.
The earthquakes occurred in New Zealand in 2011 [15,16] and in
Indonesia in 2018 [17,18] have demonstrated the extensive nature of
liquefaction that the mitigation of liquefaction requires treatment of a
wide area or even an entire sand layer. To keep costs reasonable, the
selected method for mitigating liquefaction must have a low unit cost.
However, most of the conventional methods are expensive. Thus, efforts
to develop more cost-effective liquefaction mitigation methods are re­
quired.

⁎
Correspondence to: School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 639798 Singapore.
E-mail address: CJCHU@ntu.edu.sg (J. Chu).
1
0000-0003-0016-370X
2
0000-0002-4854-3392
3
0000-0003-1404-1834

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bgtech.2023.100005
Received 27 February 2023; Received in revised form 6 March 2023; Accepted 9 March 2023
Available online 23 March 2023
2949-9291/© 2023 The Author(s). Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005

Table 1
Characteristics of conventional ground improvement methods for liquefaction mitigation (after Chu et al. [10]).

Method Attainable Most Suitable Soil Effective Maximum Improvement Advantages Limitations
Types Depth

Soil replacement All soils A few meters High density fills 1) Can design to the desired 1) Expensive
improvement level 2) Require dewatering
2) easy to QA/QC 3) Temporary support
needed
Lowing ground water Sandy soils Top few Effective for soil above 1) Low cost 1) Limited usage
table meters water tale 2) Simple 2) May cause adjacent
effect
Dynamic compaction Saturated sands and < 10 m Dr = 80% 1) Low cost 1) Limited effective
silty sands (N1)60 = 25 2) Simple depth
qc1 = 10–15 MPa 3) Good for large areas 2) Clearance required
Vibro-compaction Sands with FC < 10% 30 m Dr = 80 + % 1) Uniformity with depth 1) Special equipment
(N1)60 = 25 2) Moderate cost needed
qc1 = 10–15 MPa 2) Backfill required
Sand and gravel Can use in most soil < 20 m Up to (N1)60 = 25–30 1) Proven effectiveness 1) Special equipment
compaction piles types qc1 = 10–15 MPa 2) Provides drainage needed
(Depend on soil type) 2) Slow
3) High cost
Stone columns Silty sands, silts, clayey 30 m (N1)60 = 20 1) Proven effectiveness 1) Special equipment
silts qc1 = 10–12 MPa 2) Provides drainage needed
2) Difficult QA/QC
Explosive compaction Saturated clean sands > 30 m Dr = 75% 1) Inexpensive 1) Vibrations
(N1)60 = 20–25 2) Simple technology 2) Safety issues
qc1 = 10–12 MPa 3) Can use at grater depths 3) Psychological
barriers.
Penetration grouting Sands and coarser Unlimited Void and crack filling and 1) No excess pore pressure High cost
materials solidification 2) Can localize treatment area
Deep mixing Most soil types > 30 m Design compressive 1) Positive ground 1) Special equipment
strengths ranging from reinforcement needed
1.0 to 1.4 MPa 2) Can contain liquefiable soil 2) Expensive
within high strength grid 3) Difficult QA/QC
walls
Jet grouting Unlimited Unlimited Design compressive 1) Controllable treatment 1) Expensive
strengths ranging from depth 2) Difficult QA/QC
1.0 to 1.4 MPa 2) Useful in soils with fines
Compaction grouting Any rapidly Unlimited Dr = 80% 1) Controllable treatment 1) Expensive
consolidating, (N1)60 = 25 zone 2) Slow
compressible soil qc1 = 10–15 MPa 2) Useful in soils with fines
(Depend on soil type)
Prefabricated vertical All types Depend on Reduce excess pore water 1) Quick installation Uncertain long-term
drain or EQ drain machine pressure 2) Higher discharge capacity performance;
Gravel drains Sands, silty sands > 30 m Reduce excess pore water 1) Inexpensive 1) Require close
pressure 2) Full area treatment not spacing
required 2) Limited case histories

In recent years, microbial based soil improvement methods such as bio-
cementation using a microbial induced carbonate precipitation (MICP)
process to strengthen sand [19–24] or using bacteria to generate tinny gas
bubbles in soil or the so-called biogas desaturation method [25–27] have
emerged. These methods only require solutions to be injected in sand
without mixing or the use of high energy or expensive equipment, thus may
have the potential to be the most cost-effective approach.
This overview mainly focusses on the applications of two microbial
based methods, namely bio-cementation and biogas desaturation, on the li­
quefaction mitigation of sands. Challenges and considerations for practical
application are discussed. Some other emerging microbial geotechnologies
in recent years are briefly introduced in this paper as well.
2. Bio-cementation
2.1. Concept of bio-cementation
[32–34], sulfate reduction [35,36] and iron reduction [37,38]. The
main chemical equation for each process mentioned above is sum­
marized in Table 2.
The effective products of microbial process mentioned above are usually
insoluble precipitates such as calcium carbonate and iron oxide. It is gen­
erally believed that precipitation in a crystal format has better bonding ef­
fects compared to non-crystal format [39]. Nowadays, the microbial process
which precipitates calcium carbonate has been widely adapted and is
usually termed as Microbially Induced Carbonate Precipitation (MICP).
There are several ways to produce calcium carbonate precipitation
as shown in Table 3. But the most commonly used method is to induce
urea hydrolysis to produce carbonate (CO23 ) and then combine it with
free calcium ion (Ca2 +) to generate calcium carbonate precipitation.
The theory of MICP by urea hydrolysis is based on two steps of
equations:
urease
CO(NH2)2 + 2H2 O 2NH+4 + CO32 (1)

Some microorganisms could produce inorganic compounds in either
crystal or non-crystal format. This process is called microbial miner­
alization. The production of inorganic compounds could fill and bond in
the void of geotechnical materials as illustrated in Fig. 1(a) in micro­
scopic perspective.
The inorganic compounds can be derived from different types of
microbial process, such as urea hydrolysis [21, 28–31], denitrification
Ca2 + + CO32 CaCO3 (2)
In the first step, urea is hydrolysed by the urease produced from the
specific bacteria. By the addition of calcium ion from soluble salts (i.e.,
CaCl2 ), calcium carbonate will be precipitated.
However, in order to promote these reactions, certain types of
bacteria should be used. For urea hydrolysis, these bacteria include

2
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu
Fig. 1. Mitigation of liquefaction using bio-cementation method: (a) Function of inorganic compounds. (b) Forms of precipitated calcium carbonate (URL: http://
www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/sediment/forschung.html). (c) Development of excess pore water pressure and axial strain for untreated and bio-cemented sand (after
Xiao et al. [23]).
Bacillus pasteurii, Pseudomonas sp., Variovorax sp., Leuconostoc me­
senteroides, Micrococcus sp., Bacillus subtilis, Deleya halophila, Halomonas
eurihalina and Myxococcus xanthus, properties of these bacteria are well
summarized by Dhami et al. [45]. These bacteria are not indigenous
and need pre-cultivation before treatment, but they usually have a
higher efficiency and reliability compared to native ones [46]. How­
ever, Burbank et al. [47] reported that the indigenous bacteria could
produce sufficient calcium carbonate precipitates to strengthen lique­
fiable soils in both laboratory and in-situ tests. Thus, the role of the
indigenous bacteria and their potential usage in soil treatment need
further exploration.
The forms of precipitated calcium carbonate usually have three
anhydrous polymorphs (calcite, aragonite and vaterite) and various
amorphous phases, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). The morphology of cal­
cium carbonate minerals is mainly determined by factors of super­
saturation [48,49], temperature [50–52], pH [53,54] and [Ca2 +]/
[CO23 ] ratio [53]. Among these formations, calcite is the most stable
one [55], and the calcite derived from the microbiological method can
provide a much better bonding between sand particles as compared
with that derived from chemical method [56,57].
Table 2
Main chemical reactions of different types of microbial process.
Type of microbial process
urea hydrolysis
denitrification
sulfate reduction
iron reduction
Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005
2.2. Laboratory-scale tests
Similar to chemical grouting, the principle of bio-cementation is to
bind loose sand grains to enhance its liquefaction resistance ability. The
major difference between bio-cementation and conventional grouting is
that the binding agent in bio-cementation is formed inside soil through
a microbial process and the biocement solution is a liquid like water
with little viscosity. Furthermore, the binding agent is mineral such as
calcium carbonate and thus is not biodegradable [57,58]. The study of
using bio-cementation for mitigation of liquefaction of sand can be
traced back to 2006 when DeJong et al. [29] tested the bio-cemented
sand with undrained monotonic shearing in triaxial tests. The results of
this study showed that the treated sand samples exhibit a non-collapse
(or strain softening) behaviour with a higher initial shear stiffness and
ultimate shear capacity than untreated loose specimens. The shear
wave velocity (Vs ) also increased from 200 m/s to 550 m/s after 25 h of
reaction. Burbank et al. [59] compared the cyclic resistance of bio-ce­
mented sand with that of Portland cement sand and found bio-ce­
mented sand has a higher cyclic resistance under the same cement
content. Using centrifuge model tests, Montoya et al. [60] found that
the excess pore water pressure, the surface settlement and the bottom
acceleration were all reduced after bio-cementation on loose siliceous
Main chemical equation
CO(NH2)2 + 3H2 O 2NH+
4 + HCO3 + OH
CH3COO + 2.6H+ + 1.6NO3 2CO2 + 0.8N2 + 2.8H2 O
CH3COO + 2H+ + SO24 HS + 2H2 O + CO2
CH3COO + 8Fe(OH)3 + 6HCO3 + 7H+ 8FeCO3 + 20H2 O
3
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005

Table 3
Reactions and by-products in different ways of MICP.

Metabolism Reactions By-product Reference

Ammonification Ca2 + + 2NH3 + H2 O + CO2 CaCO3 + 2NH+

4 NH+
4
González-Muñoz et al.[40]
Carbon absorption Ca2 + + 2OH + CO2 CaCO3 + H2 O Qian et al.[41]
Denitrification CH3 COO + 2.6H+ + 1.6NO3 2CO2 + 0.8N2 + 2.8H2 O N2, N2 O, NO van Paassen et al.[42]
Ca2 + + CO2 (aq) + 2OH CaCO3 + 2H2 O
Methane oxidation CH4 + SO24 + Ca2 + CaCO3 + H2 S + H2 O H2 S Reeburgh[43]
Photosynthesis 2HCO3 + Ca2 + CH2 O + CaCO3 + O2 O2 CH2 O Zhu et al.[44]
Sulfate reduction SO24 + 2[CH2 O] + OH + Ca2 + CaCO3 + CO2 + 2H2 O + HS CO2 HS Baumgartner et al.[35]
Ureolysis CO(NH2)2 + 2H2 O + Ca2 + + Cell 4 + Cell -CaCO3
2NH+ NH+
4
DeJong et al.[29]

sand. Han et al. [61] found that bio-cementation could improve the
characteristic of liquefiable sand through pore-filling and inter-grain
bonding. Xiao et al. [23] investigated the liquefaction resistance of bio-
cemented calcareous sand using cyclic triaxial tests and found that a
greater local stability of pore pressure response and a more significant
reduction in compressive axial strains with the increase in bio-cement
content, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The bio-cemented calcareous sand was
also tested by seismic shake table tests [62] and the results showed a
reduction of 50% in the excess pore water pressure and a more than
60% reduction in the vertical strain. The centrifuge model tests con­
ducted by Darby et al. [63] also demonstrated that an increase in the
peak base accelerations is required to trigger liquefaction of bio-ce­
mented sand as compared with that of clean loose sand. A series of
cyclic simple shear tests were conducted by Lee et al. [64] and the
results show that for light-cemented sand with calcium content less
than 1%, the number of cycles to liquefaction could be increased by
approximately 10 times. The cyclic simple shear tests conducted by
Riveros and Sadrekarimi [65] also demonstrate a change in the failure
mechanism from liquefaction to cyclic mobility after MICP treatment.
On the other hand, both Montoya et al. [60] and Zhang et al. [62] found
an amplification of acceleration on the sand surface after bio-ce­
mentation treatment. Such an amplification is undesirable and could be
harmful to the upper structure. Thus, for practical design, the ce­
mentation level and the expected liquefaction resistance improvement
need to be well balanced.
2.3. Up-scale tests
A 100 m3 model test was conducted by Van Paassen et al. [19]
which shows the stiffness of granular soils between the two injection
wells increased significantly after one day bio-cement treatment. But a
concern was also raised regarding the homogenous distribution of
precipitated CaCO3. A field trial involving the use of bio-grouting for a
soil volume of 1000 m3 was also carried out in Netherlands (Van
Paassen [66]. The depth of treatment varied between 3 and 20 m below
the surface. On the foreground, 6 injection wells surrounded by 14
extraction wells were installed in a regular plot of 24 by 4 m. The shear
strength of the soil was doubled after 4 times of treatment.
Cone penetration tests have been used to estimate the liquefaction
resistance of bio-cemented soil [67–71]. A large-scale model test con­
ducted by Gomez et al. [31] shows the tip resistance qc could increase
by over 500% when the calcite content exceeds 5%. However, the
parameters obtained from the cone penetration tests are less sensitive if
the calcite content is lower than 3%. Kalantary et al. [72] carried out an
in-situ cone penetration test on the shores of the Caspian Sea. It was
found that the tip resistance could be increased by up to 152% and the
friction resistance could be increased by up to 104%.
3. Biogas desaturation
3.1. Concept of gas desaturation
Research conducted over the past few decades have revealed that
the most cost-effective approach to mitigating liquefaction could be
through desaturation of fully saturated sand. Okamura and Soga's study
[73] indicates that the introduction of a small quantity of gas bubbles
into a fully saturated sand layer can substantially reduce the likelihood
of liquefaction. This is because the presence of gas bubbles enhances the
compressibility of the pore fluid, alleviates the excess pore pressure
development, and thereby strengthens the sand's resistance to lique­
faction [4, 73–75].
Several techniques have been invented for introducing gas bubbles
into soil. The earliest and simplest way is by direct air injection
[76–78]. In a field trial, Okamura et al. [77] employed air injection
method to establish a desaturation zone within a 4-meter radius of the
injection point, the degree of saturation within the zone was ranged
between 68% and 98%. However, as the gas is introduced externally,
the degree of saturation is hard to be controlled by air injection, and the
distribution of gas bubbles is quite heterogenous. There are some other
ways to generate gas bubbles in-situ, as summarized in Table 4. Yegian
et al. [79] developed a water electrolysis method to generate oxygen
and hydrogen gas bubbles in liquefaction-susceptible soils at labora­
tory. Chen et al. [80] performed an in-situ desaturation tests using
water electrolysis method and found the degree of saturation of sand
foundation was decreased to 80% after 12 h of treatment. Use of sodium
perborate monohydrate (NaBO3·H2O) to produce hydrogen peroxide
(H2O2) which subsequently breaks down into water (H2O) and oxygen
(O2) was studied by Eseller-Bayat et al. [81] in a laboratory model test,
where they found the degree of saturation of sand was successfully
reduced to 85%. In addition to these techniques, Rebata-Landa and
Santamarina [82] put forward an inventive approach that employs
microbial denitrification to produce nitrogen (N2) bubbles in soil.
Compared to oxygen and hydrogen, the merits of nitrogen gas for in-
situ desaturation can be outlined as follows: Firstly, nitrogen gas has a

Table 4
In-situ desaturation methods for mitigation of liquefaction.

Desaturation Method Desaturation Type Reactions Reference

Air injection Mechanical Okamura et al.[77]

Water electrolysis Physical 2H2 O 2H2 + O2 Yegian et al.[79]
Chemical decomposition Chemical 2(NaBO3 H2 O) + 2H2 O 2H2 O2 + 2BO33 + 2Na+ + 4H+ Eseller-Bayat et al.[81]
2H2 O2 2H2 O + O2
Microbial denitrification Biological CH2 O + 0.8NO3 + 0.8H+ CO2 + 0.4N2 + 0.35H2 O Rebata-Landa and Santamarina[82]

4
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu
low solubility in water, which means it can be remained in the pore
water for a long time. Secondly, in-situ generation of nitrogen gas can
be fulfilled by indigenous denitrifying bacteria, and the soil normally
contains a plentiful supply of nitrate sources. Thirdly, gas bubbles
generated by microbial denitrification are generally smaller than those
generated through gas injection or chemical ways [57], which means
less chance for the gas bubbles to escape from the soil. Lastly, nitrogen
is neither explosive nor reactive with soil which can be regarded as safe
and environmentally friendly. For these reasons, microbial denitrifica­
tion is a more promising approach for in-situ generation of gas bubbles.
Nitrate can be reduced via two paths as shown in Fig. 2(a). The
upper path is called ammonification, while the lower path is called
respiratory denitrification. Ratio between the carbon source and nitrate
determines which path prevails [83]. Usually, respiratory denitrifica­
tion is favourable where a large amount of nitrate is available [84].
In the path of respiratory denitrification, four specific enzymes are
used to convert nitrate to nitrogen. But the conversion efficiency cannot
be 100%, which means the final product of denitrification is always a
combination of N2 O and N2 [85–87]. Different from N2 , N2 O is harmful
to the environment, especially when it is dissolved in the water. The
factors affecting N2 O/N2 ratio includes: (1) species of bacteria which
produce required enzymes; (2) the C/N ratio [86]; (3) soil acidity which
alkaline condition is favourable for N2 production [88,89]; (4) soil type
and nutrient status [87]; (5) soil moisture where soils with high water
content is beneficial to N2 gas production [90]. Recently, Pham [91]
found a carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of 1.6 could effectively limit the ac­
cumulation of intermediates and most of the nitrate can be successfully
converted to nitrogen gas.
3.2. Laboratory-scale tests
He [74] studied the size of gas bubbles by both visual inspection
(Fig. 2(b)) and CT scanning (Fig. 2(c)). He found the gas bubbles gen­
erated by microbial denitrification have an average diameter ranging
from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm in the pore space and were evenly distributed
inside the sand samples. By conducting monotonic triaxial tests, He and
Chu [92] revealed that the static liquefaction resistance can be doubled
decreasing its degree of saturation to a level between 88% and 95% by
biogas desaturation (Fig. 2(d)). Wang et al. [26] further confirmed that
the cyclic liquefaction resistance of loose sand could be enhanced by
nearly a hundred times by desaturating the sand sample to a degree of
saturation of around 90% (Fig. 2(e)).
Seismic shake table tests have also been conducted to evaluate the
liquefaction resistance of biogas desaturated sand. He et al. [25] de­
monstrated that biogas desaturation with a degree of saturation of 95%
effectively prevented seismic liquefaction in a loose sand layer that was
vulnerable to liquefaction when at saturated state. Wu [93] observed a
great reduction of excess pore water pressure by desaturating the sand
sample to a degree of saturation of 90%. Peng et al. [94] found that
under the same relative density and seismic shake acceleration, the
maximum shear strain was decreased by the decrease of degree of sa­
turation. Wang [95] conducted seismic shake table tests under sloping
ground condition and found a reduction of the accumulated lateral
strain with the decreasing of degree of saturation. He attributed it to the
retainment of effective stress by biogas desaturation that could resist
the sliding tendency during seismic shake. Baziar et al. [96] also found
the lateral spreading caused by liquefaction could be reduced to only 1/
3–1/2 after biogas desaturation.
By introducing calcium ion, the calcium carbonate can be pre­
cipitated together with the generation of gas bubbles. This process is
commonly termed as Microbial Induced Desaturation and Precipitation
(MIDP). A sand column experiment using MIDP was conducted by van
Paassen et al. [42] and was lasted for 100 days. During this period, the
sand column was flushed with 25 L treatment solutions divided into 13
batches. The final average calcium content of the sand sample was
around 4%, but the precipitation rate is significantly lower than MICP
5
Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005
process. Martin et al. [97] proved that calcium carbonate can be pre­
cipitated through MIDP under high-saline and high-pressure conditions.
Kavazanjian et al. [33] proposed a two-stage strategy for the mitigation
of soil liquefaction via MIDP. In stage one, biogas provides short-term
liquefaction resistance [27]. In stage two, the precipitated calcium
carbonate provides long-term liquefaction resistance [98]. The cyclic
simple shear test results demonstrated a 40% cyclic resistance by only
desaturating the soil to 98% with a less than 0.5% calcium content [33].
The cyclic triaxial tests conducted by Wang et al. [99] showed that a
single round of MIDP treatment could reduce the degree of saturation to
80% with a 0.086% calcium content, under which the cyclic shear re­
sistance could be increased by 25 times. Gao et al. [100] found the
cohesion and peak strength effective friction angle of sand samples
could be improved after MIDP treatment, and the shear strength could
be enhanced by 50% under drained condition.
3.3. Field-scale trials
The pilot field trial using biogas desaturation method was conducted
at two sites in Portland [101]. Take the site located at Sunderland as an
example. A circular zone at a radius of 3.5 m was created by putting one
injection well in the centre whereas four extraction wells were evenly
distributed on the edge of the circle. The nitrate concentration was
controlled to 0.06–0.12 mol/L, and calcium ions were introduced to
precipitate calcium carbonate. The injection procedure was lasted for
33 days with an average injection rate of 1.91 m3 per day. During in­
jection, the authors found the biomass started to accumulate around the
injection wells from Day 5. To eliminate such unwanted bio-clogging,
3% hydrogen peroxide was used thereafter. Compressive wave velocity
(Vp ) measured by SCPTu demonstrated that the desaturation zone could
be lasted for at least 90 days, and a slight increase of shear wave ve­
locity (Vs ) was also observed because of the precipitation of calcium
carbonate (Fig. 2(f)).
Another field trail performed in Toronto, Canada was reported by
Zeng et al. [102]. The extraction well was put in the centre whereas the
injection wells were surrounded around the extraction wells, forming a
2.5-m radius treatment zone. Such layout of injection and extraction
wells are contrary to that in Moug et al. [101]. The treatment was lasted
for 82 days with 12 rounds of treatment. To avoid the accumulation of
nitrite and nitrate, the concentrations of calcium acetate and calcium
nitrate were gradually increased from 0.12 mol/L and 0.16 mol/L at the
start of treatment to 0.29 mol/L to 0.34 mol/L at the end of treatment.
The degree of saturation was finally decreased to around 80% by
measuring the volumetric water content. Despite this, the authors
pointed out some challenges for the in-situ implement of biogas desa­
turation. First, the limited permeability of fine-grained soils may hinder
the flow of treatment solution. Second, the accurate measurement of in-
situ parameters is needed for the optimization of the treatment proce­
dure. Third, how to address the influence of heterogeneous distribution
of gas bubbles on the cyclic response of soil. And last, the long-term
stability of gas bubbles.
Nevertheless. it should be highlighted that in both field trials, the
pH value of the soil did not change significantly. The accumulation of
nitrite, which is the intermediate product of denitrification process, did
not occur either. Considering biogas desaturation only requires a single
round of treatment, which makes the cost 40 times lower than bio-
cementation for achieving the same liquefaction resistance level [103],
it has a great potential for mitigating the risk of soil liquefaction.
4. Practical considerations
4.1. Homogeneity
For bio-cementation method, a proper injection strategy is needed to
effectively deliver the substrates to make the distribution of pre­
cipitated calcium carbonate as uniform as possible. A water-pulse
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005

Fig. 2. Mitigation of liquefaction using biogas desaturation method: (a) Paths of nitrate reduction. (b) Visual inspection of generated gas bubbles [74]. (c) CT-
scanning image of biogas desaturated sample [104]. (d) Undrained shear strength ratio against degree of saturation, CUC: Consolidated and Undrained Compression
test, CUE: Consolidated and Undrained Extension test [92]. (e) Cyclic stress ratio plotted against number of cycles at failure at various degrees of saturation [26]. (f)
Change of compressive wave velocity (Vp ) and shear wave velocity (Vs ) during and after in-situ biogas desaturation treatment [101].

interval between the injection of bacteria and cementation solution was
introduced by Minto et al. [105] for rock fracture grouting, which could
shorten the treatment process from 12 days to 3 days for achieving a
similar reduction in transmissivity and a more uniform distribution of
calcium carbonate. By lowering the initial pH value to 4 and injecting a
mixture of bacterial culture, calcium source and urea together, Cheng
et al. [106] successfully prevented the clogging of injection points and
achieved a relatively homogeneous strength distribution along sand
samples. Low temperature could retard the microbial activities. By
adjusting the temperature of bio-cementation solution to 4 ℃ prior to
injection, Xiao et al. [107] found a more evenly distributed calcium
carbonate precipitates along the specimen.

6
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu
Biogas desaturation, on the other hand, commonly only requires one
round of treatment to achieve the desired degree of saturation for li­
quefaction mitigation. For this reason, the biogas can be homo­
geneously distributed in the soil with ease. The CT scanning of biogas
desaturated sand samples conducted by He [74] also demonstrated a
randomly and homogeneously distribution of gas bubbles along the
sand column. However, it should be noted that the degree of saturation
at a deeper soil layer tends to be higher than that at a shallow layer
because of the compression of gas bubbles by the pore water pressure.
Thus, strictly speaking, the distribution of gas bubbles is heterogenous
along the depth of soil. Nevertheless, such heterogeneity only causes a
variation of degree of saturation less than 3% for a 10-meter depth of
treatment, which merely affects the liquefaction resistance of biogas
desaturated sand [95].
Yet challenges still exist when trying to upscale to field trials, as the
delivery of treatment solution is not as controllable as in the laboratory.
The soil type, grain size and other environmental factors would all have
an impact on the final result. A comprehensive and real-time mon­
itoring of treatment process is thus suggested for quality control. This
can be fulfilled by in-situ non-destructive geophysical survey
[77,95,108,109]. Despite this, both the bio-cementation and biogas
desaturation methods could outperform the conventional cement-
grouting method from the aspect of homogeneity owing to the low
viscosity of treatment solution.
4.2. Long-term sustainability
As an inorganic compound, calcium carbonate is quite stable under
normal condition. However, the durability of calcium carbonate may be
affected by some environmental factors, such as acid rain [110] or
freeze-thaw cycles [111,112]. Compared to bio-cementation, more at­
tention should be paid to the long-term stability of gas bubbles gener­
ated by biogas desaturation method. Although the gas bubbles could be
sustained for years under hydrostatic condition [79,113], a slight see­
page could easily flush away all the gas bubbles within ten days
[74,95]. To improve the stability of gas bubbles under seepage condi­
tion, Wu [93] applied a slight bio-cementation treatment to precipitate
around 0.8% calcium carbonate in the pore space and found the gas
bubbles were immobilized for at least 40 days with seepage flow. Al­
ternatively, MIDP process could generate gas bubbles and sponta­
neously precipitate calcium carbonate. However, three or four times of
treatment are generally needed to precipitate 1% calcium carbonate in
the soil [114]. Thus, it is not time-efficient at this stage. Another way to
seal the gas bubble is to introduce polymer. Wang [95] applied bio-
gelation to the biogas desaturated sand column and found no seepage
was occurred even though a hydraulic gradient of 0.1 was applied to
the sand column. The gas stability test with hydrogel was lasted for a
month and no gas bubbles were escaped during this period.
4.3. Cost
The cost of Microbial Induced Desaturation and Precipitation
(MIDP) method for treating a hypothetical site with a 12.2 m × 24 m
footprint and a depth of 6.1 m of full saturated liquefiable sand layer
was calculated by Hall et al. [115]. The target degree of saturation was
90%. The calculation considered the cost incurred in raw material,
transportation, labour, equipment, and operation. The result showed a
more than 70% savings of the total cost compared to permeation
grouting using microfine cement. However, it should be pointed out
that a precise cost estimation is not realistic as so many factors would
affect the final result [116]. Nevertheless, shortening the treatment
time, increasing the reaction rate, and finding cheaper raw materials
are the general ways to reduce the project cost. The breakthroughs may
be found through interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, desali­
nation of seawater could produce a huge amount of calcium and
magnesium [117,118]. Effectively utilizing Ca2+ and Mg2+ from the
7
Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005
waste brine could save the cost of purchasing calcium source for bio-
cementation. To shorten the treatment time, the concentrations of
substrates for each round of treatment need to be increased. However,
calcium concentration higher than 2.5 mol/L or nitrate concentration
higher than 0.2 mol/L may inhibit the MICP or denitrification process
[95,114,119]. To enhance the toxicity tolerance of bacteria, joint works
with biological scientists like gene editing or bacteria stimulation are
encouraged for future studies.
4.4. Environmental impact
For in-situ application, the hazardous by-products, if any, need to be
properly collected and treated. Ammonia, which is the main by-product
of MICP process, has irritating smell in gaseous phase. Cheng et al.
[106] found 90% atmospheric ammonia can be reduced by lowering the
pH value of cementation solution to 4 before treatment. Ammonia can
also be fixed by struvite precipitation [120–122]. Another potential
way is to use the photosynthesis of microalgae to convert ammonia to
organics [123]. However, the need of light source may constrain its
application scenarios. During denitrification process, nitrite could ac­
cumulate if initial nitrate concentration is too high [91,95]. Never­
theless, nitrite can be successfully converted to nitrogen by maintaining
a proper carbon-to-nitrogen ratio [103]. Moreover, recent field trails
[101,102] did not observe significant accumulation of nitrate and ni­
trite, and the pH value of the treatment area can be maintained around
neutral. From this point of view, biogas desaturation is more en­
vironmentally friendly than bio-cementation method.
Unless using indigenous bacteria, adopting either bio-cementation
or biogas desaturation may raise a bio-safety issue. To avoid it, a plant-
based bio-cementation method was proposed [124–126] and is termed
as Enzyme Induced Calcite Precipitation (EICP). Hamdan and Kavazanjian
[124] used EICP for the mitigation of fugitive dust emissions. Cui et al.
[127] combined EICP method with low-pH-one-phase method and
found the strength of sand column treated by the EICP method was
equivalent or even higher than the strength of sand column treated by
the MICP method.
Overall, risk assessment and continuous monitoring should be im­
plemented if microbials are involved in the treatment process. With a
deeper understanding of biogeotechnology, a greener and more sus­
tainable liquefaction mitigation method can be expected.
5. Other emerging technologies
5.1. Bio-gelation
Microbially induced gelation (bio-gelation) is a new method for
improving the hydraulic and mechanical performances of sandy soil by
producing solid polymeric gel to fill in the pore space of soil [128–130].
In bio-gelation process, sodium alginate (C6H9NaO7) was selected as the
polysaccharide and calcium ions were used as an activate agent. When
the two elements are put together, sodium alginate molecules are
connected by calcium ions to form the hydrogel. The reaction formula is
given below [131].
Ca2 + + C6 H9 NaO7 (C12 H14 CaO12 )m + H2 O + Na+ (3)
Calcium ions can be introduced by dissolving CaCO3 using acid
(H+) generated using anaerobic microbial acidification of glucose
(C6H12O6) or other carbon sources [128]:
C6 H12 O6 + 2NAD+ + 2ADP + 2Pi
microbialactivity
2CH3 COCOO + 2
NADH + 2ATP + 2H2 O + 2H+ (4)
2H+ + CaCO3 Ca2 + + CO2 (g ) + H2 O (5)
The above two-stage bio-gelation process is also illustrated in Fig. 3.
The difference between bio-gelation and chemical gelation is that by
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu
Fig. 3. Microscopic view of bio-gelation process.
producing calcium ions through a microbial acidification process, a bio-
gelation process can be controlled to give sufficient time for the che­
micals to be well distributed in sand. The time delay in reaction can be
controlled within 36–48 h [95]. It should be noted that the bio-gelation
will only work for the sand with the presence of a small amount of
calcium carbonate (around 1%). This is not a problem for river or sea
sand that normally contains shell fragments in it. For sand without
calcium, a MICP process can be adopted first to generate 1–2% calcium
carbonate in sand particles as adopted in Cheng et al. [128]’s study.
Alternatively, direct mixing of calcium carbonate such as eggshell or
limestone powder with sand can be used if feasible.
Wang et al. [130] conducted a series of undrained monotonic and
cyclic triaxial tests on bio-gelled sand and found an increase of the slope
of failure line from 1.08 to 1.27 under undrained monotonic shear, and
an increase of number of cycles at failure from 183 to 485 under un­
drained cyclic shear. Thus, enhancement of the liquefaction resistance
by bio-gelation is promising and further studies are suggested for better
understanding the fundamental mechanisms.
5.2. Fungi metabolism
Fungi can be as simple as single-celled or very complex multicellular
organisms. There are numerous types of fungi in the world, but most of
them are living in the soil or on plant. Fungi are more tolerant to ex­
treme environment where most of the microbes are hard to survive
[132]. The biomass growth of fungi has been utilized by Seki et al.
[133] to clog the pore space between glass beads where the perme­
ability of the bio-clogged layer was decreased by 3 times of magnitude.
Fungi could produce complex fibre network which has been found to
help improve the strength of soil [134,135]. The fibre network could
also function as the nucleation site for the precipitation of calcium
carbonate [136]. Fungi are hydrophobic because of the presence of
hydrophobin [137,138]. Zhang et al. [139] found the erosion resistance
of fungi-mediated sand has been improved. They attribute the im­
provement to the reduced the shear stress at the water-soil interface due
to the hydrophobicity of fungi.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no laboratory work has been
commenced to study the use of fungi for mitigating the risk of soil li­
quefaction. However, it is believed that the fungi fibre network could
help reduce the movement between soil particles thus to supress the
excess pore water pressure triggered by seismic load. Its hydrophobic
characteristics and compact structure make it an excellent natural
material to form a barrier for preventing seepage. Therefore, the use of
fungi as a seepage barrier for stabilizing gas bubbles produced by
biogas desaturation can be explored further.
5.3. Microalgae photosynthesis
With photosynthesis, microalgae absorb carbon dioxide and produce
organics and oxygen [140]:
CO2 + H2 O + light energy [CH2 O]n + O2 (6)
8
Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005
The rise of the pH due to the loss of inorganic carbon would trigger the
precipitation of calcium carbonate [141–143]. A “whiting event” caused by
a massive precipitation of calcium carbonate by microalgae was reported by
Escoffier et al. [144] that the mouth of Lake Geneva was covered by the
precipitated calcium carbonate during the early summer in 2019. From the
aspect of geotechnics, the capability of calcium carbonate precipitation
through algal metabolism can be utilized and it has certain advantages.
First, the whole process is carbon negative as the growth of microalgae
absorbs carbon dioxide. Second, the energy source is sunlight which is
green, zero-cost and sustainable. Third, microalgae consume ammonia
[145]. The “whiting event” is now being replicated in the laboratory by a
research team from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science (UMCES). The team found the precipitated calcium carbonate by
microalgae was 100% calcite. Another trail was made by Natsi and Kout­
soukos [146] with a series of liquid batch experiments. They found the
amorphous CaCO3 was the first precipitates, and it was gradually converted
to vaterite and calcite within 1–2 h. Calcite was the only final polymorph
after 24 h. Directly application of microalgae photosynthesis in geotechnics
has not been reported. Yet, it has a great potential for healing concrete
cracks in marine environment, slope protection, seepage control and li­
quefaction mitigation. The biomass of microalgae could be used as a filling
material in pore space for reducing the permeability of sands. Moreover, a
joint use of microalgae with bio-cementation could be explored since the by-
product ammonia could be efficiently eliminated through the metabolism of
microalgae.
6. Conclusions
Within the last two decades, various biobased technologies have
been developed for liquefaction mitigation. These include bio-ce­
mentation, biogas desaturation, bio-clogging and bio-gelation. This
overview covers mainly two relatively mature technologies, namely
bio-cementation and biogas desaturation, in the mitigation of soil li­
quefaction. Although the practicability of some of these methods has
been verified by field trials, challenges still exist such as in­
homogeneity, by-product processing, long-term sustainability or in-situ
assessment. It is essential to understand further the mechanisms behind
these methods and eventually to convert some of the methods into
common soil improvement practice.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge the financial support from National
Research Foundation of Singapore under the Grant No. COT-V1-2020-4,
and the support from JTC Corporation, Singapore. We also would like
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu
to thank the support from the Centre for Urban Solutions, Nanyang
Technological University.
References
[1] K. Terzaghi, R.B. Peck, G. Mesri, Soil Mechanics In Engineering Practice, John
Wiley & Sons, 1996.
[2] J. Chu, W.K. Leong, Pre-failure strain softening and pre-failure instability of sand:
a comparative study, Géotechnique 51 (4) (2001) 311–321.
[3] D.Y. Xie, Soil Dynamics, Higher Education Press, Beijing, China, 2011.
[4] Y. Tsukamoto, K. Ishihara, H. Nakazawa, K. Kamada, Y. Huang, Resistance of
partly saturated sand to liquefaction with reference to longitudinal and shear wave
velocities, Soils Found. 42 (6) (2002) 93–104.
[5] Y. Tsukamoto, S. Kawabe, J. Matsumoto, S. Hagiwara, Cyclic resistance of two
unsaturated silty sands against soil liquefaction, Soils Found. 54 (6) (2014)
1094–1103.
[6] Y. Yoshimi, K. Tanaka, K. Tokimatsu, Liquefaction resistance of a partially satu­
rated sand, Soils Found. 29 (3) (1989) 157–162.
[7] J.K. Mitchell, Soil improvement-state of the art report, Proc. 11th Int Conf. SMFE
(1981) 509–565.
[8] T. Shenthan, R. Nashed, S. Thevanayagam, G.R. Martin, Liquefaction mitigation in
silty soils using composite stone columns and dynamic compaction, Earthq. Eng.
Eng. Vib. 3 (1) (2004) 39–50.
[9] A.J. Brennan, S.P.G. Madabhushi, Effectiveness of vertical drains in mitigation of
liquefaction, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 22 (9–12) (2002) 1059–1065.
[10] J. Chu, S. Varaksin, U. Klotz, P. Mengé, Construction processes. State-of-the-Art-
Report, in: M. Hamza, M. Shahien, Y. El-Mossallamy (Eds.), 17th International
Conf on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, IOS Press BV, Alexandria,
Egypt, 2009, pp. 3006–3135.
[11] R.H. Karol, Chemical grouting and soil stabilization, revised and expanded, Crc
Press,, 2003.
[12] S. Kazemian, B.B. Huat, P. Arun, M. Barghchi, A review of stabilization of soft soils
by injection of chemical grouting, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 4 (12) (2010)
5862–5868.
[13] Grouting Co, Preliminary glossary of terms relating to grouting, J. Geotech. Eng.
Div. 106 (7) (1980) 803–815.
[14] J.K. Mitchell, Mitigation of liquefaction potential of silty sands, Res. Pract.
Geotech. Eng. (2008) 433–451.
[15] Cubrinovski M. Liquefaction-Induced Damage in The2010–2011 Christchurch
(New Zealand) Earthquakes. Proceedings of International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Chicago, IL, USA2013.
[16] Ö. Aydan, R. Ulusay, M. Hamada, D. Beetham, Geotechnical aspects of the 2010
Darfield and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, New Zealand, and geotechnical
damage to structures and lifelines, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 71 (4) (2012)
637–662.
[17] R.F. Hidayat, T. Kiyota, N. Tada, J. Hayakawa, H. Nawir, Reconnaissance on li­
quefaction-induced flow failure caused by the 2018 M W 7.5 Sulawesi earthquake,
Palu, Indonesia, J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 52 (1) (2020) 51–65.
[18] S. Sassa, T. Takagawa, Liquefied gravity flow-induced tsunami: first evidence and
comparison from the 2018 Indonesia Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami disasters,
Landslides 16 (1) (2018) 195–200.
[19] L. Van Paassen, M. Harkes, G. Van Zwieten, W. Van der Zon, W. Van der Star, Van,
M. Loosdrecht, Scale up of BioGrout: a biological ground reinforcement method, Proc.
17th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Eng. Lansdale IOS Press (2009) 2328–2333.
[20] J.T. DeJong, B.M. Mortensen, B.C. Martinez, D.C. Nelson, Bio-mediated soil im­
provement, Ecol. Eng. 36 (2) (2010) 197–210.
[21] L. Cheng, R. Cord-Ruwisch, In situ soil cementation with ureolytic bacteria by
surface percolation, Ecol. Eng. 42 (2012) 64–72.
[22] N.-J. Jiang, K. Soga, M. Kuo, Microbially induced carbonate precipitation for
seepage-induced internal erosion control in sand–clay mixtures, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (3) (2017) 04016100.
[23] P. Xiao, H. Liu, Y. Xiao, A.W. Stuedlein, T.M. Evans, Liquefaction resistance of bio-
cemented calcareous sand, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 107 (2018) 9–19.
[24] S. Wu, B. Li, J. Chu, Large-scale model tests of biogrouting for sand and rock, Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng. - Ground Improv. (2019) 1–10.
[25] J. He, J. Chu, V. Ivanov, Mitigation of liquefaction of saturated sand using biogas,
Géotechnique 63 (4) (2013) 267–275.
[26] K. Wang, J. Chu, S. Wu, J. He, Géotechnique 71 (6) (2021) 521–533.
[27] S.T. O’Donnell, B.E. Rittmann, E. Kavazanjian, MIDP: liquefaction mitigation via
microbial denitrification as a two-stage process. I: desaturation, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (2017) 12.
[28] N.A. Bucci, E. Ghazanfari, H. Lu, Microbially-induced calcite precipitation for
sealing rock fractures, Geo-Chic. (2016) 558–567.
[29] J.T. DeJong, M.B. Fritzges, K. Nüsslein, Microbially induced cementation to con­
trol sand response to undrained shear, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (11)
(2006) 1381–1392.
[30] Y. Gao, L. Hang, J. He, J. Chu, Mechanical behaviour of biocemented sands at
various treatment levels and relative densities, Acta Geotech. 14 (3) (2018)
697–707.
[31] M.G. Gomez, J.T. DeJong, C.M. Anderson, Effect of bio-cementation on geophy­
sical and cone penetration measurements in sands, Can. Geotech. J. 55 (11) (2018)
1632–1646.
[32] Y.Ç. Erşan, Nd Belie, N. Boon, Microbially induced CaCO3 precipitation through
denitrification: an optimization study in minimal nutrient environment, Biochem.
Eng. J. 101 (2015) 108–118.
9
Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005
[33] E. Kavazanjian, S.T. O’Donnell, N. Hamdan, Biogeotechnical mitigation of earth­
quake-induced soil liquefaction by denitrification: a two-stage process, Proc. 6th
Int. Conf. Earthq. Geotech. Eng., Christch., N. Z. (2015) 20–28.
[34] L. Wang, L.Av Paassen, E. Kavazanjian, Feasibility study on liquefaction mitigation
of fraser river sediments by microbial induced desaturation and precipitation
(MIDP), Geo-Congr. (2020) 121–131.
[35] L.K. Baumgartner, R.P. Reid, C. Dupraz, A.W. Decho, D.H. Buckley, J.R. Spear,
et al., Sulfate reducing bacteria in microbial mats: changing paradigms, new dis­
coveries, Sediment. Geol. 185 (3–4) (2006) 131–145.
[36] R. Qiu, B. Zhao, J. Liu, X. Huang, Q. Li, E. Brewer, et al., Sulfate reduction and
copper precipitation by a Citrobacter sp. isolated from a mining area, J. Hazard
Mater. 164 (2–3) (2009) 1310–1315.
[37] J.L. Pierre, M. Fontecave, R.R. Crichton, Chemistry for an essential biological
process: the reduction of ferric iron, Biometals 15 (4) (2002) 341–346.
[38] Z. Yao, F. Wang, C. Wang, H. Xu, H. Jiang, Anaerobic ammonium oxidation
coupled to ferric iron reduction in the sediment of a eutrophic lake, Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res Int 26 (15) (2019) 15084–15094.
[39] J. He, J. Chu, H. Liu, Y. Gao, B. Li, Research advances in biogeotechnologies, Chin.
J. Geotech. Eng. 38 (4) (2016) 643–653.
[40] M.T. González-Muñoz, C. Rodriguez-Navarro, F. Martínez-Ruiz, J.M. Arias,
M.L. Merroun, M. Rodriguez-Gallego, Bacterial biomineralization: new insights
from Myxococcus-induced mineral precipitation 336 Geological Society, London,
2010, pp. 31–50.
[41] C. Qian, Y. Rui, C. Wang, X. Wang, B. Xue, H. Yi, Bio-mineralization induced by
Bacillus mucilaginosus in crack mouth and pore solution of cement-based mate­
rials, Mater. Sci. Eng. C. Mater. Biol. Appl. 126 (2021) 112120.
[42] L.A. van Paassen, C.M. Daza, M. Staal, D.Y. Sorokin, W. van der Zon, M.C.M. van
Loosdrecht, Potential soil reinforcement by biological denitrification, Ecol. Eng.
36 (2) (2010) 168–175.
[43] W.S. Reeburgh, Oceanic methane biogeochemistry, Chem. Rev. 107 (2) (2007)
486–513.
[44] T. Zhu, C. Paulo, M.L. Merroun, M. Dittrich, Potential application of biominer­
alization by Synechococcus PCC8806 for concrete restoration, Ecol. Eng. 82
(2015) 459–468.
[45] N.K. Dhami, M.S. Reddy, A. Mukherjee, Biomineralization of calcium carbonates
and their engineered applications: a review, Front Microbiol 4 (2013) 314.
[46] V. Stabnikov, J. Chu, V. Ivanov, Y. Li, Halotolerant, alkaliphilic urease-producing
bacteria from different climate zones and their application for biocementation of
sand, World J. Microbiol Biotechnol. 29 (8) (2013) 1453–1460.
[47] M.B. Burbank, T.J. Weaver, T.L. Green, B.C. Williams, R.L. Crawford, Precipitation
of calcite by indigenous microorganisms to strengthen liquefiable soils,
Geomicrobiol. J. 28 (4) (2011) 301–312.
[48] J.D. Rodriguez-Blanco, S. Shaw, L.G. Benning, The kinetics and mechanisms of
amorphous calcium carbonate (ACC) crystallization to calcite, via vaterite,
Nanoscale 3 (1) (2011) 265–271.
[49] Y. Wang, K. Soga, J.T. DeJong, A.J. Kabla, Microscale visualization of microbial-
induced calcium carbonate precipitation processes, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
145 (9) (2019) 04019045.
[50] T. Miyazaki, T. Arii, Y. Shirosaki, Control of crystalline phase and morphology of
calcium carbonate by electrolysis: Effects of current and temperature, Ceram. Int.
45 (11) (2019) 14039–14044.
[51] H. Ghaedamini, M.C. Amiri, Effects of temperature and surfactant concentration
on the structure and morphology of calcium carbonate nanoparticles synthesized
in a colloidal gas aphrons system, J. Mol. Liq. 282 (2019) 213–220.
[52] J. Yu, M. Lei, B. Cheng, X. Zhao, Effects of PAA additive and temperature on
morphology of calcium carbonate particles, J. Solid State Chem. 177 (3) (2004)
681–689.
[53] Ç.M. Oral, B. Ercan, Influence of pH on morphology, size and polymorph of room
temperature synthesized calcium carbonate particles, Powder Technol. 339 (2018)
781–788.
[54] W. Li, W.S. Chen, P.P. Zhou, L. Cao, L.J. Yu, Influence of initial pH on the pre­
cipitation and crystal morphology of calcium carbonate induced by microbial
carbonic anhydrase, Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 102 (2013) 281–287.
[55] Y. Wang, K. Soga, J.T. DeJong, A.J. Kabla, Effects of bacterial density on growth
rate and characteristics of microbial-induced CaCO3 precipitates: particle-scale
experimental study, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 147 (2021) 6.
[56] A.A. Qabany, K. Soga, Effect of chemical treatment used in MICP on engineering
properties of cemented soils, Géotechnique 63 (4) (2013) 331–339.
[57] J. He, J. Chu, Y. Gao, H. Liu, Research advances and challenges in biogeo­
technologies, Geotech. Res. 6 (2) (2019) 144–155.
[58] H. Lai, S. Wu, M. Cui, J. Chu, Recent development in biogeotechnology and its
engineering applications, Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 15 (5) (2021) 1073–1096.
[59] M. Burbank, T. Weaver, R. Lewis, T. Williams, B. Williams, R. Crawford,
Geotechnical Tests of Sands Following Bioinduced Calcite Precipitation Catalyzed
by Indigenous Bacteria, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (6) (2013) 928–936.
[60] B.M. Montoya, J.T. Dejong, R.W. Boulanger, Dynamic response of liquefiable sand
improved by microbial-induced calcite precipitation, Géotechnique 63 (4) (2013)
302–312.
[61] Z. Han, X. Cheng, Q. Ma, An experimental study on dynamic response for MICP
strengthening liquefiable sands, Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 15 (4) (2016) 673–679.
[62] X. Zhang, Y. Chen, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, X. Ding, Performance evaluation of a MICP-
treated calcareous sandy foundation using shake table tests, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
(2020) 129.
[63] K.M. Darby, G.L. Hernandez, J.T. DeJong, R.W. Boulanger, M.G. Gomez,
D.W. Wilson, Centrifuge Model Testing of Liquefaction Mitigation via Microbially
Induced Calcite Precipitation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (2019) 10.
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu
[64] M. Lee, M.G. Gomez, M.E. Kortbawi, K. Ziotopoulou, Examining the liquefaction
resistance of lightly cemented sands using microbially induced calcite precipita­
tion (MICP), Geo-Congr. (2020) 53–64.
[65] G.A. Riveros, A. Sadrekarimi, Liquefaction resistance of Fraser River sand improved
by a microbially-induced cementation, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. (131() (2020).
[66] L. Van Paassen, Bio-mediated ground improvement: from laboratory experiment to
pilot applications. Geo-Frontiers, Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
2011, pp. 4099–4108.
[67] C.H. Juang, H. Yuan, D.-H. Lee, P.-S. Lin, Simplified cone penetration test-based
method for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils, J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 129 (1) (2003) 66–80.
[68] R.E. Moss, R.B. Seed, R.E. Kayen, J.P. Stewart, A. Der Kiureghian, K.O. Cetin, CPT-
Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil
Liquefaction Potential, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (8) (2006) 1032–1051.
[69] J. Sadoghi Yazdi, F. Kalantary, H. Sadoghi Yazdi, Prediction of liquefaction po­
tential based on CPT up-sampling, Comput. Geosci. 44 (2012) 10–23.
[70] J.S. Yazdi, R.E.S. Moss, Nonparametric liquefaction triggering and postliquefac­
tion deformations, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (2017) 3.
[71] R.W. Boulanger, I.M. Idriss, CPT-based liquefaction triggering procedure, J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (2016) 2.
[72] F. Kalantary, R. Moosazadeh, F. Tabandeh, N. Ganjian, Bio-cementation of loose
sand using Staphylococcus sp. IR-103: a field study, Arab. J. Geosci. 15 (2022) 10.
[73] M. Okamura, Y. Soga, Effects of pore fluid compressibility on liquefaction re­
sistance of partially saturated sand, Soils Found. 46 (5) (2006) 695–700.
[74] J. He, Mitigation of liquefaction of sand using microbial methods [ph.D. Thesis],
Nanyang Technological University,, Singapore, 2013.
[75] J. Yang, S. Savidis, M. Roemer, Evaluating liquefaction strength of partially sa­
turated sand, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (9) (2004) 975–979.
[76] A. Flora, E. Bilotta, A. Chiaradonna, S. Lirer, L. Mele, L. Pingue, A field trial to
test the efficiency of induced partial saturation and horizontal drains to mitigate
the susceptibility of soils to liquefaction, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19 (10) (2020)
3835–3864.
[77] M. Okamura, M. Takebayashi, K. Nishida, N. Fujii, M. Jinguji, T. Imasato, et al., In-situ
desaturation test by air injection and its evaluation through field monitoring and
multiphase flow simulation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (7) (2011) 643–652.
[78] N.P. Marasini, M. Okamura, Air injection to mitigate liquefaction under light
structures, Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 15 (3) (2015) 129–140.
[79] M.K. Yegian, E. Eseller-Bayat, A. Alshawabkeh, S. Ali, Induced-partial saturation
for liquefaction mitigation: experimental investigation, J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 133 (4) (2007) 372–380.
[80] R. Chen, Y. Chen, H. Liu, K. Zhang, Y. Zhou, S. Xu, et al., In situ desaturation tests
by electrolysis for liquefaction mitigation, Can. Geotech. J. 58 (11) (2021)
1744–1756.
[81] E. Eseller-Bayat, M.K. Yegian, A. Alshawabkeh, S. Gokyer, Liquefaction response of
partially saturated sands. I: Experimental results, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
139 (6) (2013) 863–871.
[82] V. Rebata-Landa, J.C. Santamarina, Mechanical effects of biogenic nitrogen gas
bubbles in soils, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (2) (2012) 128–137.
[83] J.M. Tiedje, A.J. Sexstone, D.D. Myrold, J.A. Robinson, Denitrification: ecological
niches, competition and survival, Antonie Van. Leeuwenhoek 48 (6) (1983) 569–583.
[84] J. Cole, C. Brown, Nitrite reduction to ammonia by fermentative bacteria: a short
circuit in the biological nitrogen cycle, FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 7 (2) (1980) 65–72.
[85] J.M. Barnes, W.A. Apel, K.B. Barrett, Removal of nitrogen oxides from gas streams
using biofiltration, J. Hazard. Mater. 41 (2) (1995) 315–326.
[86] Y.-C. Chung, M.-S. Chung, BNP test to evaluate the influence of C/N ratio on N2O
production in biological denitrification, Water Sci. Technol. 42 (3–4) (2000) 23–27.
[87] D. Johns, H. Williams, K. Farrish, S. Wagner, Denitrification and soil character­
istics of wetlands created on two mine soils in east Texas, USA, Wetlands 24 (1)
(2004) 57–67.
[88] M.K. Firestone, R.B. Firestone, J.M. Tiedje, Nitrous oxide from soil denitrification:
factors controlling its biological production, Science 208 (4445) (1980) 749–751.
[89] M. Šimek, L. Jı́šová, D.W. Hopkins, What is the so-called optimum pH for deni­
trification in soil? Soil Biol. Biochem. 34 (9) (2002) 1227–1234.
[90] E. Davidson, P. Matson, P. Vitousek, R. Riley, K. Dunkin, G. Garcia-Mendez, et al.,
Processes regulating soil emissions of NO and N^ 2O in a Seasonally dry tropical
forest, Ecology 74 (1) (1993) 130–139.
[91] V.P. Pham, Bio-based ground improvement through Microbial Induced
Desaturation and Precipitation (MIDP), Delft Univ. Technol. (2017).
[92] J. He, J. Chu, Undrained Responses of Microbially Desaturated Sand under
Monotonic Loading, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (2014) 5.
[93] S.F. Wu, Mitigation of liquefaction hazards using the combined biodesaturation and
bioclogging method [ph.D. Thesis]. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, US, 2015.
[94] E. Peng, Z. Hou, Y. Sheng, X. Hu, D. Zhang, L. Song, et al., Anti-liquefaction
performance of partially saturated sand induced by biogas under high intensity
vibration, J. Clean. Prod. (2021) 319.
[95] K. Wang, Biogas desaturation and bio-gelation methods for mitigation of sand li­
quefaction, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2020.
[96] M.H. Baziar, A. Khoshniazpirkoohi, O.E. Amirabadi, Mitigation of liquefaction and
lateral spreading by biogas method using shaking table tests and the strain energy
approach, Int. J. Geomech. 22 (2022) 12.
[97] D. Martin, K. Dodds, I.B. Butler, B.T. Ngwenya, Carbonate precipitation under
pressure for bioengineering in the anaerobic subsurface via denitrification,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (15) (2013) 8692–8699.
[98] S.T. O’Donnell, E. Kavazanjian, B.E. Rittmann, MIDP: Liquefaction Mitigation via
Microbial Denitrification as a Two-Stage Process. II: MICP, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (2017) 12.
10
Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005
[99] L. Wang, L. van Paassen, Y. Gao, J. He, Y. Gao, D. Kim, Laboratory tests on mi­
tigation of soil liquefaction using microbial induced desaturation and precipita­
tion, Geotech. Test. J. 44 (2021) 2.
[100] Y. Gao, L. Wang, J. He, J. Ren, Y. Gao, Denitrification-based MICP for cementation
of soil: treatment process and mechanical performance, Acta Geotech. 17 (9)
(2022) 3799–3815.
[101] D.M. Moug, K.R. Sorenson, A. Khosravifar, M. Preciado, E. Stallings Young, L. van
Paassen, et al., Field Trials of Microbially Induced Desaturation in Low-Plasticity
Silt, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 148 (2022) 11.
[102] C. Zeng, L.A. Van Paassen, J.-J. Zheng, Soil stabilization with microbially induced
desaturation and precipitation (MIDP) by denitrification: a field study, Acta
Geotech. 17 (12) (2022) 5359–5374.
[103] V.P. Pham, A. Nakano, W.R.L. van der Star, T.J. Heimovaara, L.A. van Paassen,
Applying MICP by denitrification in soils: a process analysis, Environ. Geotech. 5
(2) (2018) 79–93.
[104] J. He, J. Chu, S.-F. Wu, J. Peng, Mitigation of soil liquefaction using microbially
induced desaturation, J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A. 17 (7) (2016) 577–588.
[105] J.M. Minto, E. MacLachlan, G. El Mountassir, R.J. Lunn, Rock fracture grouting
with microbially induced carbonate precipitation, Water Resour. Res. 52 (11)
(2016) 8827–8844.
[106] L. Cheng, M.A. Shahin, J. Chu, Soil bio-cementation using a new one-phase low-pH
injection method, Acta Geotech. 14 (3) (2018) 615–626.
[107] Y. Xiao, Y. Wang, C.S. Desai, X. Jiang, H. Liu, Strength and deformation responses
of biocemented sands using a temperature-controlled method, Int. J. Geomech. 19
(2019) 11.
[108] L.D. Suits, T.C. Sheahan, M.H. Weil, J.T. DeJong, B.C. Martinez, B.M. Mortensen,
Seismic and resistivity measurements for real-time monitoring of microbially in­
duced calcite precipitation in sand, Geotech. Test. J. 35 (2012) 2.
[109] S. Saneiyan, D. Ntarlagiannis, D.D. Werkema Jr., A. Ustra, Geophysical methods
for monitoring soil stabilization processes, J. Appl. Geophy 148 (2018) 234–244.
[110] X. Chen, V. Achal, Effect of simulated acid rain on the stability of calcium car­
bonate immobilized by microbial carbonate precipitation, J. Environ. Manag. 264
(2020) 110419.
[111] L. Cheng, M.A. Shahin, D. Mujah, Influence of key environmental conditions on
microbially induced cementation for soil stabilization, J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 143 (2017) 1.
[112] M. Sharma, N. Satyam, K.R. Reddy, Effect of freeze-thaw cycles on engineering
properties of biocemented sand under different treatment conditions, Eng. Geol.
(2021) 284.
[113] K. Sorenson, A.M. Preciado, D. Moug, A. Khosravifar, L.V. Paassen, E. Kavazanjian,
et al., Field Monitoring of the Persistence of Microbially Induced Desaturation for
Mitigation of Earthquake Induced Soil Liquefaction in Silty Soil, Lifelines (2022)
101–113.
[114] V.P. Pham, L.A. van Paassen, W.R.L. van der Star, T.J. Heimovaara, Evaluating
strategies to improve process efficiency of denitrification-based MICP, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 144 (8) (2018) 04018049.
[115] C.A. Hall, L.Av Paassen, S. Kamalzare, D. Parmantier, E. Kavazanjian, Techno-
economic assessment of liquefaction mitigation by microbially induced desatura­
tion, Lifelines (2022) 91–100.
[116] X. Bao, Z. Jin, H. Cui, X. Chen, X. Xie, Soil liquefaction mitigation in geotechnical
engineering: an overview of recently developed methods, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
120 (2019) 273–291.
[117] M. Elimelech, W.A. Phillip, The future of seawater desalination: energy, tech­
nology, and the environment, Science 333 (6043) (2011) 712–717.
[118] S. Lin, H. Zhao, L. Zhu, T. He, S. Chen, C. Gao, et al., Seawater desalination
technology and engineering in China: a review, Desalination (2021) 498.
[119] H.-J. Lai, M.-J. Cui, S.-F. Wu, Y. Yang, J. Chu, Retarding effect of concentration of
cementation solution on biocementation of soil, Acta Geotech. 16 (5) (2021)
1457–1472.
[120] S. Gowthaman, A. Mohsenzadeh, K. Nakashima, S. Kawasaki, Removal of am­
monium by-products from the effluent of bio-cementation system through struvite
precipitation, Mater. Today.: Proc. (2021).
[121] X. Yu, J. Chu, Y. Yang, C. Qian, Reduction of ammonia production in the bioce­
mentation process for sand using a new biocement, J. Clean. Prod. (2021) 286.
[122] X. Yu, Q. Zhan, C. Qian, J. Ma, Y. Liang, The optimal formulation of bio-carbonate
and bio-magnesium phosphate cement to reduce ammonia emission, J. Clean.
Prod. (2019) 240.
[123] H. Jia, Q. Yuan, Ammonium removal using algae-bacteria consortia: the effect of
ammonium concentration, algae biomass, and light, Biodegradation 29 (2) (2018)
105–115.
[124] N. Hamdan, E. Kavazanjian, Enzyme-induced carbonate mineral precipitation for
fugitive dust control, Géotechnique 66 (7) (2016) 546–555.
[125] Y. Gao, J. He, X. Tang, J. Chu, Calcium carbonate precipitation catalyzed by
soybean urease as an improvement method for fine-grained soil, Soils Found. 59
(5) (2019) 1631–1637.
[126] A. Nafisi, S. Safavizadeh, B.M. Montoya, Influence of microbe and enzyme-induced
treatments on cemented sand shear response, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 145
(2019) 9.
[127] M.-J. Cui, H.-J. Lai, T. Hoang, J. Chu, One-phase-low-pH enzyme induced carbo­
nate precipitation (EICP) method for soil improvement, Acta Geotech. 16 (2)
(2020) 481–489.
[128] L. Cheng, Y. Yang, J. Chu, In-situ microbially induced Ca(2+) -alginate polymeric
sealant for seepage control in porous materials, Micro Biotechnol. 12 (2) (2019)
324–333.
[129] K. Wen, Y. Li, W. Huang, C. Armwood, F. Amini, L. Li, Mechanical behaviors of
hydrogel-impregnated sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 207 (2019) 174–180.
K. Wang, S. Wu and J. Chu
[130] K. Wang, J. Chu, S. Wu, J. He, Behaviour of loose sand treated using bio-gelation
method, Géotechnique 0 (0) (2022) 1–17.
[131] K.Y. Lee, D.J. Mooney, Alginate: properties and biomedical applications, Prog.
Polym. Sci. 37 (1) (2012) 106–126.
[132] N. Magan, Fungi in Extreme Environments, in: C.P. Kubicek, I.S. Druzhinina
(Eds.), Environmental and Microbial Relationships. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 85–103.
[133] K. Seki, T. Suko, T. Miyazaki, Bioclogging of glass beads by bacteria and fungi,
Trans. World Congr. Soil Sci. Symp. (2002).
[134] M.C. Rillig, D.L. Mummey, Mycorrhizas and soil structure, N. Phytol. 171 (1)
(2006) 41–53.
[135] B.C. Martinez, J.T. DeJong, T.R. Ginn, Bio-geochemical reactive transport mod­
eling of microbial induced calcite precipitation to predict the treatment of sand in
one-dimensional flow, Comput. Geotech. 58 (2014) 1–13.
[136] C. Jin, R. Yu, Z. Shui, Fungi: a neglected candidate for the application of self-
healing concrete, Front. Built Environ. (2018) 4.
[137] V. Lo, J. I-Chun Lai, M. Sunde, Fungal Hydrophobins and Their Self-Assembly into
Functional Nanomaterials, in: S. Perrett, A.K. Buell, T.P.J. Knowles (Eds.),
Biological and Bio-inspired Nanomaterials: Properties and Assembly Mechanisms.
Singapore, Springer, Singapore, 2019, pp. 161–185.
[138] M.C. Rillig, A connection between fungal hydrophobins and soil water repellency?
Pedobiologia 49 (5) (2005) 395–399.
11
Biogeotechnics 1 (2023) 100005
[139] X. Zhang, X. Fan, C. Wang, X. Yu, A novel method to improve the soil erosion
resistance with fungi, Acta Geotech. (2022).
[140] W. Klinthong, Y.-H. Yang, C.-H. Huang, C.-S. Tan, A review: microalgae and their
applications in CO2 capture and renewable energy. aerosol and air quality,
Research 15 (2) (2015) 712–742.
[141] C.R. Heath, B.C.S. Leadbeater, M.E. Callow, Effect of inhibitors on calcium car­
bonate deposition mediated by freshwater algae, J. Appl. Phycol. 7 (4) (1995)
367–380.
[142] G. Santomauro, J. Baier, W. Huang, S. Pezold, J. Bill, Formation of calcium car­
bonate polymorphs induced by living microalgae, J. Biomater. Nanobiotechnol. 03
(04) (2012) 413–420.
[143] P. Xu, H. Fan, L. Leng, L. Fan, S. Liu, P. Chen, et al., Feasibility of microbially
induced carbonate precipitation through a Chlorella-Sporosaricina co-culture
system, Algal Res. (2020) 47.
[144] N. Escoffier, P. Perolo, T. Lambert, J. Rüegg, D. Odermatt, T. Adatte, et al.,
Whiting events in a large peri‐alpine lake: evidence of a catchment‐scale process,
J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 127 (2022) 4.
[145] W.S. Chai, C.H. Chew, H.S.H. Munawaroh, V. Ashokkumar, C.K. Cheng, Y.-
K. Park, et al., Microalgae and ammonia: a review on inter-relationship, Fuel
(2021) 303.
[146] P.D. Natsi, P.G. Koutsoukos, Calcium carbonate mineralization of microalgae,
Biomimetics (2022) 7.