ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022
Reinforcement of reclaimed sand by stimulating native microorganisms for biomineralization.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The method of biological stimulation to reinforce soil has good environmental benefits. The optimization of stimulation solutions can not only improve soil reinforcement but also effectively reduce treatment costs. Response surface methodology was used to optimize a biostimulation solution to reinforce reclaimed sand by native microorganism-induced mineralization. First, response surface methodology was used to obtain the optimal stimulation solution. Then, the effect of the optimal stimulation solution in inducing mineralization to reinforce reclaimed sand was evaluated. Finally, the reinforcement mechanism was revealed by SEM, XRD, and microbial diversity analysis. The results showed that the urease activity of the sample optimized by response surface methodology was 1.17 times higher than that of the sample treated with the initial stimulation solution. The uniaxial compressive strength of samples treated with the optimal biostimulation solution and 1.0 M cementation solution over 15 cycles reached 3.94 MPa. The product of microbial mineralization was calcite, which was the main substance responsible for the improvement in the mechanical properties of the reclaimed sand. The concentration of the cementation solution not only affected the production of calcium carbonate but also affected the morphology of calcium carbonate crystals. After sample treatment with the stimulation solution, ureolytic microorganisms became the dominant bacteria in the sample. A comprehensive assessment of the reinforcement effect and cost revealed that using the optimal stimulation solution and 1.0 M cementation solution over 10 cycles was ideal for reinforcing reclaimed sand. Biostimulation is an effective method to reinforce reclaimed sand; however, the actual application effect requires further examination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.