View
214
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
UK Meeting on Soil-Bio Interactions and Engineering
Kenichi Soga, University of CambridgeSteven Banwart, University of SheffieldRichard Whalley, Rothamsted Research
“Biotechnologies for manufacturing insitu systems”6 July 2007
At Rothamsted Research
Geological and Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium:
Opportunities for Research and Technological Innovation
Geo-Knowledge and Technology Development Needs (US National Research Council, 2006)
• Better ability to “see into the earth”• Better sensing and monitoring methods• Better understanding and prediction of long term behavior• Better characterization of properties and variability• Better ability to deal with materials between hard soil and soft rock• Better understanding of biogeochemical processes• Better ground improvement materials and methods• Better understanding of the effects of extreme loadings and
environments• Better geotechnical data bases and information systems
Biotechnology• Cumulative effects can shape
the earth and impact properties and behavior
• 109 to 1012 microorganisms per kg in upper few m
• Processes work on small scale and in short times
• Microorganisms are same in size as silt and clay
• Processes and effects– Capture inorganic
compounds from solution– Precipitate inorganics– Release enzymes and
proteins that change pH and chemical conditions
– Change mineral characteristics
Some Possibilities• Stabilize liquefiable soils• Self-healing infrastructure• Grow foundations in-situ• Preconditioning of soil and
rock foundations prior to excavation, tunneling, and mining.
Bio-Soil Interactions & Engineering Workshop
April 1April 1--4, 20074, 2007
MIT Endicott HouseMIT Endicott HouseBoston, MA, USABoston, MA, USA
Kenichi SogaSteven BanwartRichard Whalley
Jason DeJongKlaus NussleinCarlos SantamarinaJames Mitchell
Program Summary
Sunday, April1, 2007Arrival, Check-in, and Welcome ReceptionDinner, Vision & Scope, and Introductions
Evening Lecture: “Current Boundaries and Needs of our Disciplines” – Geotechnical
Monday, April 2, 2007Geotechnical Engineering Lectures, Poster Presentations, and Discussion
Microbiology & Geochemistry Lectures, Poster Presentations, and Discussion
Evening Lecture: “Current Boundaries and Needs of our Disciplines” – Microbiology & Geochemistry
Program Summary, continuedTuesday, April 3, 2007
Soil Science & Geoenvironmental Lectures, Poster Presentations, and Discussion
Process Monitoring & Measurements – the Interdisciplinary Toolbox
Brainstorming Breakout SessionsDiscipline – State Variable and Hard ScienceInterdisciplinary Research Application
Wednesday, April 4, 2007Interdisciplinary Breakout Sessions (continued)Synthesis of Research Opportunities LectureSynthesis of Educational Opportunities
Soil, Our Most Important Resource
• All terrestrial life depends on it– It’s where we look for life
on other planets• We are wasting it
– >18% reduction in organic matter in UK since 1985
– 2.2M Tonnes lost to erosion each year in UK
– Globally, at current loss rates, there is about 60 years of productive topsoil left
POST report, July 2006Env. Agency 2004 report
(Ian Young 2007)
≈1000 μm ≈200 μm ≈100 μm
Ligh
t MIC
P
Cem
ent
Hea
vy M
ICP
C
emen
tU
ntre
ated
Willem van der Zon, GeoDelft
Jason DeJong
Microbiologically Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation (MICCP) Process
• Bacillus (Sporosarcina) pasteurii−Gram+ bacillus− Facultative anaerobe−Common in soil− Endospore former −Urease producer− alkalophile
Jason DeJong
Flow
Transformation Feldspar into clay
Fermentation and EPS forming
Capturing of clay particles
Biomass clogging
BioSealing
Hypotheses of mechanism
Waldo Molendijk
Geotechnical-Biological Compatibility
Microbe – Soil Particle Size Relationship
(modified from Mitchell and Santamarina, 2005)
Å nm μm mm
atoms
small molecules
polymers
clay minerals silt sand
microorganisms cannot pass pore-throatsbut may be entrapped during formation
unhindered microbial motion and easy nutrient transport
(?) nanobacteria
eukaryaviruses
gravel
# microorganisms perparticle-particle contactdecreases, minimizing relevance
bacteria archea
Biomedical Micro/NanosystemsAshwin A. Seshia (aas41@cam.ac.uk)
We are developing technologies for the highly sensitive and minimally disruptive monitoring of biological systems. These include sensitive micromechanical sensor arrays for the label-free study of protein-protein and protein-small molecule interactions, protein crystallisation devices and microphysiometers to study and monitor the behaviour of single-cell organisms in controlled environments. Ongoing projects involve significant collaboration within the IRC for Nanotechnology and the Biochemistry and Biotechnology departments in Cambridge University. Integrated resonant output gyroscope
Microphysiometers
SU-8 sensor arrays
0 2000 4000 6000-50
0
50
100
150
200Biotin
PEG
Biotin
PEG
100 nM 1 nM
Surf
ace
Stre
ss(m
N/m
)
Time(s)
10 nM
Label free biomolecular detection
BBSRC-SuperGraSS ProjectUsing water with greater efficiency
morphogenesis
Rootingdepth
Plant water status
MAXIMISE
MAXIMISEMAXIMISE
MINIMISE
Testing: soil-penetration, effects on soil structure & water-extraction capabilities of fescues : abilities of fescues for reducing run-off
Leaf area
Absorption
Transpiration
Mike Humphreys“Reclaiming and greening land in East London intended for the Olympics in 2012”
Combining desirable ryegrass and fescue traits
Over a few generations ryegrass & fescue chromosomes during cultivar development exchange genes at very high frequencies
The initial hybrid
Mike Humphreys
“Significant change – move from reactive to proactive consideration of microbiology”
“Can we manage any biologically controlled reactions as opposed to microbiologically induced reactions?”
Stephan Jefferis
Biotechnology for Manufacturing In situ Systems
• Characteristics– Reduced uncertainty– Understanding based on 1st principles– Predictive behavior– Proactive instead of reactive control– Reduced embodied energy– Small CO2 footprint– Resource recovery & minimization of waste
Biotechnology for Manufacturing In situ Systems
• Example Applications– Nutrient control in agricultural systems– Construction systems (e.g. foundation stabilization)– Clean water (e.g. decontamination)
In 2020, we want to design with predictiveconfidence sufficient for a Safety Factor → 1
Framework• Discipline Breakout Sessions
– Participants were grouped into common discipline groups to discuss their discipline’s state variables and their ability to characterize those variables (ranked 1(min) to 5(max))
– Disciplines:• Geotechnical Engineering• Environmental Engineering• Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry• Microbiology and Biology• Agriculture and Soil Science
Discipline Synthesis
• Common Variables – Heterogeneity– Soil Structure and Pore Space Distribution– Fluid Movement and Transport– Scale Issues– Biodiversity: community composition and distribution
All of these variables lack sufficient understanding across the disciplines!
• Application Breakout Sessions
– Participants were then grouped into common applications to discuss state variables and their ability to characterize them, the national needs, and the hard science involved
– Application Groups:• Mechanical Control• Hydraulic Control• Remediation and Waste Treatment• Energy and Carbon Sequestration• Soil-Plant Interactions
Documents
• UK meeting details, list of participants• Boston Workshop summary• Outcomes of Application breakout session• Feedback form• Claim form
In the morning….10.20-12.30 Review documents, define priorities, develop research
ideas and identify discipline gaps
10.20 – 10.40 Energy and carbon sequestration (David Manning and Jon Lloyd)
10.40 – 11.10 Soil Plant interactions (Steve McGrath)11.10 – 11.30 Hydraulic control (Stephan Jefferis)11.30 – 11.50 Mechanical control (John McDougall)11.50 – 12.10 Remediation and waste treatment (Ian Thompson)
12.10 – 12.30 Synthesis (Steven Banwart)
Identify Research Project Titles
Objectives
(1) To review papers that were generated from the Boston Meeting and define priority areas.
(2) To develop a UK programme in this area and find if there are any discipline gaps
(3) To draft outline proposals for responsive mode research
In the afternoon…13.30 – 14.15 Further synthesis with RCs (Whalley)
Cross-councils research programme under “Planning for change”initiative.
Dr Claire Tansely (EPSRC)Dr Paul Burrows (BBSRC)Dr Frances Collingborn (NERC)
EPSRCGeotechnical and GeoenvironmentalResearchSoil mechanics
BBSRCGeneticsMolecular biologySoil Science and Soil Biology
NERCLandscape scale problems
BBSRC/ NERCSoil Science Steering committee
In the afternoon…
14.15 – 15.30 Draft outline proposals – group sessions
a. Research objectives - how will this meet the research need?b. How will this will create a step change in 5 yearsc. What do we achieve working across disciplines that we cannot
achieve working separately?d. Research tools and methods needede. Identify research and knowledge gaps - the scope of the
researchf. Rationale for cross-council funding
Next steps• Large consortiums? Individual projects?
• 20 July – KS, SB&RW visiting EPSRC/NERC/BBSRC(DEFRA?)
• 31 August – EPSRC project end date
• 21 August – KS&JD US-NSF presentations
• 20 September – US-NSF members visiting UK (EPSRC?) Discussion about Memorandum for US-UK collaborations
• 31 September – EPSRC final report
Recommended