Our project lays the groundwork for two possible implementations: BioCement, and BioBrick.
BioCement would contain dried B. subtilis cells and all the ingredients needed to initialise the bio cementation process which include urea, calcium chloride, sodium alginate, and cumate. The mixture would be combined with water and sand by the end user similarly to process of producing traditional cement, with calcium chloride added during mixing. The resulting mortar could then be used as a cement mortar alternative in most circumstances where structural requirements enable it. The second option is to sell BioBrick. This product would be used as a readymade, solid building material, and no special equipment or training would be needed for its use.
Figure 1.Conceptual process flowsheets for the production of BioCement and BioBrick. The BioCement process results in a dry, bagged product which can then be mixed with water and moulded by the consumer to form a construction material. Contrastingly, the BioBrick process results in a finished material which will then be directly introduced to construction projects.
Figure 2. The planned process for manufacturing BioCement, represented as a process flow diagram. Relevant feed streams are included alongside material recycling flows. ‘Hydrogel SA/CA’ denotes hydrogel based on either sodium alginate or carboxymethyl cellulose. ‘MF’ denotes microfiltration. ‘RO’ denotes reverse osmosis.
Figure 3.The planned process for manufacturing BioBrick, represented as a process flow diagram. Relevant feed streams are included alongside material recycling flows. ‘Hydrogel SA/CA’ denotes hydrogel based on either sodium alginate or carboxymethyl cellulose. ‘MF’ denotes microfiltration. ‘RO’ denotes reverse osmosis.
Figure 4. A timeline for the implementation and adoption of BioBrick and BioCement, and how subsequent stages of the rollout will inform further development of the biomaterial.
There are many reasons why, in the near-term, implementation of the material will be aimed at domestic applications such as DIY and home improvement. Our project has always been designed to drive global change through individuals and communities, and there are also practical and legislative barriers to swiftly incorporating the material within commercial construction.
Early adopters of the material in domestic settings will inform product development and later champion adoption of sustainable materials within industry. The creation of garden sheds, patios and sculptures will serve as case-studies driving development, and consumer opinion will direct iterative refinement of both BioCement and BioBrick based products. Those with knowledge of construction and biomaterials will be able to develop some the infrastructure necessary to utilise our products, such as customised cement mixers and moulds.
To have a larger impact in the fight against climate change, our products will later be sold directly to private industry for use in construction as structural and/or insulatory material, replacing unsustainable materials which form the current status-quo. Further product development will be required to achieve the some of the mechanical and thermodynamic properties desired in industry, and a rigorous regulatory framework will have to be satisfied for the material to be considered legislatively sound and safe enough for use in buildings. The timeline for this adoption and transition into commercial use is shown below in Figure 4.
Looking to the future, development of the international bioeconomy and infrastructure supporting biomanufacturing forms an important prerequisite to our material being incorporated more pervasively into the largest scales of construction. Our life cycle assessment of our product (see human practices) highlights the environmental benefit to manufacturing BioBrick when compared to BioCement. For this format to become the norm in construction, manufacturing facilities would need to be distributed throughout geographies and incorporated into urban environments. Thankfully, distributed manufacturing [1] in this context is a trend which will likely be driven by the increased relevance of biomanufacturing. Multi-use manufacturing facilities are expected to arise as biological methods become viable means to produce myriad commonly used products. Consumers will be able to order/print DNA to allow production of different chemicals within similar contexts as demand arises. Bioprocessing facilities will become independent platforms for use by a wide range of stakeholders.
If our biomaterial doesn’t have a comparable material profile to mortar, it has the potential to replace other unsustainable materials in the construction business, depending on its mechanical and thermodynamic characteristics. Our material could be a replacement for materials that don’t require the same level of load bearing qualities as concrete, such as tail. We are now waiting to receive results from our hydraulic press experiments, where we tested prototypes to find the material’s compressive and tensile strength. According to these results we can assess the biomaterial’s applicability in various settings.
After a discussion with Rollin James, the CSO at Okam Wrks (a biomaterial company developing biomineralized, mycelium-based construction materials), we have discovered that the research and development of new biomaterials for the construction industry is done by civil engineers. By applying our knowledge in synthetic biology we contributed with a novel approach to another field of study, that can be utilised and expanded on by the civil engineers.
Overall we envision our products being sold to:
As previously discussed, it can be used for small scale home projects such as a garden patio for which the construction material can abide by simpler regulation than large residential construction projects. By proving this alternative in home improvements stores we would encourage change a global change on a local scale.
However, looking at the bigger picture we envision our material to be used by big and small construction companies alike, as this is where the majority of concrete is used, and the largest impact is to be had environmentally speaking.
As we would be creating a new construction material there are multiple safety factors to consider, a lot of these were voiced by the public when we conducted a survey in hardware stores (see human practices). Furthermore, we have also discussed safety and proposed implementation during the UK Synbio conference, this allowed our team to consider the concerns from the perspective of a diverse range of stakeholders. Implementing feedback from these sources, we have devised a strategy to ensure our product will be safe, considering both biosafety and structural engineering as relevant technical bases for assessment.
The following questions were considered:
Based on these safety concerns, we have decided to look at the following:
Since our material contains biological components, it is relevant to consider whether it could directly impact human health. Our prototype development team has devised protocols in which the final product tries to mitigate this risk.
In practice this means:
The heat treatment serves 3 functions:
Currently our vector contains an antibiotic selection marker for genetic stability and colony selection. We first intend to remove antibiotic requirements and utilise an auxotrophic complementation to ensure stability. Our current protocol involves curing the bricks at 120°C to ensure that all B. subtilis is killed off following mineralisation.
The biomineralization process will be taken to completion with the data on how long this will take will be conducted in future work. During the stationary phase and death phase of this process, B. subtilis will produce spores which are incredibly resistant and dormant until exposed to conditions suitable for propagation. These spores being physically crystalised into the material poses a minimal risk of environmental exposure while giving us an exciting possibility for self healing applications in the future.
Long term properties of our material still need to be tested however, chemically it utilises the same hydration reaction to create calcium carbonate. Full mineralisation of concrete can take years, increasing in compressive strength over time, we expect a similar progression of our material as it is compacted
As has been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, global supply chains and ‘just in time’ / ‘lean’ manufacturing can be a vulnerability to commercial operations. The team has considered the feedstocks need to produce our biomaterial, and one of the largest sources of risk has been identified as urea acquisition. Since urea is widely employed in the agricultural sector in fertilizer, its cost and availability are closely tied to the market. Recently, economic sanctions and export restrictions being placed on some key exporters of urea and fertilizer have meant that urea is currently trading at record prices [3].
Basic mitigations such as stockpiling could obviously be employed to lessen the risk of a lack of urea halting manufacture of our product. However, our team has engineered a more ingenious solution to this issue into the biological component of our product. Our cells simultaneously employ two distinct enzymatic mechanisms for biomineralization. Whilst the urease-based mechanism requires urea as an input, the mechanism which employs carbonic anhydrase does not, and could be used in isolation. Previous research, which informed our project, has created biomaterials (via biomineralization) using only the carbonic anhydrase pathway [4]. Beyond this, we have also utilised wastewater (sewage) as an input stream into our process. It serves as a source of urea and other minerals.
Our life cycle assessment has illumed our manufacturing process to be water intensive. Thus, water availability and scarcity should be considered when locating manufacturing facilities. As water scarcity is a large and growing problem in and of itself, have used wastewater (sewage) as our primary input stream. This, as aforementioned, has the added benefit of providing a source of urea.
As part of a sustainability-focused project, distribution must be considered as a source of emissions alongside its relevance as a logistical challenge. Our BioCement, as a dried product, provides a format for distribution which is preferable to BioBrick. It is both lighter and more compact, meaning that the amount of material required to create a given mass of solid can be transported with significantly fewer emissions than if the analogous mass of BioBrick were to be moved. As has been discussed above, longer term plans for manufacturing and distributing larger masses of either product incorporate future infrastructure for distributed biomanufacturing in multi-purpose bioprocessing facilities spread throughout geographies.
The main challenges in marketing our product will be negative attitudes towards genetic engineering and a lack of knowledge relating to biomanufacturing and biomaterials amongst populations. Part of our project has involved surveying consumers shopping at hardware stores across Western Europe (UK), Central Europe (Slovakia, Austria, Germany), Eastern Europe (Romania), Asia Pacific (Taiwan), and North America (USA), which has allowed us to map how public perceptions of genetic engineering and biomaterials vary based on geography (see human practices). This will allow us to target our efforts in marketing and education towards populations where it will be needed to facilitate early adoption.
Both BioBrick and BioCement have been designed to be easily used by consumers and construction companies in the same way that ready-mix cement or solid concrete is currently used. However, public awareness of the synthetic biology and bioengineering behind our product will still be needed for the product to be fruitfully employed. With this knowledge, consumers can appreciate why the product possesses the qualities it has and ideate on how the technology might be adapted for their own use cases of interest. As part of our project, we have run workshops online on the topic of programming for biology, have run a workshop on biomineralization and biomaterials in a school, and have produced educational multimedia content which has been broadcast through our social media channels as well as through platforms such as the UCL Department of Biochemical Engineering website.
References
1. Srai, J.S., Graham, G., Hennelly, P., Phillips, W., Kapletia, D. and Lorentz, H., 2020. Distributed manufacturing: a new form of localised production?. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
2. Coleman, W. H., Chen, D., Li, Y. Q., Cowan, A. E., & Setlow, P. (2007). How moist heat kills spores of Bacillus subtilis. Journal of bacteriology, 189(23), 8458–8466. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.01242-07
3. Impacts and Repercussions of Price Increases on the Global Fertilizer Market. (2022, June 30). USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Retrieved October 12, 2022, from https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/impacts-and-repercussions-price-increases-global-fertilizer-market
4. Heveran, C. M., Williams, S. L., Qiu, J., Artier, J., Hubler, M. H., Cook, S. M., Cameron, J. C., & Srubar, W. V. (2020, February). Biomineralization and Successive Regeneration of Engineered Living Building Materials. Matter, 2(2), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2019.11.016