Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T10:51:02.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Paper waste grown as a biocalcified foam: perspectives from a bacterial and design viewpoint

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2024

A response to the following question: Can we grow a building and why would we want to?

Aurélie Mosse*
Affiliation:
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs, Paris, France
Vincent Rennie
Affiliation:
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs, Paris, France
Quentin Poudoulec
Affiliation:
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs, Paris, France
Daniel Suárez Zamora
Affiliation:
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs, Paris, France
*
Corresponding author: Aurélie Mosse; Email: aurelie.mosse@ensad.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biocalcification is a naturally occurring mineralisation phenomenon resulting from the urease produced by microorganisms inhabiting soil environments. This process, often referred to as microbially induced calcite precipitation (MICP), is primarily exploited in an engineering context for soil stabilisation and the repair of concrete structures. MICP represents an emerging area of research in architecture and design. In this paper, we discuss the appropriation of MICP on Papier Plume, a foam made of paper waste used in the context of ImpressioVivo: a design-led research project exploring the conception and fabrication of 3D-printed and bacterially induced bio-sourced materials for a circular design framework. In the light of a previous study based on two strategies of calcification: (1) direct inoculation (2) spraying, we – a team of two designers and a microbiologist – discuss the relevance of an immersion strategy applied to the dry paper foam substrate. By doing so, we reflect on the relevance of MICP as a material design process underpinned by sustainable and circularity concerns, from a design perspective, but also into an attempt to embrace the perspective of the bacteria supporting these experiments; namely Sporosarcina pasteurii.

Information

Type
Results
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Process diagram for Papier Plume foam crafting (top) and its biocalcification through an immersion strategy.

Figure 1

Figure 2. One-step calcified paper foam with a distinctive crystallised surface on the top, characteristic of this biocalcification process (left) 3D printed paper foam structure of 24 mm height after a 3-steps biocalcification. Both samples are obtained following the immersion technique highlighted in Figure 1.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Papier Plume: a paper waste foam after (left) and before (right) a three-step biocalcification process, 2022.

Figure 3

Figure 4. 10 microns SEM images of Papier Plume (left) the one-step calcified paper foam (middle) and the 3-steps calcified paper foam (right). The latter shows a dense crystalline structure. Both calcified samples are obtained through the immersion technique described in Figure 1.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Papier Plume: (a) one-step calcified paper foam, (b) and three-step calcified paper foam, (c) at 1 mn of flame exposure (top) and 10 mn after (bottom). Observation of a one-step, (d) and three-step calcified foam samples, and (e) on grid graduated every 1 cm. After 10 mn, Papier Plume was completely consumed and could therefore not be moved for such observation.

Figure 5

Table 1. Mechanical strength associated with different levels of biocalcification of the Papier Plume foam. “Slope during Tension” is a proxy for the Young’s modulus, with a large slope indicating that the sample is characterised as rigid rather than flexible

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) top and side view of respectively Papier Plume, one and three-step biocalcification samples after 24 h immersion and drying, showing a clear deformation of Papier Plume (b) 3-step biocalcified sample in immersion after 24 h.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Results of hydrophobicity test respectively on Papier Plume (left), one-step calcified paper foam (middle), and three-step calcified paper foam (right).

Figure 8

Figure 8. Circular lifecycle scenario for a biocalcified paper foam, from paper waste collection to return-to-earth.

Author comment: Paper waste grown as a biocalcified foam: perspectives from a bacterial and design viewpoint — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Paper waste grown as a biocalcified foam: perspectives from a bacterial and design viewpoint — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The material process is very interesting and relevant. The paper at this stage is a paper of research-in-progress that is suited for a conference presentation but is underdeveloped for a research paper. The method section doesn't have enough details and robust protocol to reproduce the calcification immersion method (source of materials, bacterial culture preparation, concentration and quantities of solutions etc...) The evaluation of the samples produced in the immersion process and comparison to what was reported in Mosse and Bassereau 2022 needs to be clearer. The evaluation of the resulting foam needs to be better quantified - Instron mechanical testing, flammability tests etc. The circular diagram is very interesting, please describe the steps in it in more detail. There is a qualitative language throughout to describe quantifiable material structure and properties.

Presentation

Overall score 3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
2 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Review: Paper waste grown as a biocalcified foam: perspectives from a bacterial and design viewpoint — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The paper presents novel methods and highlights a form of bio-making that is of interest to the Bio design community. The introduction is well written and provides highly relevant information as to the background of the research. The findings are novel and contribute to the body of knowledge in the field. Unfortunately, the method and results section need significant restructuring and inclusion of vital information that is currently missing without which it is impossible to replicate the presented experiments. To this end these sections need to be rewritten to reflect a scientific format that will allow replication from a third party. Any method related information regarding experiment structure, variables, tools etc. must be explained thoroughly in a structured manner within the method section. There shouldn’t be any mention of methods in the results section. The results section should only be used to report clearly and consistently the collected data.

To that end it would be useful to outline the method for data collection and data analysis within the Methods section and establish a clear protocol for collecting and comparing the data e.g. if using fire to test samples is there a photographic comparison study that can be measured digitally? I recommend that the method section includes clear subheadings e.g. Species, Recipe for Each Test with clear mention of controls and replicates setup essential for a scientific study, Tools, Variables, Setup, Incubation Conditions, Data Collection, Data Analysis. These sections must include exact amounts, temperatures, types of tools and equipment and where they have been sourced.

It is currently unclear as to how results were collected and benchmarked. If results were observational the paper must show the qualitative data and associated measurements for evaluation from a recorded source. SEM imaging is only shown for one sample, how does it compare for others? Divide the results section into subheadings for each test.

Language in the Method, Results and Discussion sections is imprecise and therefore needs to be adjusted to match the technical nature of the study, e.g. when using language to quantify an aspect that needs to be attached to data or the language should be revised to avoid confusion. Language associated with methods and results would benefit from being more exact and less anecdotal. A table outlining the recipes used and the various substrates would aid understanding.

The study is interesting and shows a lot of promise, however, in its current state it is difficult to understand exactly how it was conducted. The paper needs to be rewritten to fit within the framework of a scientific paper. The studies must clearly outline replicates and controls that are featured alongside the experiments. Images of the exact experimental setup, incubation process etc. would be incredibly useful. The use of tables and graphs can also aid in presenting the data and cataloging variables.

Presentation

Overall score 3.1 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
1 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (25%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
4 out of 5

Recommendation: Paper waste grown as a biocalcified foam: perspectives from a bacterial and design viewpoint — R0/PR4

Comments

While the system doesn't allow me to select Major revisions both authors have requested major revisions in the review and the comments are consistent enough that they need to be addressed.

Author comment: Paper waste grown as a biocalcified foam: perspectives from a bacterial and design viewpoint — R1/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Paper waste grown as a biocalcified foam: perspectives from a bacterial and design viewpoint — R1/PR6

Comments

Im happy that the authors have managed to answer the review revisions and this makes a good contribution to the journal.