diff --git a/exercises/exercise-biomineralization/README.md b/exercises/exercise-biomineralization/README.md
index 421a1d3da2bfee036be3bc8d2cde5113122dc8fc..ab345a9feb7b5a686fc89eda16384306ea0f5cad 100644
--- a/exercises/exercise-biomineralization/README.md
+++ b/exercises/exercise-biomineralization/README.md
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ and type
 
 ```bash
 make exercisebiomin
-./exercise_biomin exercise_biomin.input
+./exercise_biomin
 ```
 
 ### 4. Seal leakage pathway in the aquitard
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ __Task:__
 Implement a new boundary condition on the left boundary, injecting CO2 from 2 m to 3 m from the bottom. Make sure, that the injection time for the calcium and urea is finished. You can use the predefined value `gasFlux` directly and divide it by the molar mass of CO2.
 Run two simulations and compare them side by side by creating two input files, or overwriting the input file in the command line:
 ```bash
-./exercisebiomin -Problem.Name biominNoUrea -Injection.ConcUrea 0
+./exercise_biomin -Problem.Name biominNoUrea -Injection.ConcUrea 0
 ```
 The result for the biomineralization process during the CO2 injection should look like this:
 
@@ -163,6 +163,14 @@ The equation of the Power Law is defined as:
 
 $`\displaystyle K = K_0 \left(\frac{\phi}{\phi_0}\right)^\eta`$
 
+```c++
+    const Scalar exponent = getParam<Scalar>("PowerLaw.Exponent", 5.0);
+```
+
+```c++
+    const Scalar factor = pow(poro/refPoro, exponent);
+```
+
 As a special feature, we would like the exponent $`\displaystyle \eta=5`$ to be a run-time parameter read from the input file, as this allows easy modification of the parameter and potentially fit it.
 This is useful, as field-scale porosity-permeability relations might be quite uncertain.
 Adapt the input file `params.input` accordingly.
@@ -173,7 +181,7 @@ Finally, the header `permeabilitypowerlaw.hh` needs to be included in the spatia
     PermeabilityPowerLaw<PermeabilityType> permLaw_;
 ```
 
-Note: As both the Kozeny-Carman and the Power-Law relation use the same parameters, there is no need to change the permeabuility function calling `evaluatePermeability(refPerm, refPoro, poro)` in `biominspatialparams.hh`:
+Note: As both the Kozeny-Carman and the Power-Law relation use the same parameters, there is no need to change the permeability function calling `evaluatePermeability(refPerm, refPoro, poro)` in `biominspatialparams.hh`:
 
 ```c++
     template<class ElementSolution>
@@ -189,6 +197,10 @@ Note: As both the Kozeny-Carman and the Power-Law relation use the same paramete
 ```
 
 What is the effect of the exchanged permeability calculation on the results, especially the leakage of CO2? What if the exponent would be smaller, e.g. $`\displaystyle \eta=2`$, which would mean that the precipitation is less efficient in sealing the leakage?
+You can again run two simulations and compare them side by side by creating two input files, or overwriting the input file parameter in the command line:
+```bash
+./exercise_biomin -Problem.Name biominPowerLawExponent2 -PowerLaw.Exponent 2.0
+```
 
 ### 7. Use tabulated CO2 values instead of SimpleCO2