Skip to main content
Log in

Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review

  • REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is becoming an increasingly widespread tool in support systems for environmental decision-making regarding the cleanup of contaminated sites. In this study, the use of LCA to compare the environmental impacts of different remediation technologies was reviewed. Remediation of a contaminated site reduces a local environmental problem, but at the same time, the remediation activities may cause negative environmental impacts on the local, regional, and global scale. LCA can be used to evaluate the inherent trade-off and to compare remediation scenarios in terms of their associated environmental burden.

Main features

An overview of the assessed remediation technologies and contaminant types covered in the literature is presented. The LCA methodologies of the 12 reviewed studies were compared and discussed with special focus on their goal and scope definition and the applied impact assessment. The studies differ in their basic approach since some are prospective with focus on decision-support while others are retrospective aiming at a more detailed assessment of a completed remediation project.

Literature review

The literature review showed that only few life cycle assessments have been conducted for in situ remediation technologies aimed at groundwater-threatening contaminants and that the majority of the existing literature focuses on ex situ remediation of contaminated soil. The functional unit applied in the studies is generally based on the volume of contaminated soil (or groundwater) to be treated; this is in four of the studies combined with a cleanup target for the remediation. While earlier studies often used more simplified impact assessment models, the more recent studies based their impact assessment on established methodologies covering the conventional set of impact categories. Ecotoxicity and human toxicity are the impact categories varying the most between these methodologies. Many of the reviewed studies address the importance of evaluating both primary and secondary impacts of site remediation. Primary impacts cover the local impacts related to residual contamination left in the subsurface during and after remediation and will vary between different remediation technologies due to different cleanup efficiencies and cleanup times. Secondary impacts are resource use and emissions arising in other stages of the life cycle of the remediation project.

Discussion

Among the reviewed literature, different approaches for modeling the long-term primary impacts of site contamination have been used. These include steady state models as well as dynamic models. Primary impacts are not solely a soil contamination or surface water issue, since many frequently occurring contaminants, such as chlorinated solvents, have the potential to migrate to the groundwater as well as evaporate to ambient air causing indoor climate problems. Impacts in the groundwater compartment are not included in established impact assessment methodologies; thus, the potential groundwater contamination impacts from residual contamination are difficult to address in LCA of site remediation. Due to the strong dependence on local conditions (sensitivity of groundwater aquifer, use for drinking water supply, etc.) a more site-specific impact assessment approach than what is normally applied in LCA is of relevance.

Conclusions, recommendations, and perspectives

The inclusion of groundwater impacts from soil contaminants requires the definition of an impact category covering human toxicity via groundwater or the inclusion of these impacts in the human toxicity impact category and the associated characterization models and normalization procedures. When evaluating groundwater impacts, attention should also be paid to potentially degradable contaminants forming metabolites of higher human toxic concern than the parent compound.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that in case of pump-and-treat systems, the groundwater volume may be the abstracted groundwater volume and not an aquifer volume.

References

  • Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3):49–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer P, Finkel M (2006) Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies. J Contam Hydrol 83(3):171–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beinat E, van Drunen MA, Janssen R, Nijboer MH, Koolenbrander JGM, Okx JP, Schütte AR (1997) REC: a methodology for comparing soil remedial alternatives based on the criteria of risk reduction, environmental merit and costs. CUR/Nobis report 95-10-3. Gouda, Netherlands

  • Blanc A, Metivier-Pignon H, Gourdon R, Rousseaux P (2004) Life cycle assessment as a tool for controlling the development of technical activities: application to the remediation of a site contaminated by sulfur. Adv Environ Res 8(3–4):613–627

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cadotte M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2007) Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(4):239–251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen TH, Bhander G, Lindvall H, Larsen AW, Fruergaard T, Damgaard A, Manfredi S, Boldrin A, Riber C, Hauschild M (2007) Experience with the use of LCA-modelling (EASEWASTE) in waste management. Waste Manag Res 25:257–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond ML, Page CA, Campbell M, McKenna S, Lall R (1999) Life-cycle assessment—life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: method and generic survey. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4):788–800

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fetter CW (1999) Contaminant hydrogeology, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. NJ, USA, ISBN: 0137512155

  • Gasser L, Fenner K, Scheringer M (2007) Indicators for the exposure assessment of transformation products of organic micropollutants. Environ Sci Technol 41(7):2445–2451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Geisler G, Hellweg S, Liechti S, Hungerbuhler K (2004) Variability assessment of groundwater exposure to pesticides and its consideration in life-cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 38(16):4457–4464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Godin J, Menard JF, Hains S, Deschenes L, Samson R (2004) Combined use of life cycle assessment and groundwater transport modeling to support contaminated site management. Human Ecol Risk Assess 10(6):1099–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ (2005) Assessing environmental impacts in a life-cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 39(4):81A–88A

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M, Olsen SI, Hansen E, Schmidt A (2008) Gone...but not away-addressing the problem of long-term impacts from landfills in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):547–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellweg S, Fischer U, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbuhler K (2005) Site-dependent fate assessment in LCA: transport of heavy metals in soil. J Cleaner Prod 13(4):341–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen HJ, Troldborg L, Højberg AL, Refsgaard JC (2008) Assessment of exploitable groundwater resources of Denmark by use of ensemble resource indicators and a numerical groundwater–surface water model. J Hydrol 348(1–2):224–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Guinee JB, Jager T, Kalf D, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Sleeswijk AW, Reijnders L (2000) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. Chemosphere 41(4):541–573

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler A (2008) Water use in LCA: managing the planet's freshwater resources. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(6):451–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschenes L, Samson R (2007a) Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):391–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschenes L, Samson R (2007b) Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models—part 2: case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):497–513

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mackay D, Shiu WY, Ma KC (1992) Illustrated handbook of physical–chemical properties and environmental fate for organic chemicals: volume II—polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated dioxins, and dibenzofurans. Lewis Publishers, NY, USA. ISBN 0873715837

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire TM, McDade JM, Newell CJ (2006) Performance of DNAPL source depletion technologies at 59 chlorinated solvent-impacted sites. Ground Water Monit R 26(1):73–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Page CA, Diamond ML, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999) Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: case study. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4):801–810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ribbenhed M, Wolf-Watz C, Almemark M, Palm A, Sternbeck J (2002) Livscykelanalys av marksaneringstekniker fàr fàrorenad jord och sediment [Life cycle assessment of remediation technologies for contaminated soil and sediment]. IVL Rapport/report B1476. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd, Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox-the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ScanRail Consult, HOH Water Technology A/S, NIRAS Consulting Engineers and Planners A/S, Revisorsamvirket/Pannell Kerr Forster (2000) Environmental/economic evaluation and optimising of contaminated sites remediation. EU LIFE Project no. 96ENV/DK/0016, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroo HF, Unger M, Ward CH, Kavanaugh MC, Vogel C, Leeson A, Marqusee JA, Smith BP (2003) Remediating chlorinated solvent source zones. Environ Sci Technol 37(11):224A–230A

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suer P, Nilsson-Paledal S, Norrman J (2004) LCA for site remediation: a literature review. Soil Sediment Contam 13(4):415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toffoletto L, Deschenes L, Samson R (2005) LCA of ex-situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):406–416

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • US EPA (1997) Cleanup of the nation’s waste sites: markets and technology trends. EPA 542-R-96-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignes RP (2001) Use limited life-cycle analysis for environmental decision-making. Chem Eng Prog 97(2):40–54

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein S, Hurtig HW, Klöpffer W (1999) LCA concepts and methods—life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(5):263–273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products. 1: methodology, tools, and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, United Kingdom, 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA. USA. ISBN 0 412 80800 5

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gitte Lemming.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lemming, G., Hauschild, M.Z. & Bjerg, P.L. Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 115–127 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0129-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0129-x

Keywords

Navigation