Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 8124–8147 | Cite as

In situ remediation technologies for mercury-contaminated soil

  • Feng HeEmail author
  • Jie Gao
  • Eric Pierce
  • P. J. Strong
  • Hailong Wang
  • Liyuan Liang
Review Article

Abstract

Mercury from anthropogenic activities is a pollutant that poses significant risks to humans and the environment. In soils, mercury remediation can be technically challenging and costly, depending on the subsurface mercury distribution, the types of mercury species, and the regulatory requirements. This paper introduces the chemistry of mercury and its implications for in situ mercury remediation, which is followed by a detailed discussion of several in situ Hg remediation technologies in terms of applicability, cost, advantages, and disadvantages. The effect of Hg speciation on remediation performance, as well as Hg transformation during different remediation processes, was detailed. Thermal desorption, electrokinetic, and soil flushing/washing treatments are removal technologies that mobilize and capture insoluble Hg species, while containment, solidification/stabilization, and vitrification immobilize Hg by converting it to less soluble forms. Two emerging technologies, phytoremediation and nanotechnology, are also discussed in this review.

Keywords

Mercury Soil contamination In situ remediation Immobilization Stabilization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Office of Groundwater and Soil Remediation, Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the Applied Field Research Initiative (AFRI) Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), which is managed by UT-Battelle LLC for the DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Ashraf-Khorassani M, Taylor LT (1999) Supercritical fluid extraction of mercury(II) ion via in situ chelation and pre-formed mercury complexes from different matrices. Anal Chim Acta 379:1–9Google Scholar
  2. Aurivillius K, von Heidenstam O (1961) On the stability relations and solubilities of hexagonal and orthorhombic mercury(II) oxide. Acta Chem Scand 15:1993–1998Google Scholar
  3. Avramescu ML, Yumvihoze E, Hintelmann H, Ridal J, Fortin D, Lean DRS (2011) Biogeochemical factors influencing net mercury methylation in contaminated freshwater sediments from the St. Lawrence River in Cornwall, Ontario, Canada. Sci Total Environ 409:968–978Google Scholar
  4. Baker AJM, McGrath SP, Reeves RD, Smith JAC (2000) Metal hyperaccumulator plants: a review of the ecology and physiology of a biological resource for phytoremediation of metal-polluted soils. In: Terry N, Banuelos G (eds) Phytoremediation of contaminated soil and water. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 85–108Google Scholar
  5. Barkay T, Miller SM, Summers AO (2003) Bacterial mercury resistance from atoms to ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Rev 27:355–384Google Scholar
  6. Barron RF, Kramer C, Herlache WA, Wright J, Fung H, Liu C (2006) Cement deep soil mixing remediation of Sunset North Basin Dam, the 23rd Annual Conference of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials ASDSO, Boston, pp. 181-199Google Scholar
  7. Bessinger BA, Marks CD (2010) Treatment of mercury-contaminated soils with activated carbon: a laboratory, field, and modeling study. Remediat J 21:115–135Google Scholar
  8. Biester H, Scholz C (1997) Determination of mercury binding forms in contaminated soils: mercury pyrolysis versus sequential extractions. Environ Sci Technol 31:233–239Google Scholar
  9. Bizily SP, Rugh CL, Summers AO, Meagher RB (1999) Phytoremediation of methylmercury pollution: merB expression in Arabidopsis thaliana confers resistance to organomercurials. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:6808–6813Google Scholar
  10. Bizily SP, Rugh CL, Meagher RB (2000) Phytodetoxification of hazardous organomercurials by genetically engineered plants. Nat Biotechnol 18:213–217Google Scholar
  11. Blanchard J, Stamnes R (1997) Engineering forum issue paper: thermal desorption implementation issues. U.S. EPA Report 540/F-95/031. U.S. EPA Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. Bloom NS, Colman JA, Barber L (1997) Artifact formation of methyl mercury during aqueous distillation and alternative techniques for the extraction of methyl mercury from environmental samples. Fresenius J Anal Chem 358:371–377Google Scholar
  13. Bloom NS, Preus E, Katon J, Hiltner M (2003) Selective extractions to assess the biogeochemically relevant fractionation of inorganic mercury in sediments and soils. Anal Chim Acta 479:233–248Google Scholar
  14. BNL (2002) Brookhaven National Laboratory, Technology fact sheet: Peconic river remedial alternatives—electrochemical remediation. http://www.ambiotekspa.com/documents/ppt/Phytostab.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2015
  15. Boszke L, Kowalski A, Glosinska G, Szarek R, Siepak J (2003) Environmental factors affecting speciation of mercury in the bottom sediments; an overview. Pol J Environ Stud 12:5–13Google Scholar
  16. Burks BL (2002) Demonstration of electrochemical remediation technologies-induced complexation. U.S. DOE Report DE-AC26-01NT41346Google Scholar
  17. Cabrejo E, Phillips E (2010) In situ remediation and stabilization technologies for mercury in clay soils. U.S. DOE Report ARC-2007-D2540-032-04Google Scholar
  18. Cauwenberghe LV (1997) Electrokinetics. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, Technology Overview Report, TO-97-03Google Scholar
  19. Chattopadhyay S (2003) Evaluation of chemically bonded phosphate ceramics for mercury stabilization of a mixed synthetic waste. U.S. EPA Report DE-AC26-01NT41346Google Scholar
  20. Che DS, Meagher RB, Heaton ACP, Lima A, Rugh CL, Merkle SA (2003) Expression of mercuric ion reductase in Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) confers mercuric ion reduction and resistance. Plant Biotechnol J 1:311–319Google Scholar
  21. Chen TC, Macauley E, Hong A (1995) Selection and test of effective chelators for removal of heavy metals from contaminated soils. Can J Civ Eng 22:1185–1197Google Scholar
  22. Chen J, Shiyab S, Han FXX, Monts DL, Waggoner CA, Yang ZM, Su Y (2009) Bioaccumulation and physiological effects of mercury in Pteris vittata and Nephrolepis exaltata. Ecotoxicology 18:110–121Google Scholar
  23. Cox CD, Shoesmith MA, Ghosh MM (1996) Electrokinetic remediation of mercury-contaminated soils using iodine/iodide lixiviant. Environ Sci Technol 30:1933–1938Google Scholar
  24. Dai JL, Balish R, Meagher RB, Merkle SA (2009) Development of transgenic hybrid sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua x L. formosana) expressing γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase or mercuric reductase for phytoremediation of mercury pollution. New For 38:35–52Google Scholar
  25. Devasena M, Nambi IM (2013) In situ stabilization of entrapped elemental mercury. J Environ Manag 130:185–191Google Scholar
  26. Di Giulio TR, Ryan AE (1987) Mercury in soil, sediments, and clams from a North Carolina Peatland. Water Air Soil Pollut 33:205–219Google Scholar
  27. Doering F, Doering N (2006) Method for removing inorganic compounds from a section of soil. US Patent 6984306B2Google Scholar
  28. Doering F, Doering N, Iovenitti JL, Hil DG, McIlvride WA (2001) Electrochemical remediation technologies for soil, sediment and ground water, 2001 International Containment & Remediation Technology Conference and Exhibition, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  29. Doring FR, Doring N (1997) Method and device for the elimination of toxic materials from, in particular, the topsoil. US Patent 5595644Google Scholar
  30. Foy GP, Pacey GE (2003) Supercritical fluid extraction of mercury species. Talanta 61:849–853Google Scholar
  31. Fuhrmann M, Melamed D, Kalb PD, Adams JW, Milian LW (2002) Sulfur polymer solidification/stabilization of elemental mercury waste. Waste Manag 22:327–333Google Scholar
  32. Fuhrmann M, Adams J, Kalb P (2004) In situ mercury stabilization. Brookhaven National Laboratory Report BNL-91410-2004-IRGoogle Scholar
  33. Fuhrmann M, Heiser J, Kalb P (2010) Mercury contamination extraction. US Patent 7692058B2Google Scholar
  34. Garcia-Rubio A, Rodriguez-Maroto JM, Gomez-Lahoz C, Garcia-Herruzo F, Vereda-Alonso C (2011) Electrokinetic remediation: the use of mercury speciation for feasibility studies applied to a contaminated soil from Almaden. Electrochim Acta 56:9303–9310Google Scholar
  35. Gardner K (2005) Electrochemical remediation and stabilization of contaminated sediments. http://webmail.ciceet.unh.edu/news/releases/reportRelease/pdf/gardner_final_report.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2015
  36. Gong YY, Liu YY, Xiong Z, Zhao DY (2014) Immobilization of mercury by carboxymethyl cellulose stabilized iron sulfide nanoparticles: reaction mechanisms and effects of stabilizer and water chemistry. Environ Sci Technol 48:3986–3994Google Scholar
  37. Greger M, Wang YD, Neuschutz C (2005) Absence of Hg transpiration by shoot after Hg uptake by roots of six terrestrial plant species. Environ Pollut 134:201–208Google Scholar
  38. Hagemann S (2009) Technologies for the stabilization of elemental mercury and mercury-containing wastes. Gesellschaft für Anlagen - und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) Report GRS-252Google Scholar
  39. Hansen HK, Ottosen LM, Kliem BK, Villumsen A (1997) Electrodialytic remediation of soils polluted with Cu, Cr, Hg, Pb and Zn. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 70:67–73Google Scholar
  40. He F, Liang L, Miller C (2010) Technology evaluation for waterborne mercury removal at the Y-12 National Security Complex. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL/TM-2010/268Google Scholar
  41. He F, Wang W, Moon J-W, Howe J, Pierce EM, Liang L (2012a) Rapid removal of Hg(II) from aqueous solutions using thiol-functionalized Zn-doped biomagnetite particles. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 4:4373–4379Google Scholar
  42. He F, Zheng W, Liang L, Gu B (2012b) Mercury photolytic transformation affected by low-molecular-weight natural organics in water. Sci Total Environ 416:429–435Google Scholar
  43. Heaton ACP, Rugh CL, Wang NJ, Meagher RB (1998) Phytoremediation of mercury- and methylmercury-polluted soils using genetically engineered plants. J Soil Contam 7:497–509Google Scholar
  44. Heaton ACP, Rugh CL, Kim T, Wang NJ, Meagher RB (2003) Toward detoxifying mercury-polluted aquatic sediments with rice genetically engineered for mercury resistance. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:2940–2947Google Scholar
  45. Heaton ACP, Rugh CL, Wang NJ, Meagher RB (2005) Physiological responses of transgenic merA-tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) to foliar and root mercury exposure. Water Air Soil Pollut 161:137–155Google Scholar
  46. Hempel M, Thöeming J (1999) Remediation techniques for Hg-contaminated sites. In: Ebinghaus R, Turner RR, de Lacerda LD, Vasiliev O, Salomons W (eds) Mercury contaminated sites: characterization, risk assessment and remediation. Springer, pp 113-130Google Scholar
  47. Henry JR (2000) An overview of the phytoremediation of lead and mercury, http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/henry.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2015
  48. Hinton J, Veiga M (2001) Mercury contaminated sites: a review of remedial solutions, Proc NIMD Forum 2001, Minamata, JapanGoogle Scholar
  49. Hovsepyan A, Bonzongo JCJ (2009) Aluminum drinking water treatment residuals (Al-WTRs) as sorbent for mercury: implications for soil remediation. J Hazard Mater 164:73–80Google Scholar
  50. Hu H, Lin H, Zheng W, Tomanicek SJ, Johs A, Feng X, Elias DA, Liang L, Gu B (2013) Oxidation and methylation of dissolved elemental mercury by anaerobic bacteria. Nat Geosci 6:751–754Google Scholar
  51. ITRC (1997) Emerging technologies for the remediation of metals in soils: phytoremediation. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Work Group, http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/MIS-5.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2015
  52. Johnson MM, Simfukwe M, Nowack GP, Kubicek DH (1994) Reduced leaching of arsenic and/or mercury from solid wastes. US Patent 5360632Google Scholar
  53. Johnson NW, Reible DD, Katz LE (2010) Biogeochemical changes and mercury methylation beneath an in-situ sediment cap. Environ Sci Technol 44:7280–7286Google Scholar
  54. Kalb P, Milian L (2008) In situ mercury stabilization (ISMS) treatment technology: technology maturation project phase I results. Brookhaven National Laboratory Report, BNL-81725-2008-IRGoogle Scholar
  55. Kalb PD, Melamed D, Patel BR, Fuhrmann M (2002) Treatment of mercury containing waste. US Patent 6399849Google Scholar
  56. Kaplan DI, Knox AS, Myers J (2002) Mercury geochemistry in wetland and its implications for in situ remediation. J Environ Eng ASCE 128:723–732Google Scholar
  57. Khan FI, Husain T, Hejazi R (2004) An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J Environ Manag 71:95–122Google Scholar
  58. Kramer U (2005) Phytoremediation: novel approaches to cleaning up polluted soils. Curr Opin Biotechnol 16:133–141Google Scholar
  59. Kucharski R, Zielonka U, Sas-Nowosielska A, Kuperberg JM, Worsztynowicz A, Szdzuj J (2005) A method of mercury removal from topsoil using low-thermal application. Environ Monit Assess 104:341–351Google Scholar
  60. Kunkel AM, Seibert JJ, Elliott LJ, Kelley R, Katz LE, Pope GA (2006) Remediation of elemental mercury using in situ thermal desorption (ISTD). Environ Sci Technol 40:2384–2389Google Scholar
  61. Liu ZC, Wang LA (2014) A plant species (Trifolium repens) with strong enrichment ability for mercury. Ecol Eng 70:349–350Google Scholar
  62. Liu G, Li Y, Cai Y (2012) Adsorption of mercury on solids in the aquatic environment. In: Liu G, Cai Y, O’Driscoll N (eds) Environmental chemistry and toxicology of mercury. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp 367-387Google Scholar
  63. Lomonte C, Doronila AI, Gregory D, Baker AJM, Kolev SD (2010) Phytotoxicity of biosolids and screening of selected plant species with potential for mercury phytoextraction. J Hazard Mater 173:494–501Google Scholar
  64. Lopez-Delgado A, Lopez FA, Alguacil FJ, Padilla I, Guerrero A (2012) A microencapsulation process of liquid mercury by sulfur polymer stabilization/solidification technology. Part I: characterization of materials. Rev Metal 48:45–57Google Scholar
  65. Lyyra S, Meagher RB, Kim T, Heaton A, Montello P, Balish RS, Merkle SA (2007) Coupling two mercury resistance genes in Eastern cottonwood enhances the processing of organomercury. Plant Biotechnol J 5:254–262Google Scholar
  66. Maher A, Najm H, Boile M (2005) Solidification/stabilization of soft fiver sediments using deep soil mixing. State of New Jersey-Department of Transportation Report FHWA-NJ-2005-028Google Scholar
  67. Mailman M, Stepnuk L, Cicek N, Bodaly RA (2006) Strategies to lower methyl mercury concentrations in hydroelectric reservoirs and lakes: a review. Sci Total Environ 368:224–235Google Scholar
  68. Mattus CH (2003) Measurements of mercury released from solidified/stabilized waste forms-FY2002. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report ORNL/TM-2002/283Google Scholar
  69. Meagher RB, Heaton ACP (2005) Strategies for the engineered phytoremediation of toxic element pollution: mercury and arsenic. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 32:502–513Google Scholar
  70. Miller CL, Watson DB, Lester BP, Lowe KA, Pierce EM, Liang LY (2013) Characterization of soils from an industrial complex contaminated with elemental mercury. Environ Res 125:20–29Google Scholar
  71. Morel FMM, Kraepiel AML, Amyot M (1998) The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 29:543–566Google Scholar
  72. Moreno FN, Anderson CWN, Stewart RB, Robinson BH (2005) Mercury volatilisation and phytoextraction from base-metal mine tailings. Environ Pollut 136:341–352Google Scholar
  73. Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF (2001a) Remediation technologies for metal-contaminated soils and groundwater: an evaluation. Eng Geol 60:193–207Google Scholar
  74. Mulligan CN, Yong RN, Gibbs BF (2001b) An evaluation of technologies for the heavy metal remediation of dredged sediments. J Hazard Mater 85:145–163Google Scholar
  75. Myers RJ (1986) The new low value for the second dissociation constant for H2S: its history, its best value, and its impact on the teaching of sulfide equilibria. J Chem Educ 63:687–690Google Scholar
  76. Nagata T, Kiyono M, Pan-Hou H (2006) Engineering expression of bacterial polyphosphate kinase in tobacco for mercury remediation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 72:777–782Google Scholar
  77. Nagata T, Nakamura A, Akizawa T, Pan-Hou H (2009) Genetic engineering of transgenic tobacco for enhanced uptake and bioaccumulation of mercury. Biol Pharm Bull 32:1491–1495Google Scholar
  78. Nagata T, Morita H, Akizawa T, Pan-Hou H (2010) Development of a transgenic tobacco plant for phytoremediation of methylmercury pollution. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 87:781–786Google Scholar
  79. Navarro A, Canadas I, Martinez D, Rodriguez J, Mendoza JL (2009) Application of solar thermal desorption to remediation of mercury-contaminated soils. Sol Energy 83:1405–1414Google Scholar
  80. Ochoa-Loza FJ, Artiola JF, Maier RM (2001) Stability constants for the complexation of various metals with a rhamnolipid biosurfactant. J Environ Qual 30:479–485Google Scholar
  81. Parks JM, Johs A, Podar M, Bridou R, Hurt RA Jr, Smith SD, Tomanicek SJ, Qian Y, Brown SD, Brandt CC, Palumbo AV, Smith JC, Wall JD, Elias DA, Liang L (2013) The genetic basis for bacterial mercury methylation. Science 339:1332–1335Google Scholar
  82. Pérez-Sanz A, Millán R, Sierra MJ, Alarcón R, García P, Gil-Díaz M, Vazquez S, Lobo MC (2012) Mercury uptake by Silene vulgaris grown on contaminated spiked soils. J Environ Manag 95:S233–S237Google Scholar
  83. Piao H, Bishop PL (2006) Stabilization of mercury-containing wastes using sulfide. Environ Pollut 139:498–506Google Scholar
  84. Pulford ID, Watson C (2003) Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated land by trees—a review. Environ Int 29:529–540Google Scholar
  85. Randall P, Chattopadhyay S (2004) Advances in encapsulation technologies for the management of mercury-contaminated hazardous wastes. J Hazard Mater B114:211–223Google Scholar
  86. Randall PM, Chattopadhyay S (2010) Bench-scale evaluation of chemically bonded phosphate ceramic technology to stabilize mercury waste mixtures. J Environ Eng ASCE 136:265–273Google Scholar
  87. Reddy KR, Chaparro C, Saichek RE (2003a) Removal of mercury from clayey soils using electrokinetics. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 38:307–338Google Scholar
  88. Reddy KR, Chaparro C, Saichek RE (2003b) Iodide-enhanced electrokinetic remediation of mercury-contaminated soils. J Environ Eng ASCE 129:1137–1148Google Scholar
  89. Reddy KR, Cameselle C, Ala P (2010) Integrated electrokinetic-soil flushing to remove mixed organic and metal contaminants. J Appl Electrochem 40:1269–1279Google Scholar
  90. Reible D, Smith T, Yan F, Katz L, Kirisits MJ (2010) Biotransformation and biodegradation processes in sediment caps. J Biotechnol 150:S40–S40Google Scholar
  91. Robinson B, Schulin R, Nowack B, Roulier S, Menon M, Clothier B, Green S, Mills T (2006) Phytoremediation for the management of metal flux in contaminated sites. For Snow Landsc Res 80:221–234Google Scholar
  92. Rodriguez L, Lopez-Bellido FJ, Carnicer A, Alcalde-Morano V (2003) Phytoremediation of mercury-polluted soils using crop plants. Fresenius Environ Bull 12:967–971Google Scholar
  93. Rodriguez L, Rincon J, Asencio I, Rodriguez-Castellanos L (2007) Capability of selected crop plants for shoot mercury accumulation from polluted soils: phytoremediation perspectives. Int J Phytorem 9:1–13Google Scholar
  94. Rugh CL (2001) Mercury detoxification with transgenic plants and other biotechnological breakthroughs for phytoremediation. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 37:321–325Google Scholar
  95. Rugh CL, Wilde HD, Stack NM, Thompson DM, Summers AO, Meagher RB (1996) Mercuric ion reduction and resistance in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana plants expressing a modified bacterial merA gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:3182–3187Google Scholar
  96. Rugh CL, Senecoff JF, Meagher RB, Merkle SA (1998) Development of transgenic yellow poplar for mercury phytoremediation. Nat Biotechnol 16:925–928Google Scholar
  97. Ruiz ON, Daniell H (2009) Genetic engineering to enhance mercury phytoremediation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:213–219Google Scholar
  98. Ruiz ON, Alvarez D, Torres C, Roman L, Daniell H (2011) Metallothionein expression in chloroplasts enhances mercury accumulation and phytoremediation capability. Plant Biotechnol J 9:609–617Google Scholar
  99. Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar NPBA, Dushenkov V, Ensley BD, Chet I, Raskin I (1995) Phytoremediation: a novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the environment using plants. Biotechnology 13:468–474Google Scholar
  100. Sasaki Y, Hayakawa T, Inoue C, Miyazaki A, Silver S, Kusano T (2006) Generation of mercury-hyperaccumulating plants through transgenic expression of the bacterial mercury membrane transport protein MerC. Transgenic Res 15:615–625Google Scholar
  101. Sas-Nowosielska A, Galimska-Stypa R, Kucharski R, Zielonka U, Malkowski E, Gray L (2008) Remediation aspect of microbial changes of plant rhizosphere in mercury contaminated soil. Environ Monit Assess 137:101–109Google Scholar
  102. Shen ZM, Zhang JD, Qu LY, Dong ZQ, Zheng SS, Wang WH (2009) A modified EK method with an I-/I-2 lixiviant assisted and approaching cathodes to remedy mercury contaminated field soils. Environ Geol 57:1399–1407Google Scholar
  103. Shiyab S, Chen J, Han FX, Monts DL, Matta FB, Gu MM, Su Y (2009a) Phytotoxicity of mercury in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:619–625Google Scholar
  104. Shiyab S, Chen J, Han FXX, Monts DL, Matta FB, Gu MM, Su Y, Masad MA (2009b) Mercury-induced oxidative stress in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Environ Toxicol 24:462–471Google Scholar
  105. Smolinska B (2014) Green waste compost as an amendment during induced phytoextraction of mercury-contaminated soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3601-5 Google Scholar
  106. Smolinska B, Cedzynska K (2007) EDTA and urease effects on Hg accumulation by Lepidium sativum. Chemosphere 69:1388–1395Google Scholar
  107. Smolinska B, Krol K (2012) Leaching of mercury during phytoextraction assisted by EDTA, KI and citric acid. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 87:1360–1365Google Scholar
  108. Stegemeier GL, Vinegar HJ (2001) Thermal conduction heating for in-situ desorption of soils (Ch. 4.6-1). In: Chang H (ed) Hazardous & radioactive waste treatment technologies handbook. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  109. Su Y, Han F, Shiyab S, Monts DL (2007) Phytoextraction and accumulation of mercury in selected plant species grown in soil contaminated with different mercury compounds, WM’07 Conference, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  110. Su Y, Han FX, Chen J, Sridhar BBM, Monts DL (2008) Phytoextraction and accumulation of mercury in three plant species: Indian mustard (Brassica juncea), beard grass (Polypogon monospeliensis), and Chinese brake fern (Pteris vittata). Int J Phytorem 10:547–560Google Scholar
  111. Subires-Munoz JD, Garcia-Rubio A, Vereda-Alonso C, Gomez-Lahoz C, Rodriguez-Maroto JM, Garcia-Herruzo F, Paz-Garcia JM (2011) Feasibility study of the use of different extractant agents in the remediation of a mercury contaminated soil from Almaden. Sep Purif Technol 79:151–156Google Scholar
  112. Summers AO (1986) Organization, expression, and evolution of genes for mercury resistance. Annu Rev Microbiol 40:607–634Google Scholar
  113. Svensson M, Allard B (2008) Leaching of mercury-containing cement monoliths aged for one year. Waste Manag 28:597–603Google Scholar
  114. Taube F, Pommer L, Larsson T, Shchukarev A, Nordin A (2008) Soil remediation—mercury speciation in soil and vapor phase during thermal treatment. Water Air Soil Pollut 193:155–163Google Scholar
  115. Thoming J, Kliem BK, Ottosen LM (2000) Electrochemically enhanced oxidation reactions in sandy soil polluted with mercury. Sci Total Environ 261:137–147Google Scholar
  116. Truex MJ, Johnson CD, Nimmons MJ (2007) Technology survey to support revision to the remedial investigation/ feasibility study work plan for the 200-SW-2 Operable Unit at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Site. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Report PNNL-16105Google Scholar
  117. Truex MJ, Oostrom M, Zhang ZF, Carroll KC, Schramke JA, Wietsma TW, Tartakovsky GD, Gordon KA, Last GV (2010) Evaluation of soil flushing for application to the deep vadose zone in the Hanford Central Plateau. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Report PNNL-19938Google Scholar
  118. Ullrich SM, Tanton TW, Abdrashitova SA (2001) Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 31:241–293Google Scholar
  119. UNEP (2008) The global atmospheric mercury assessment: sources, emissions and transport. United Nations Environment Programme, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  120. Ure AM, Quevauviller P, Muntau H, Griepink B (1993) Speciation of heavy-metals in soils and sediments. An account of the improvement and harmonization of extraction techniques undertaken under the auspices of the BCR of the commission of the european communities. Int J Environ Anal Chem 51:135–151Google Scholar
  121. USAEC (2000) In-situ electrokinetic remediation of metal contaminated soils technology status report. U.S. Army Environmental Center Report SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-99022Google Scholar
  122. USDOE (2002) U.S. Department of Energy and Polish Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas, Joint Coordinating Committee for Environmental Systems, FY01 Annual Report. U.S. DOE Report WSRC-RP-2002-00142Google Scholar
  123. USEPA (1992) Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. EPA Method 1311, Revision 0Google Scholar
  124. USEPA (1995) Contaminants and remedial options at selected metal-contaminated sites. U.S. EPA Report EPA/540/R-95-512. EPA/540/R-95/512Google Scholar
  125. USEPA (1997a) Recent developments for in situ treatment of metal contaminated soils. U.S. EPA Report EPA-542-R-97-004Google Scholar
  126. USEPA (1997b) Engineering bulletin: technology alternatives for the remediation of soils contaminated with As, Cd, Cr, Hg, and Pb. U.S. EPA Report EPA/540/S-97/500Google Scholar
  127. USEPA (1997c) Cost and performance report: in situ vitrification at the Parsons Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site, Grand Ledge, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  128. USEPA (1998) Evaluation of subsurface engineered barriers at waste sites. U.S. EPA Report EPA-542-R-98-005Google Scholar
  129. USEPA (2000a) Introduction to phytoremediation. U.S. EPA Report EPA/600/R-99/107Google Scholar
  130. USEPA (2000b) Solidification/stabilization use at superfund sites. U.S. EPA Report EPA-542-R-00-010Google Scholar
  131. USEPA (2002) Five year review report: Lipari Landfill Superfund Site, Mantua, Gloucester County, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  132. USEPA (2007a) Treatment technologies for mercury in soil, waste, and water. U.S EPA Report EPA-542-R-07-003Google Scholar
  133. USEPA (2007b) Electrochemical remediation technologies (ECRTs)—in situ remediation of contaminated marine sediments. U.S. EPA Report EPA/540/R-04/507Google Scholar
  134. USEPA (2011a) 2010 Biennial national listing of fish advisories. U.S. EPA Report EPA-823-F-02-007Google Scholar
  135. Vinegar HJ, Stegemeier GL (1991) Vacuum method for removing soil contamination utilizing surface electrical heating. US Patent 4984594Google Scholar
  136. Vinegar HJ, Stegemeier GL (2005) Soil remediation of mercury contamination. US Patent 6962466 B2Google Scholar
  137. Virkutyte J, Sillanpaa M, Latostenmaa P (2002) Electrokinetic soil remediation—critical overview. Sci Total Environ 289:97–121Google Scholar
  138. Vroom H (1977) Sulphur cements, process for making same and sulphur concretes made therefrom. US Patent 4058500Google Scholar
  139. Wagh AS, Singh D, Jeong SY (2000) Mercury stabilization in chemically bonded phosphate ceramics, Invited paper for Environmental Protection Agency’s Workshop on Mercury Products, Processes, Waste, and the Environment: Eliminating, Reducing and Managing Risks, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  140. Wang YD, Greger M (2006) Use of iodide to enhance the phytoextraction of mercury-contaminated soil. Sci Total Environ 368:30–39Google Scholar
  141. Wang QR, Kim D, Dionysiou DD, Sorial GA, Timberlake D (2004) Sources and remediation for mercury contamination in aquatic systems—a literature review. Environ Pollut 131:323–336Google Scholar
  142. Wang YD, Stauffer C, Keller C, Greger M (2005) Changes in Hg fractionation in soil induced by willow. Plant Soil 275:67–75Google Scholar
  143. Wang JX, Feng XB, Anderson CWN, Xing Y, Shang LH (2012) Remediation of mercury contaminated sites—a review. J Hazard Mater 221:1–18Google Scholar
  144. Wasay SA, Arnfalk P, Tokunaga S (1995) Remediation of a soil polluted by mercury with acidic potassium iodide. J Hazard Mater 44:93–102Google Scholar
  145. Wasay SA, Barrington S, Tokunaga S (2001) Organic acids for the in situ remediation of soils polluted by heavy metals: soil flushing in columns. Water Air Soil Pollut 127:301–314Google Scholar
  146. Xiong Z, He F, Zhao D, Kaback D (2009a) An innovative nanotechnology for in-situ mercury immobilization. http://www.em.doe.gov/PDFs/Mercurysummit09/32Xiong-%20Nanotechnology%20for%20In%20Situ%20Mercury%20Immobilization.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2011
  147. Xiong Z, He F, Zhao DY, Barnett MO (2009b) Immobilization of mercury in sediment using stabilized iron sulfide nanoparticles. Water Res 43:5171–5179Google Scholar
  148. Zhang J, Bishop PL (2002) Stabilization/solidification (S/S) of mercury-containing wastes using reactivated carbon and Portland cement. J Hazard Mater B92:199–212Google Scholar
  149. Zhang XY, Wang QC, Zhang SQ, Sun XJ, Zhang ZS (2009) Stabilization/solidification (S/S) of mercury-contaminated hazardous wastes using thiol-functionalized zeolite and Portland cement. J Hazard Mater 168:1575–1580Google Scholar
  150. Zhang T, Kim B, Levard C, Reinsch BC, Lowry GV, Deshusses MA, H-K H (2011) Methylation of mercury by bacteria exposed to dissolved, nanoparticulate, and microparticulate mercuric sulfides. Environ Sci Technol 46:6950–6958Google Scholar
  151. Zhao D, Xiong Z, Barnett M, Liu R, Harper WF, He F (2009) In situ immobilization of metals in contaminated sites using stabilized iron phosphate nanoparticles. US Patent 7581902B2Google Scholar
  152. Zhuang JM, Walsh T, Lam T, Boulter D (2003) Application of ferric sludge to immobilize leachable mercury in soils and concrete. Environ Technol 24:1445–1453Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feng He
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jie Gao
    • 2
  • Eric Pierce
    • 2
  • P. J. Strong
    • 3
  • Hailong Wang
    • 4
  • Liyuan Liang
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Biological and Environmental EngineeringZhejiang University of TechnologyHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  3. 3.Centre for Solid Waste Bioprocessing, Schools of Civil and Chemical EngineeringThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  4. 4.School of Environmental and Resource SciencesZhejiang A&F UniversityLin’anChina

Personalised recommendations