Case Studies on Remediation of Sites Contaminated with Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

  • Saranya Kuppusamy
  • Naga Raju Maddela
  • Mallavarapu Megharaj
  • Kadiyala Venkateswarlu


Contamination can be defined as the abnormal presence of pollutants that adversely or negatively impacts an object. “Environmental remediation” is a very broad term used to define any effort employed to solve the problems caused by contaminants that affect either soils or waters in or on the ground surface. Protection of human health and the environment is the important objective of any remediation approach concerning soil, water, or sediment. The chief objective of the remediation, however, is to remove or reduce concentrations of the contaminants to the “safe” levels for the environment and human health. Though it seems simple with the correct advice and guidance, selection of the best method(s) to remediate polluted site is challenging. Thus, remediation of the areas contaminated with pollutants represents a growing challenge, and cleaning of such areas is of international concern. In this direction, the present chapter has been designed to present the details of several case studies from different countries which dealt with full-scale applications of different technologies to remediate the sites contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs). This information could be very useful in providing more insights into various issues such as practical difficulties in the application of the remedial technologies at larger scale as to how clean-up goals are designed, what are the characteristics of contaminated sites (e.g., soil, water, etc.), what are the treatment options, how the levels of contaminants will be changed before and after the treatment in a stipulated time frame, what about the cost factors and economic feasibilities, etc.


Case studies for TPHs remediation Clean-up goals for TPHs Cost benefits Groundwater remediation Land remediation 


  1. Abdullahi MS (2015) Soil contamination, remediation and plants: prospects and challenges. In: Soil remediation and plants – prospects and challenges, pp 525–546. Scholar
  2. Agarwal A, Liu Y (2015) Remediation technologies for oil-contaminated sediments. Mar Pollut Bull 101:483–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez-Cohen L, Speitel GE Jr (2001) Kinetics of aerobic cometabolism of chlorinated solvents. Biodegradation 12:105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carcamo A, Powers J (2000) Bioremediation: case studies in Central Alberta. Accessed 31st Mar 2019
  5. Cheng Z, Yan D, Yupeng F, Yuzhong L, Yong D (2019) Thermal desorption for remediation of contaminated soil: a review. Chemosphere 221:841–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheremisinoff NP (eds) (1998) Pump-and-treat remediation technology. In: Groundwater remediation and treatment technologies. William Andrew Publishing, Norwich, pp 203–258Google Scholar
  7. Chibwe L, Geier MC, Makamura J, Tanguay RL, Aitken MD, Simonich SL (2015) Aerobic bioremediation of PAH contaminated soil results in increased genotoxicity and development toxicity. Environ Sci Technol 49:13889–13898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen TH, Manfredi S, Knox K (2010) Landfilling: reactor landfills. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford JF, Smith PG (1994) Landfill technology, 1st edn. Butterworth-Heinemann Publishing Company, Oxford, UK, pp 1–168Google Scholar
  10. Damera R, Bhandari A (2007) Physical treatment technologies. In: Bhandari A, Surampalli RY, Champagne P, Ong SK, Tyagi RD, Lo IMC (eds) Remediation technologies for soils and groundwater. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, pp 47–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupont RR, Doucette WJ, Hinchee RE (1991) Assessment of in situ bioremediation potential and the application of bioventing at a fuel-contaminated site. In: Hinchee RE, Olfenbuttel RF (eds) In situ bioreclamation – applications and investigations for hydrocarbon and contaminated site remediation. Butterworth-Heinemann Publishing Company, Oxford, UK, pp 262–282Google Scholar
  12. EthicalChem (2014) Remediation Case Studies. Accessed Feb 2019
  13. FLSS (2019) French Ltd Superfund Site, Crosby, TX background. Accessed 2nd Apr 2019
  14. Frascari D, Zanaroli G, Danko AS (2015) In situ aerobic cometabolism of chlorinated solvents: a review. J Hazard Mater 283:382–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frutos FJG, Escolano O, García S, Babín B, Fernández MD (2010) Bioventing remediation and ecotoxicity evaluation of phenanthrene-contaminated soil. J Hazaard Mater 183:806–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FTIR (1991) The Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. Remediation technologies screening matrix and reference guide, Version 40 Technology – soil, sediment, bedrock and sludge: in situ biological treatment – bioventing. https://frtrgov/matrix2/section4/4_1html. Accessed Mar 2019
  17. Go’mez-Garzo’n C, Herna’ndez-Santana A, Dussa’n J (2017) A genome-scale metabolic reconstruction of Lysinibacillus sphaericus unveils unexploited biotechnological potentials. PLoS One 12:e0179666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hernández-Santana A, Dussán J (2018) Lysinibacillus sphaericus proved to have potential for the remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil Sed Contam 27:538–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutzler NJ, Murphy BE, Gierke JS (1990) State of technology review: soil vapor extraction systems. EPA/600/S2-89/024, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  20. I-Chun C, Yu-Yu C, Hwong-wen M (2019) Uncertainty analysis of remediation cost and damaged land value for brownfield investment. Chemosphere 220:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IDR (2010) International Dredging Review – VeruTEK demonstrates gree surfactant. Accessed 2nd May 2019
  22. Kester (2014) Creosote (Coal Tar Creosote and Wood Creosote). In: Wexler P (ed) Encyclopedia of toxicology, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1055–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khan FI, Husain T, Hejazi R (2004) An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J Environ Manage 71:95–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koenigsberg SS, Sandefur CA (2008) The use of oxygen release compound for the accelerated bioremediation of aerobically degradable contaminants: the advent of time-release electron acceptors. Remediation 10:3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kumar S, Mondal AN, Gaikwad SA, Devotta S, Singh RN (2004) Qualitative assessment of methane emission inventory from municipal solid waste disposal sites: a case study. Atmos Environ 38:4921–4929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuppusamy S, Palanisami T, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Naidu R (2016a) In situ remediation approaches for the management of contaminated sites: a comprehensive overview. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 236:1–115Google Scholar
  27. Kuppusamy S, Palanisami T, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Naidu R (2016b) Ex situ remediation technologies for environmental pollutants: a critical perspective. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 236:117–192Google Scholar
  28. Leethem JT (2002) In situ chemical oxidation of MtBE: a successful case study of remediation of a large gasoline resease. Soil Sed Contam 11:450–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lombi E, Hamon RE (2005) Remediation of polluted soils. In: Hillel D (ed) Encyclopedia of soils in the environment. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manchola L, Dussán J (2014) Lysinibacillus sphaericus and Geobacillus sp biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons and biosurfactant production. Remediation 25:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McWatters RS, Rutter A, Rowe RK (2016) Geomembrane applications for controlling diffusive migration of petroleum hydrocarbons in cold region environments. J Environ Manag 181:80–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MEP (2007) Ministry of Environment Protection, China. Identification standards for hazardous wastes, China Environmental Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  33. Nefso EK, Burns SE (2007) Comparison of the equilibrium sorption of five organic compounds to HDPE, PP, and PVC geomembranes. Geotext Geomembr 25:360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nikolopoulou M, Kalogeraki N (2016) Ex situ bioremediation treatment (Landfarming). In: McGenity T, Timmis K, Nogales B (eds) Hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology protocols, Springer protocols handbooks. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 195–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Noyes R (1994) Unit operations in environmental engineering. Noyes Publications, Park RidgeGoogle Scholar
  36. OILZAPPER (2017) Oilzapper (bioremediation) technology – Bioremediation of oil spill in Gujarat oil field in India (Western India). Accessed 18th Apr 2019
  37. Oostrom M, Rockhold ML, Thorne PD, Truex MJ, Last GV, Rohay VJ (2007) Carbon tetrachloride flow and transport in the subsurface of the 216-Z-9 trench at the Hanford site. Vadose Zone J 6:971–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paudyn K, Rutter A, Rowe RK, Poland JS (2008) Remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils in the Canadian Arctic by landfarming. Cold Reg Sci Technol 53:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pedersen TA, Curtis JT (1991) Soil vapor extraction technology. Noyes Data Corporation, Park RidgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Rahman A, Nahar N, Nawani NN, Jass J, Desale P, Kapadnis BP, Hossain K, Saha AK, Ghosh S, Olsson B, Mandal A (2014) Isolation and characterization of a Lysinibacillus strain B1-CDA showing potential for bioremediation of arsenics from contaminated water. J Environ Sci Health A 49:1349–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Regenesis (2019) Case studies. Assessed 21st Apr 2019
  42. Rivett MO, Petts J, Butler B, Martin I (2002) Remediation of contaminated land and groundwater: experience in England and Wales. J Environ Manag 65:251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sánchez A, Recillas S, Font X, Casals E, González E, Puntes V (2011) Ecotoxicity of, and remediation with, engineered inorganic nanoparticles in the environment. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 30:507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soilutions (2016) Soil remediation case studies. Accessed 11th Apr 2019
  45. Stamnes R, Blanchard J (1997) Engineering forum issue paper: soil vapor extraction implementation experiences. EPA 540/F-95/030, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  46. Suer P, Andersson-Sköld Y (2011) Biofuel or excavation? – life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenergy 35:969–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suthersan SS (eds) (1999) Soil vapor extraction. Remediation engineering: design concepts. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 25 pGoogle Scholar
  48. Switzer C, Kosson DS (2007) Soil vapor extraction performance in layered vadose zone materials. Vadose Zone J 6:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ThermoFisher (2015) Contaminated site remediation. A sodium persulfate-based in situ chemical oxidant with built-in activation. Accessed 21st Apr 2019
  50. TOXMAP® (2011) Online toxicology maps. United States February 7, 2011. Accessed 12th April 2019
  51. US EPA (1993) Presumptive remedies: site characterization and technology selection for CERCLA sites with volatile organic compounds. In: Soils (Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  52. US EPA (1995a) Abstracts of remediation case studies. Prepared by Member Agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. Accessed 1st Apr 2019
  53. US EPA (1995b) Cost and performance report: land treatment at the Scott Lumber Company Superfund Site Alton, Missouri. Accessed 9th Apr 2019
  54. US EPA (2011) Presumptive remedies: policy and procedures (Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  55. US EPA (2012a) Nanotechnologies for environmental cleanup. Accessed 12th Apr 2019
  56. US EPA (2012b) A citizen’s guide to soil vapor extraction and air sparging. EPA/542/F-12/018, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  57. Wang F, Shen Z, Al-Tabbaa A (2018a) No access PC-based and MgO-based binders stabilised/solidified heavy metal-contaminated model soil: strength and heavy metal speciation in early stage. Géotechnique 68:1025–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang YS, Dai JG, Wang L, Tsang DCW, Poon CS (2018b) Influence of lead on stabilization/solidification by ordinary Portland cement magnesium phosphate cement. Chemosphere 190:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yinan S, Deyi H, Junli Z, David OC, Guanghe L, Qingbao G, Shupeng L, Peng L (2018) Environmental and socio-economic sustainability appraisal of contaminated land remediation strategies: a case study at a mega-site in China. Sci Tot Environ 610-611:393–401Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Environmental StudiesAnna UniversityChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud y Departamento de investigaciónUniversidad Técnica de ManabíPortoviejoEcuador
  3. 3.Global Centre for Environmental RemediationThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia
  4. 4.NelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations