Advertisement

Remediation Technologies Applied in Polluted Soils: New Perspectives in This Field

  • Antônio Thomé
  • Cleomar Reginatto
  • Guilherme Vanzetto
  • Adeli B. Braun
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

There are millions of contaminated areas in the world that need to be remediated so that they can be reused without risk to health. This article presents the main remediation techniques applied to soils, sediments, and groundwater. These technologies can be classified as five processes, i.e. physical, chemical, biological, thermal, and combined. This article also offers a method for choosing the best technique to remediate a place, called sustainable remediation. An evaluation of the toxicity of remediation techniques is presented. Finally, a summary of remediation practice in China is discussed, and the main challenges of future remediation research are presented. The following concluding observations can be reached: the development of a software for the selection of soil remediation technologies can be very helpful to professionals in the field. However, it is important to note that each remediation technology has its own characteristics, limitations, advantages and disadvantages, and no universal method can satisfy all needs.

Keywords

Sustainable remediation Toxicity Developing countries 

References

  1. 1.
    Hu N, Li Z, Huang P, Tao C (2006) Distribution and mobility of metals in agricultural soils near a copper smelter in South China. Environ Geochem Health 28:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu L, Li W, Song W, Guo M (2018) Remediation techniques for heavy metal-contaminated soils: principles and applicability. Sci Total Environ 633:206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jiang D, Zeng G, Huang D, Chen M, Zhang C, Huang C, Wana J (2018) Remediation of contaminated soils by enhanced nanoscale zero valent iron. Environ Res 163:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xie J, Li F (2010) Overview of the current situation on brownfield remediation and redevelopment in China. sustainable development – east Asia and pacific, 42 pGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu Y, Zeng G, Zhong H, Wang Z, Liu Z, Cheng M, Liu G, Yang X, Liu S (2017) Effect of rhamnolipid solubilization on hexadecane bioavailability: enhancement or reduction? J Hazard Mater 322:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Song B, Zeng G, Gong J, Liang J, Xu P, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Zhang C, Cheng M, Liu Y, Ye S, Yi H, Ren X (2017) Evaluation methods for assessing effectiveness of in situ remediation of soil and sediment contaminated with organic pollutants and heavy metals. Environ Int 105:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Panagos P, Van Liedekerke M, Yigini Y, Montanarella L (2013) Contaminated sites in Europe: review of the current situation based on data collected through a European network. J Environ Public Health.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/158764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    CETESB - São Paulo State Sanitation Company. List of contaminated areas. http://cetesb.sp.gov.br/areas-contaminadas/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2018/01/Totaliza%C3%A7%C3%A3o-por-Departamento.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
  9. 9.
    Kuppusamy S, Palanisami T, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Naidu R (2016) In-situ remediation approaches for the management of contaminated sites: a comprehensive overview. In: de Voogt P (eds) Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology (continuation of residue reviews), vol 236. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khalid S, Shahid M, Niazi NK, Murtaza B, Bibi I, Dumat C (2017) A comparison of technologies for remediation of heavy metal contaminated soils. J Geochem Explor 182:247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang D, Xu Q, Cheng J, Lu X, Zhang H (2012) Electrokinetic remediation and its combined technologies for removal of organic pollutants from contaminated soils. Int J Electrochem Sci 7(5):4528–4544Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tomaszewski JE, Smithenry DW, Cho YM, Luthy RG, Lowry GV, Reible D et al (2006) Treatment and Containment of Contaminated Sediments. In: Reible D, Lanczos T (eds) Assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 137–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency - USEPA (2006) In Situ Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Soil, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 542/F-06/013Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Albergaria JT, Maria da Conceição M, Delerue-Matos C (2012) Remediation of sandy soils contaminated with hydrocarbons and halogenated hydrocarbons by soil vapour extraction. J Environ Manag 104:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lim MW, Lau EV, Poh PE (2016) A comprehensive guide of remediation technologies for oil contaminated soil - present works and future directions. Mar Pollut Bull 109:14–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reddy KR (2013) Electrokinetic remediation of soils at complex contaminated sites: technology status, challenges, and opportunities. In: Manassero M, Dominijanni A, Foti S, Musso G (eds) Coupled phenomena in environmental geotechnics. CRC Press, London, pp 131–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hu XJ, Wang JS, Liu YG, Li X, Zeng GM, Bao ZL (2011) Adsorption of chromium (VI) by ethylenediamine-modified cross-linked magnetic chitosan resin: isotherms, kinetics and thermodynamics. J Hazard Mater 185(1):306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tajudin SAA, Azmi MAM, Nabila ATA (2016) Stabilization/solidification remediation method for contaminated soil: a review. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 136:012043.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/136/1/012043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xie T, Reddy KR, Wang C, Erin Y, Kurt P (2014) Characteristics and applications of biochar for environmental remediation: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 45(9):939–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reddy KR, Yaghoubi P, Yukselen-Aksoy Y (2015) Effects of biochar amendment on geotechnical properties of landfill cover soil. Waste Manag Res 33(6):524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Seshadri B, Bolan NS, Choppala G, Kunhikrishnan A, Sanderson P, Wang H, Currie LD, Tsang DCW, Ok YS, Kim G (2017) Potential value of phosphate compounds in enhancing immobilization and reducing bioavailability of mixed heavy metal contaminants in shooting range soil. Chemosphere 184:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morillo E, Villaverde J (2017) Advanced technologies for the remediation of pesticide-contaminated soils. Sci Total Environ 586:576–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crane RA, Scott TB (2012) Nanoscale zero-valent iron: future prospects for an emerging water treatment technology. J Hazard Mater 211–212:112–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomé A, Reddy KR, Reginatto C, Cecchin I (2015) Review of nanotechnology for soil and groundwater remediation: Brazilian perspectives. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yan W, Lien H-L, Koel BE, Zhang W-X (2013) Iron nanoparticles for environmental clean-up: recent developments and future outlook. Environ Sci Process Impacts 15:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reddy KR, Khodadoust AP, Darko-Kagya K (2012) Transport and reactivity of lactate-modified nanoscale iron particles in PCP-contaminated soils. J Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste 16:68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lefevre E, Bossa N, Wiesner M, Gunsch C (2016) A review of the environmental implications of in situ remediation by nanoscale zero valent iron (nZVI): behavior, transport and impacts on microbial communities. Sci Total Environ 15:889–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karamalidis AK, Evangelou AC, Karabika E, Koukkou AI, Drainas C, Voudrias EA (2010) Laboratory scale bioremediation of petroleum contaminated soil by indigenous microorganisms and added Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain Spet. Bioresour Technol 101(16):6545–6552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomé A, Reginatto C, Cecchin I, Colla LM (2014) Bioventing in a residual clayey soil contaminated with a blend of biodiesel and diesel oil. J Environ Eng 140(11):06014005.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abdulsalam S, Bugaje I, Adefila S, Ibrahim S (2011) Comparison of biostimulation and bioaugmentation for remediation of soil contaminated with spent motor oil. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abed RMM, Al-Kharusi S, Al-Hinai M (2015) Effect of biostimulation, temperature and salinity on respiration activities and bacterial community composition in an oil polluted desert soil. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 98:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cecchin I, Reddy KR, Thomé A, Tessaro EF, Schnaid F (2017) Nanobioremediation: Integration of nanoparticles and bioremediation for sustainable remediation of chlorinated organic contaminants in soils. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 119:419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thomé A, Cecchin I, Reginatto C, Colla LM, Reddy KR (2017) Biostimulation and rainfall infiltration: influence on retention of biodiesel in residual clayey soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:9594–9604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rodriguez-Campos J, Dendooven L, Alvarez-Bernal D, Contreras-Ramos SM (2014) Potential of earthworms to accelerate removal of organic contaminants from soil: a review. Appl Soil Ecol 79:10–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Germida J, Frick C, Farrell R (2002) Phytoremediation of oil-contaminated soils. Dev Soil Sci 28:169–186Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Samaksaman U, Peng TH, Kuo JH, Lu CH, Wey MY (2016) Thermal treatment of soil co-contaminated with lube oil and heavy metals in a low-temperature two-stage fluidized bed incinerator. Appl Therm Eng 93:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meuser H (2013) Soil remediation and rehabilitation: treatment of contaminated and disturbed land. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency-USEPA (2012) A Citizen’s Guide to Thermal Desorption Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response-EPA 542-F-12-020. www.epa.gov/superfund/sites. Accessed 2 June 2018
  39. 39.
    Cecchin I, Reginatto C, Thomé A, Colla ML, Reddy KR (2017) Influence of physicochemical factors on biodiesel retention in clayey residual soil. J Environ Eng 142(4):9594–9604.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8670-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Obiri-Nyarko F, Grajales-Mesa JS, Grzegorz M (2014) An overview of permeable reactive barriers for in situ sustainable groundwater remediation. Chemosphere 111:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fu F, Dionysios DD, Hong L (2014) The use of zero-valent iron for groundwater remediation and wastewater treatment: a review. J Hazard Mater 267:194–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fallico C, Troisi S, Molinari A, Rivera MF (2010) Characterization of broom fibers for PRB in the remediation of aquifers contaminated by heavy metals. Biogeosciences 7(8):2545–2556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency - USEPA (2012) A Citizen’s Guide to Pump and Treat. www.epa.gov/superfund/sites, www.cluin.org. Accessed 10 June 2018
  44. 44.
    Favara P, Gamlin J (2017) Utilization of waste materials, non-refined materials, and renewable energy in in situ remediation and their sustainability benefits. J Environ Manage 204:730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ellis DE, Hadley PW (2009) Sustainable Remediation white paper-integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Remediat J 19(3):5–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Harclerode MA, Lal P, Miller ME (2015) Quantifying global impacts to society from the consumption of natural resources during environmental remediation activities. J Ind Ecol 20(3):410–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rizzo E, Bardos P, Pizzol L, Critto A, Giubilato E, Marcomini A, Albano C, Darmendrail D, Döberl G, Harclerode M, Harries N, Nathanail P, Pachon C, Rodriguez A, Slenders H, Smith G (2016) Comparison of international approaches to sustainable remediation. J Environ Manage 184:4–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Reddy KR, Adams JA (2015) Sustainable remediation of contaminated sites. Momentum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pollard SJT, Brookes A, Earl N, Lowe J, Kearney T, Nathanail CP (2004) Integrating decision tools for the sustainable management of land contamination. Sci Total Environ 325(1–3):15–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.11.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Holland KS (2011) A framework for sustainable remediation. Environ Sci Technol 45:7116–7117.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es202595wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cundy AB, Bardos RP, Church A, Puschenreiter M, Friesl-Hanl W, Müller I, Neu S, Mench M, Witters N, Vangronsveld J (2013) Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for “gentle” remediation approaches: the European context. J Environ Manage 129:283–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Slenders HL, Bakker L, Bardos P, Verburg R, Alphenaar A, Darmendrail D, Nadebaum P (2017) There are more than three reasons to consider sustainable remediation, a Dutch perspective. Remediat J 27(2):77–97.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Barnett J (2001) The meaning of environmental security, ecological politics and policy in the new security era. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    SuRF-UK (Sustainable Remediation Forum UK) (2010) A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation. This file is available at: www.claire.co.uk/SuRFuk. Accessed 23 Apr 2018
  55. 55.
    Bardos P, Cundy AB, Smith JWN, Harries N (2016) Sustainable remediation. J Environ Manage 184:1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    DoD (Department of Defence) (2010) Guidelines for Consideration of Sustainability in Remediation of Contaminated Sites. This file is available at: http://www.defence.gov.au/estatemanagement/governance/Policy/Environment/Contamination/Docs/Toolbox/SustainabilityRemediationGuidelines.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2018
  57. 57.
    Gibson B, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G (2005) Sustainability assessment: criteria and processes. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pintér L, Hardi P, Martinuzzi A, Hall J (2012) Bellagio STAMP: principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecol Ind 17:20–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ridsdale DR, Noble BF (2016) Assessing sustainable remediation frameworks using sustainability principles. J Environ Manage 184:36–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Virkutyte J, Varma RS (2014) Greener and sustainable remediation using iron nanomaterials. ACS symposium series, pp 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2014-1184.ch001Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Huysegoms L, Cappuyns V (2017) Critical review of decision support tools for sustainability assessment of site remediation options. J Environ Manage 196:278–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hou D, Guthrie P, Rigby M (2016) Assessing the trend in sustainable remediation: a questionnaire survey of remediation professionals in various countries. J Environ Manage 15(184):18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Diaz-Sarachaga JM, Jato-Espino D, Castro-Fresno D (2017) Application of the sustainable infrastructure rating system for developing countries (SIRSDEC) to a case study. Environ Sci Policy 69:73–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Farre M, Gajda-Schrantz K, Kantiani L, Barcelo D (2009) Ecotoxicity and analysis of nanomaterials in the aquatic environment. Anal Bioanal Chem 393:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Libralato G, Minetto D, Lofrano G, Guida M, Carotenuto M, Aliberti F, Conte B, Notarnicola M (2017) Toxicity assessment within the application of in situ contaminated sediment remediation Technologies: a review. Sci Total Environ 621:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lofrano G, Libralato G, Minetto D, De Gisi S, Todaro F, Conte B, Calabrò D, Quatraro L, Notarnicola M (2017) In situ remediation of contaminated marine sediment: an overview. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Qu C, Shi W, Guo J, Fang B, Wang S, Giesy JP, Holm PE (2016) China’s soil pollution control: choices and challenges. Environ Sci Technol 50(24):13181–13183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hou D, Li F (2017) Complexities surrounding China’s soil action plan. Land Degrad Dev 28:2315–2320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lu Y, Song S, Wang R, Liu Z, Meng J, Sweetman AJ, Wang T (2015) Impacts of soil and water pollution on food safety and health risks in China. Environ Int 77:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Li X, Xiao R, Chen W, Chang C, Deng Y, Xie T (2017) A conceptual framework for classification management of contaminated sites in Guangzhou, China. Sustainability 9(3):362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Simon JA (2017) Editor’s perspective - potential growth in China’s remediation market. Remediation 27:3–7Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Luo S, Lian C, Chen L, Liang J, Xiao X, Xu T, Ying W, Rao Y, Liu C, Bin C, Liu Y, Tang L, Zeng C, Ming G (2011) Analysis and characterization of cultivable heavy metal-resistant bacterial endophytes isolated from Cd-hyperaccumulator Solanum nigrum L. and their potential use for phytoremediation. Chemosphere 85:1130–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Annamalai S, Santhanam M, Selvaraj S, Sundaram M, Pandian K, Pazos M (2014) “Green technology”: bio-stimulation by an electric field for textile reactive dye contaminated agricultural soil. Sci Total Environ 624:1649–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yu Y, Zhang K, Yang J (2018) Stabilization of Cd and Zn in soil using pairwise mixed amendments of three raw materials: nanohydroxyapatite, nanoiron and nanoalumina. Res Chem Intermed 44:2965–2981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ibáñez-Forés V, Bovea MD, Pérez-Belis V (2014) A holistic review of applied methodologies for assessing and selecting the optimal technological alternative from a sustainability perspective. J Clean Prod 70:259–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Zhang S, Mao G, Crittenden J, Liu X, Du H (2017) Groundwater remediation from the past to the future: a bibliometric Analysis. Water Res 119:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Li X, Wang X, Weng L, Zhou Q, Li Y (2017) Microbial fuel cells for organic-contaminated soil remedial applications: a review. Energy Technol 5:1156–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Niu LQ, Jia P, Li SP, Kuang JL, He XX, Zhou WH, Li JT (2015) Slash-and-char, an ancient agricultural technique holds new promise for management of soils contaminated by Cd, Pb and Zn. Environ Pollut 205:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Grechishchevaa NY, Perminovab IV, Kholodovc VA, Meshcheryakova SV (2015) Stabilization of oil-in-water emulsions by highly dispersed particles: role in self-cleaning processes and prospects for practical application. Russ J Gen Chem 87(9):2166–2180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lahori AH, Guo ZZZ, Li R, Amanullah M, Mukesh KA, Shen F, Tanveer AS, Farhana K, Wang P, Jiang S (2017) Use of biochar as an amendment for remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soils: prospects and challenges. Pedosphere 27(6):991–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Dunea D, Iordache S, Pohoata A, Frasin LBN (2014) Investigation and selection of remediation technologies for petroleum-contaminated soils using a decision support system. Water Air Soil Pollut 225:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antônio Thomé
    • 1
  • Cleomar Reginatto
    • 1
  • Guilherme Vanzetto
    • 1
  • Adeli B. Braun
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil and Environmental Graduate ProgramUniversity of Passo Fundo (UPF)Passo FundoBrazil

Personalised recommendations