Advertisement

Sustainability in Life Cycle Analysis of Nanomaterials Applied in Soil Remediation

  • Visentin Caroline
  • Thomé Antônio
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

The use of nanoparticles in soil remediation is an emerging and innovative technology. With the advancement of sustainable remediation, concern about the remediation technologies sustainability should be considered as criteria in decision-making. Countless tools can be employed in order to assess sustainability in soil remediation, e.g. life cycle analysis (LCA) for environmental impacts assessment. However, to be considered sustainable the LCA must also understand the economic and social aspects. This study aims to carry out a systematic and bibli- ometric analysis of scientific production in the field of LCA, sustainability and nanoparticles applied in the remediation of contaminated sites. Represented by the scientific articles indexed in the database Scopus and Web of Science. It is concluded that the evaluation of sustainability by means of the Sustainable-LCA in soil remediation is an innovative tool. The application of sustainability in its principles, environmental, economic and social, has not yet been carried out in nanoremediation.

Keywords

LCA Sustainability Remediation Nanomaterial Bibliometric analysis 

References

  1. Brecheisen T, Theis T (2013) The Chicago Center for Green Technology: life-cycle assessment of a brownfield redevelopment project. Environ Res Lett 8(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brecheisen T, Theis T (2015) Life cycle assessment as a comparative analysis tool for sustainable brownfield redevelopment projects. In: Assessing and measuring environmental impact and sustainability, pp 323–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappuyns V (2011) Possibilities and limitations of LCA for the evaluation of soil remediation and cleanup. Sustainable, Chemistry, pp 213–223Google Scholar
  4. Cappuyns V (2013) Environmental impacts of soil remediation activities: quantitative and qualitative tools applied on three case studies. J Clean Prod 52:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Favara P, Tunks J, Hatton J, DiGuiseppi W (2016) Sustainable remediation considerations for treatment of 1,4-dioxane in groundwater. Rem J 27(1):133–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Gallagher PM, Spatari S, Cucura J (2013) Hybrid life cycle assessment comparison of colloidal silica and cement grouted soil barrier remediation technologies. J Hazard Mater 250–251:421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldenberg M, Reddy KR (2014) Sustainability assessment of excavation and disposal versus in situ stabilization of heavy metal-contaminated soil at a superfund site in illinois. In: Geo-congress 2014: geo-characterization and modelling for sustainability, pp 2245–2254Google Scholar
  9. Harbottle MJ, Al-Tabbaa A, Evans CW (2007) A comparison of the technical sustainability of in situ stabilisation/solidification with disposal to landfill. J Hazard Mater 141(2):430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harbottle MJ, Al-Tabbaa A, Evans CW (2008) Sustainability of land remediation. Part 1: overall analysis. In: Proceedings of the ICE-geotechnical engineering, vol 161, no 2, pp 75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hotze M, Lowry G (2011) Nanotechnology for sustainable water treatment. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, pp 138–164Google Scholar
  12. Hou D, Al-Tabbaa A (2014) Sustainability: a new imperative in contaminated land remediation. Environ Sci Policy 39:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hou D, Al-Tabbaa A, Guthrie P, Hellings J, Gu Q (2014a) Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park. J Clean Prod 83:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hou D, Al-Tabbaa A, Luo J (2014b) Assessing effects of site characteristics on remediation secondary life cycle impact with a generalised framework. J Environ Plan Manage 57(7):1083–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hou D, Gu Q, Ma F, O’Connell S (2016) Life cycle assessment comparison of thermal desorption and stabilization/solidification of mercury contaminated soil on agricultural land. J Clean Prod 139:949–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hou D, Ding Z, Li G, Wu L, Hu P, Guo G, Wang X, Ma Y, O’Connor D, Wang X (2017) A sustainability assessment framework for agricultural land remediation in China. Land Degrad Dev 29:1–14Google Scholar
  17. Huysegoms L, Cappuyns V (2017) Critical review of decision support tools for sustainability assessment of site remediation options. J Environ Manage 196:278296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martins F, Machado S, Albergaria T, Delerue-Matos C (2017) LCA applied to nano scale zero valent iron synthesis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(5):707–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rizzo E, Bardos P, Pizzol L, Critto A, Giubilato E, Marcomini A, Albano D, Darmendrail D, Doberl G, Harclerode M, Harries N, Nathanail P, Pachon C, Rodriguez A, Slenderso H, Smith G (2016) Comparison of international approaches to sustainable remediation. J Environ Manage 184:4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Singh AK, Lou HH, Pike RW, Agboola A, Li X, Hopper JR, Yaws CL (2008) Environmental impact assessment for potential continuous process for the production of carbon nanotubes. Am J Environ Sci 4(5):522–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sondergaard GL, Binning PJ, Bondgaard M, Bjerg PL (2017) Multi-criteria assessment tool for sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives for a contaminated site. J Soils Sed 2017(2):1–15Google Scholar
  22. Song Y, Hou D, Zhang J, O’Connor D, Li G, Gu Q, Li S, Liu P (2018) Environmental and socioeconomic sustainability appraisal of contaminated land remediation strategies: a case study at a mega-site in China. Sci Total Environ 610–611:391–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thome A, Reddy KR, Reginatto C, Cecchin I (2015) Review of nanotechnology for soil and groundwater remediation: Brazilian perspectives. Water Air Soil Pollut 226(4):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trentin AWS, Braun AB, Thome A (2017) Characteristics of Publications on Sustainable Remediation Between 1980–2016. In: IX Seminario de Engenharia Geotecnica do Rio Grande do Sul, 2017, Brazil (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  25. Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G (2012) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+ 20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(9):1673–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vigil M, Marey-Perez MF, Huerta MG, Cabal AV (2015) Is phytoremediation without biomass valorization sustainable?—Comparative LCA of landfilling vs. anaerobic co-digestion. Sci Total Environ 505:844–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vocciante M, Caretta A, Bua L, Bagatin R, Ferro S (2016) Enhancements in electro kinetic remediation technology: environmental assessment in comparison with other configurations and consolidated solutions. Chem Eng J 289:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Posgraduate Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Passo FundoPasso FundoBrazil

Personalised recommendations