Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

2012 Edition
| Editors: Robert A. Meyers

Contaminated Soil, Remediation of

  • Dimitris DermatasEmail author
  • Iraklis Panagiotakis
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_98

Definition of the Subject and Its Importance

“Contaminated soil,” “contaminated site,” “contaminated land” are different terms for the same environmental problem, which is encountered in millions of sites across the world. Soil becomes contaminated when a single or a mixture of contaminants reaches the soil surface, the vadose zone, or the aquifer. Soil is a limited and valuable natural resource, since it controls the element and energy cycles within the ecosystems, it is the habitat to countless organisms and plants, but, mainly, because it accommodates the groundwater, which makes up 97% of global freshwater, and the most important source of drinking water across the world [1]. However, at the same time, soil is the field that accommodates numerous essential socioeconomic and inevitably contaminating human activities. As a result, the extended production of a high number of chemicals and their wide use for domestic, industrial, and military reasons, combined with the common practice...

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

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. 1.
    Howard G, Bartram J, Pedley S, Schmoll O, Chorus I, Berger P (2006) Groundwater and public health. In: Schmoll O, Howard G, Chilton J, Chorus I (eds) Protecting groundwater for health. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh A, Kuhad RC, Ward OP (2009) Biological remediation of soil: an overview of global market and available technologies. In: Singh A, Kuhad RC, Ward OP (eds) Advances in applied bioremediation. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Environment Agency (2007) Progress in management of contaminated sites (CSI 015). http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/progress-in-management-of-contaminated-sites/progress-in-management-of-contaminated-1
  4. 4.
    Vatseris C, Tsatsarelis T, Karteris A, Papadopoulos S, Dermatas D (2010) Environmental risk assessment model for potentially contaminated sites. In: Protection and restoration of the environment X, 5–9 July, Corfu (CD-ROM edition)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mitchell JK (1993) Fundamentals of soil behavior. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    USEPA (2010) Superfund remedy report, 13th edn. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 542-R-10-004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reddy KR (2008) Physical and chemical groundwater remediation technologies. In: Darnault CJG (ed) Overexploitation and contamination of shared groundwater resources. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yong RN (2001) Geoenvironmental engineering, contaminated soils, pollutant fate, and mitigation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reddi L, Inyang HI (2000) Geoenvironmental engineering. Marcel Dekker, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sharma HD, Reddy KR (2004) Geoenvironmental engineering, soil remediation, waste containment and emerging waste management technologies. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mirsal IA (2010) Soil pollution, origin, monitoring and remediation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1969) Soil mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dermatas D, Menounou N, Dadachov M, Dutko P, Shen G, Xu X, Tsaneva V (2006) Lead leachability in firing range soils. Environ Eng Sci 23:86–99Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tessier A, Campbell PGC, Bisson M (1982) Particulate trace metal speciation in stream sediments and relationship with grain size: implication for geochemical exploration. J Geochem Explor 6:77–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yong RN, Warkentin BP, Phadungchewit Y, Galvez R (1990) Buffer capacity and lead retention in some clay materials. Water Air Soil Pollut 53:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yong RN, Phadungchewit Y (1993) pH Influence on selectivity and retention of heavy metals in some clay soil. Can Geotech J 30:821–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cao X, Ma LQ, Chen M, Hardison DW, Harris WG (2003) Lead transformation and distribution in the soils of shooting ranges in Florida, USA. Sci Total Environ 307:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dermatas D, Menounou N, Meng XG (2006) Mechanisms of lead immobilization in treated soils. Land Contam Recl 14:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borch T, Kretzschmar R, Kappler A, Van Cappellen P, Ginder-Vogel M, Voegelin A, Campbell K (2010) Biogeochemical redox processes and their impact on contaminant dynamics. Environ Sci Technol 44:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chapelle FH, Bradley PM (2003) Redox conditions and the reductive/oxidative biodegradation of chlorinated ethenes in groundwater systems. In: Häggblom MM, Bossert ID (eds) Dehalogenation, microbial processes and environmental applications. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 373–384Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Major D, Edwards E, McCarty P, Gossett J, Hendrickson E, Löffler F, Zinder S, Ellis D, Vidumsky J, Harkness M, Klecka G, Cox E (2003) Discussion of environment vs. bacteria or let’s play, name that bacteria. Ground Water Monit R 23:32–48Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    NRC (2000) Natural attenuation for groundwater remediation. National Academic Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    FRTR (2007) Remediation technologies screening matrix and reference guide, version 4.0. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html
  25. 25.
    Kostecki P, Morrison R, Dragun J (2005) Hydrocarbons. In: Hillel D (ed) Encyclopedia of soils in the environment. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 217–226Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andreoni V, Gianfreda L (2007) Bioremediation and monitoring of aromatic-polluted habitats. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 76:287–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Farhadian M, Vachelard C, Duchez D, Larroche C (2008) In situ bioremediation of monoaromatic pollutants in groundwater: a review. Bioresour Technol 99:5296–5308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gan S, Lau EV, Ng HK (2009) Remediation of soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). J Hazard Mater 172:532–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Häggblom MM, Bossert ID (2003) Halogenated organic compounds – a global perspective. In: Häggblom MM, Bossert ID (eds) Dehalogenation, microbial processes and environmental applications. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 3–29Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moran JM, Zogorski JS, Squillace PJ (2007) Chlorinated solvents in groundwater of the United States. Environ Sci Technol 41:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCarty PL (2010) Groundwater contamination by chlorinated solvents: history, remediation technologies and strategies. In: Stroo HF, Ward CH (eds) In situ remediation of chlorinated solvent plumes. Springer, New York, pp 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Evanko CR, Dzombak DA (1997) Remediation of metals – contaminated soils and groundwater. Technology Evaluation Report, TE-97-01. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), PittsburgGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hashim MA, Mukhopadhyay S, Sahu JN, Sengupta B (2011) Remediation technologies for heavy metal contaminated groundwater. J Environ Manage 92:2355–2388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    USEPA (2006) Radionuclides in soil. RadTownUSA, United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, DC, EPA 402-F-06-051Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gavrilescu M, Pavel LV, Cretescu I (2009) Characterization and remediation of soils contaminated with uranium, review. J Hazard Mater 163:475–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kalderis D, Juhasz AL, Boopathy R, Comfort S (2011) Soil contaminated with explosives: environmental fate and evaluation of state-of-the-art remediation processes (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl Chem 83:1407–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shackelford CD (1993) Contaminant transport. In: Daniel DE (ed) Geotechnical practice for waste disposal. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 33–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rouse JV, Pyrih RZ (1993) Geochemistry. In: Daniel DE (ed) Geotechnical practice for waste disposal. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dermatas D, Meng X (2003) Utilization of fly-ash for stabilization/solidification of heavy metal contaminated soils. Eng Geol 70:377–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maymó-Gatell X, Chien YT, Gossett JM, Zinder SH (1997) Isolation of a bacterium that reductively dechlorinates tetrachloroethene to ethene. Science 276:1568–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Aulenta F, Majone M, Tandoi V (2006) Review: enhanced anaerobic bioremediation of chlorinated solvents: environmental factors influencing microbial activity and their relevance under field conditions. J Chem Technol Biot 81:1463–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bhatt P, Kumar MS, Mudliar S, Chalrabarti T (2007) Biodegradation of chlorinated compounds – a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 37:165–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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 325:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ellis DE, Hadley PW (2009) Sustainable remediation white paper – integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Remediation 19:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ASTM E1527-05 (2005) Standard practice for environmental site assessment: phase I environmental site assessment process. ASTM, West Conshohoken, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    ASTM E1903–97 (2002) Standard guide for environmental site assessment: phase II environmental site assessment process. ASTM, West Conshohoken, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Petts J, Cairney T, Smith M (1997) Risk-based contaminated land investigation and assessment. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Caliman FA, Robu BM, Smaranda C, Pavel VL, Gavrilescu M (2011) Soil and groundwater cleanup: benefits and limits of emerging technologies. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13:241–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dermatas D, Shen G, Chrysochoou M, Grubb DG, Menounou N, Dutko P (2006) Pb speciation versus TCLP release in army firing range soils. J Hazard Mater 136:34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scheckel KG, Impellitteri CA, Ryan JA, Mcevoy T (2004) Assessment of a sequential extraction procedure for perturbed lead-contaminated samples with and without phosphorus amendments. Environ Sci Technol 37:5296–5304Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cao X, Dermatas D (2007) Evaluating the applicability of regulatory leaching tests for assessing lead leachability in contaminated shooting range soils. Environ Monit Assess 139:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kosson DS, van der Sloot HA, Sanchez F, Garrabrants AC (2002) An integrated framework for evaluating leaching in waste management and utilization of secondary materials. Environ Eng Sci 19:159–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    van der Sloot HA, van Zomeren A, Meeuwsen HCL, Seignette P, Bleyerveld R (2007) Test method selection, validation against field data, and predictive modelling for impact evaluation of stabilized waste disposal. J Hazard Mater 141:354–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dermatas D, Chrysochoou M, Moon DH (2008) Geoenvironmental characterization to assess waste stabilization/solidification treatment performance and sustainability. GeoCongress 2008: Geotechnics of Waste Management and Remediation, pp 660–667Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fennell DE, Gossett JM (2003) Microcosms for site-specific evaluation of enhanced biological reductive dehalogenation. In: Häggblom MM, Bossert ID (eds) Dehalogenation, microbial processes and environmental applications. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 385–420Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    USEPA (2001) A citizen’s guide to solidification/stabilization. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 542-F-01-024Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    USEPA (2009) Technology performance review: selecting and using solidification/stabilization treatment for site remediation. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, EPA 600-R-09-148Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    USEPA (2006) In situ treatment technologies for contaminated soil. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 542/F-06/013Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mitchell JK, Dermatas D (1992) Clay soil heave caused by lime-sulfate reactions. Innovations in uses for lime, ASTM STP 1135. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, pp 41–64Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    USEPA (1999) Solidification/stabilization resource guide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 549-B-99-002Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Conner JR (1990) Chemical fixation and solidification of hazardous wastes. VNR, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    USEPA (2001) Best management practices for lead at outdoor shooting ranges. Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, New York, EPA-902-B-01-001Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chrysochoou M, Dermatas D, Grubb DG (2007) Phosphate application to firing range soils for Pb immobilization: the unclear role of phosphate. J Hazard Mater 144:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    ESTCP (2006) PIMSMT: remediation of soil and groundwater contaminated with metals, cost and performance report (ER-0020)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Khan FI, Hussain T, Hejazi R (2004) An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. Environ Manage 71:95–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Parsons Corporation (2004) Principles and practices of enhanced anaerobic bioremediation of chlorinated solvents Prepared for AFCEE (Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence), NFESC (Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center) and ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    USEPA (2006) In situ and ex situ biodegradation technologies for remediation of contaminated sites. Office of Research and Development National Risk Management, Cincinnati, EPA 625-R-06-015Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bradley PM, Chapelle FH (2010) Biodegradation of chlorinated ethenes. In: Stroo HF, Ward CH (eds) In situ remediation of chlorinated solvent plumes. Springer, New York, pp 39–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Cupples AM, Spormann AM, McCarty PL (2003) Growth of a Dehalococcoides-like microorganism on vinyl chloride and cis-dichloroethene as electron acceptors as determined by competitive PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:953–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    He J, Ritalahti KM, Yang KL, Koenigsberg SS, Löffler FE (2003) Detoxification of vinyl chloride to ethene coupled to growth of an anaerobic bacterium. Nature 424:62–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    He J, Sung Y, Krajmalnik-Brown R, Ritalahti KM, Löffler FE (2005) Isolation and characterization of Dehalococcoides sp. strain FL2, a trichloroethene (TCE)- and 1,2-dichloroethene-respiring anaerobe. Environ Microbiol 7:1442–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sung Y, Ritalahti KM, Apkarian RP, Löffler FE (2006) Quantitative PCR confirms purity of strain GT, a novel trichloroethene-to-ethene-respiring Dehalococcoides isolate. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:1980–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wiedemeier TH, Swanson MA, Moutoux DE, Gordon EK, Wilson JT, Wilson BH, Kampbell DH, Hansen JE, Haas P, Chapelle FH (1998) Technical protocol for evaluating natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents in groundwater. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, EPA 600-R-98-128Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Panagiotakis I, Mamais D, Pantazidou M, Marneri M, Parapouli M, Hatziloukas E, Tandoi V (2007) Dechlorinating ability of TCE-fed microcosms with different electron donors. J Hazard Mater 149:582–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Smatlak CR, Gossett JM, Zinder SH (1996) Comparison kinetics of hydrogen utilization for reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene and methanogenesis in an anaerobic enrichment culture. Environ Sci Technol 30:2850–2858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ballapragada BS, Stensel HD, Puhakka JA, Ferguson JF (1997) Effect of hydrogen on reductive dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes. Environ Sci Technol 31:1728–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fennell DE, Gossett JM, Zinder SH (1997) Comparison of butyric acid, ethanol, lactic acid, and propionic acid as hydrogen donors for the reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethene. Environ Sci Technol 31:918–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Yang Y, McCarty PL (1998) Competition for hydrogen within a chlorinated solvent dechlorinating anaerobic mixed culture. Environ Sci Technol 32:3591–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Pantazidou M, Panagiotakis I, Mamais D, Zikidi V (2011) Chloroethene biotransformation in the presence of varying sulfate concentrations. Ground Water Monit R (to appear) doi:10.1111/j1745-6592.2011.01372.xGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    USEPA (2004) How to evaluate alternative cleanup technologies for underground storage tank sites: a guide for corrective action plan reviewers. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA/510/R-04-002Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hendrickson ER, Payne JA, Young RM, Starr MG, Perry MP, Fahnestock S, Ellis DE, Ebersole RC (2002) Molecular analysis of Dehalococcoides 16S ribosomal DNA from chloroethene-contaminated sites throughout North America and Europe. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:485–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    El Fantroussi S, Agathos SN (2005) Is bioaugmentation a feasible strategy for pollutant removal and site remediation? Curr Opin Microbiol 8:268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    USEPA (1999) Monitored natural attenuation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA 600-F-98-021Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Stiber NA, Pantazidou M, Small MJ (1999) Expert system methodology for evaluating reductive dechlorination at TCE sites. Environ Sci Technol 33:3012–3020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wiedemeier TH, Swanson Μ, Moutoux DE, Gordon EK, Wilson JT, Wilson BH, Kampbell DH, Hansen JE, Haas P, Chapelle FH (1998) Technical protocol for evaluating natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents in groundwater. U.S. Government Printing Office, Cincinnati, EPA 600-R-98-128Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    USEPA (2006) Off-gas treatment technologies for soil vapor extraction systems: state of the practice. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 542-R-05-028Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Albergaria JT, Alvim-Ferraz MCM, Delerue-Matos C (2006) Remediation efficiency of vapour extraction of sandy soils contaminated with cyclohexane: influence of air flow rate, water and natural organic matter content. Environ Pollut 143:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Soares AA, Albergaria JT, Domingues VF, Alvim-Ferraz MCM, Delerue-Matos C (2010) Remediation of soils combining soil vapor extraction and bioremediation: benzene. Chemosphere 80:823–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    ITRC (2005) Technical and regulatory guidance for in situ chemical oxidation of contaminated soil and groundwater, 2nd edn. In Situ Chemical Oxidation Team, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Krembs FJ, Siegrist RL, Crimi ML, Furrer RF, Petri BG (2010) ISCO for groundwater remediation: analysis of field applications and performance. Ground Water Monit R 30:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    USEPA (2006) In situ chemical oxidation. Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, EPA 600-R-06-072Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    USEPA (1999) Multi-phase extraction: state-of-the-practice. Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 542-R-99-004Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Thiruvenkatachari R, Vigneswaran S, Naidu R (2008) Permeable reactive barrier for groundwater remediation, review. J Ind Eng Chem 14:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    USEPA (1998) Permeable reactive barrier technologies for contaminant remediation. Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, Report number EPA 600-R-98-125Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Gillham RW, Vogan J, Gui L, Duchene M, Son J (2010) Iron barrier walls for chlorinated solvent remediation. In: Stroo HF, Ward CH (eds) In situ remediation of chlorinated solvent plumes. Springer, New York, pp 537–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    USEPA (1996) Pump-and-treat ground-water remediation a guide for decision makers and practitioners. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, EPA 625-R-95-005Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Roote DS (1997) In situ flushing. GWRTAC, Technology overview report, TO-97-02Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Dermatas D, Korfiatis GP, Kostarellos D (1993) Soil column study of DNAPL recovery using surfactant flushing. In: National conference on environmental engineering, July, 1993, Montreal, vol 2, pp 1411–1418Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    USEPA (2001) A citizen’s guide to phytoremediation. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 542-F-01-002Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    ITRC (2009) Phytotechnology technical and regulatory guidance and decision trees, revised. ITRC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Van Aken B (2008) Transgenic plants for phytoremediation: helping nature to clean up environmental pollution. Trend Biotechnol 26:225–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Van Aken B (2009) Transgenic plants for enhanced phytoremediation of toxic explosives. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Abhilash PC, Jamil S, Singh N (2009) Transgenic plants for enhanced biodegradation and phytoremediation of organic xenobiotics. Biotechnol Adv 27:474–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    USEPA (2004) In situ thermal treatment of chlorinated solvents fundamentals and field applications. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 542-R-04-010Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Kingston JT, Dahlen PR, Johnson PC, Foote E, Williams S (2010) Critical evaluation of state-of-the-art in situ thermal treatment technologies for DNAPL source zone treatment. ESTCP project final reportGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Virkutytea J, Sillanpää M, Latostenmaa P (2002) Electrokinetic soil remediation – critical overview. Sci Total Environ 289:97–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Dermont G, Bergeron M, Mercier G, Richer-Laflèche M (2008) Soil washing for metal removal: a review of physical/chemical technologies and field applications. J Hazard Mater 152:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Chu W, Chan KH (2003) The mechanism of the surfactant-aided soil washing system for hydrophobic and partial hydrophobic organics. Sci Total Environ 307:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    USEPA (2002) A citizen’s guide to incineration. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, EPA 542-F-01-018Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Chrysochoou M, Dermatas D, Moon DH, Christodoulatos C, Wazne M, French C, Morris J, Kaouris M (2006) Investigation of barium treatment of chromite ore processing residue (COPR). In: Fukue M, Kita K, Ohtsubo M, Chaney R (eds) Contaminated sediments, evaluation and remediation techniques. ASTM, West Conshohocken, pp 165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Lombi E, Zhao F-J, Zhang G, Sun B, Fitz W, Zhang H, McGrath SP (2002) In situ fixation of metals in soils using bauxite residue: chemical assessment. Environ Pollut 118:435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Karn B, Kuiken T, Otto M (2009) Nanotechnolgy and in situ remediation: a review of the benefits and potential risks. Environ Health Persp 117:1823–1831Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Phenrat T, Saleh N, Sirk K, Tilton RD, Lowry GV (2007) Aggregation and sedimentation of aqueous nanoscale zerovalent iron dispersions. Environ Sci Technol 41:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    X-Q Li, Elliott DW, Zang W-X (2006) Zero-valent iron nanoparticles for abatement of environmental pollutants: materials and engineering aspects. Crit Rev Solid State 31:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Keane E (2009) Fate, transport, and toxicity of nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) used during superfund remediation. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Books and Reviews

  1. NRC (2004) Contaminants in the subsurface, source zone assessment and remediation. The National Academic Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Nielsen DM (2006) Environmental site characterization and ground-water monitoring. Taylor & Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  3. Pankow JF, Cherry JA (1996) Dense chlorinated solvents and other DNAPLs in groundwater history, behavior, and remediation. Waterloo Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Sara MN (2003) Site assessment and remediation handbook. Lewis Publishers, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Siegrist RL, Crimi M, Simpkin TJ (2011) In situ chemical oxidation for groundwater remediation. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Stroo HF, Ward CH (2010) In situ remediation of chlorinated solvent plumes. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensZografouGreece
  2. 2.ENYDRON - Environmental Protection ServicesAthensGreece